Genomics has progressed rapidly within the last ten years, allowing geneticists to analyze a person’s complete genome. One of the more recent functions is to give individuals their chances for having certain diseases based on certain markers. This allows people to prepare for the worst and take preventative measures. However, this technology isn’t always being used positively. Some companies are abusing this advancement of genomics to sell shallow results to uninformed consumers.

The ability to analyze the information we gather from genomics hasn’t progressed as rapidly as genomics itself. For example, we can test an individual’s ACTN3 gene, but it is almost useless to then try to understand an individual’s athletic potential based on the test. This doesn’t stop a number of companies from advertising that they can tell a child their specific strengths and weaknesses in regards to athletic performance. Direct to consumer, or “DIY”, tests are being used to identify young talent and design training regimens that are best suited to each individual. Parents are submitting saliva samples of their children and sending them to the labs along with a hefty fee. However, most experts agree that the accuracy and overall usefulness of the tests is essentially zero. The majority of these tests study the ACTN3 gene, which, when studied in the past, has shown slight evidence of correlation to athletic performance (Genet, 2003). But that’s all it is. SLIGHT evidence. The gene is found in muscle fibers during explosive activities, and is therefore connected to an individual’s endurance and strength. However, nothing gives merit to its value as a predictor. Uninformed coaches, parents, and athletes are flocking to these tests, and relying on the results as a route to competing at the next level.

The companies that distribute these tests are bringing in hundreds of dollars for every sample. They then go on to sell training advice and supplements marketed to improve performance (Gonidio, 2016). This practice is highly unethical given that genetics experts insist that the ability to analyze the gene is not yet reliable and it isn’t even confirmed that the gene is at all indicative of an individual’s athletic ability. The concern about the spread of these tests is so strong that a panel of international experts published a statement in the British Journal of Sports Medicine in an effort to deter people from the tests. They concluded that the tests are not scientifically accurate enough to merit their widespread use.

Despite the widespread concern for these tests, little can be done to stop them at this point. The lawmaking process is slow, and gene sequencing technology has been progressing too rapidly for regulations to keep up. Regulation levels also vary by nations and it’s easy for these companies to establish themselves in nations where no control has been issued over genetic testing.

These genetic tests provide the means to choose a sport based on a single genetic marker. Imagine if Michael Jordan, Muhammad Ali, or Michael Phelps had switched sports because something in their genes told them they had potential to be great at a specific event. This is what these tests claim to be able to do. However, athletic ability doesn’t boil down to one aspect of an individual’s genetic makeup. What these tests fail to take into account is each individual’s musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, respiratory, and nervous systems, their body type, power, let alone commitment level or hours of practice. Even if the tests could reliably predict endurance and strength, this would be a miniscule part of what goes into being an elite athlete.

The likelihood that a child is going to become an elite athlete is extraordinarily slim, so why would we tell kids to play specific sports based on unreliable testing? Kids should play the sports they enjoy, and will therefore train harder and more often. Genetic makeup is a huge factor in the potential of an athlete, but if we can’t accurately analyze the genes, there’s no use in manipulating a young kid’s training schedule or sport of choice based on genetic testing.

Image Sources

http://innovatemedtec.com/images/img/personal_genomics.jpg

http://blog.teamsnap.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/YouthSoccerPlayer.jpg

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/five_ring_circus/2016/08/09/was_michael_phelps_a_jerk_when_he_beat_chad_le_clos_to_win_the_200_meter/587854050-usas-michael-phelps-celebrates-after-he-won-the-mens.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2.jpg

In middle school, I used to play those lie detector games with my friends, the ones give you a mild shock if lie. Obviously, a $5 toy doesn’t have scientific accuracy to lie detection. But, I’ve always wondered if there is actually a reliable way to tell if someone is lying beyond the tell-tale signs that behavioral analysts monitor.

When police interrogate criminals, they look for a number of signs to tell if someone is lying. These include repetition of the question, facial expressions, body language, comfort and charm, shifting stories, eye movement and blinking, and phrasing (McGauley, 2015). While these are all proven tactics, they aren’t 100% accurate. There could be outside reasons for a person’s strange behavior. Maybe they’re just nervous, which causes them to mix up their stories and fidget around.

This is why many scientists are working to measure brain activity while a person is lying. This would provide a more scientifically accurate determination of whether a person is lying. Some research involves positioning electrodes on various places around an individual’s scalp to measure the electrical signal on the brain’s surface as the person lies. They commonly ask the participant to choose one of two items and then claim to have neither. This way, they are both telling the truth and lying. The electrodes are flawed however, in that they can’t pinpoint the specific brain area that is activated since it measures such large areas of the brain at once. This is where functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) comes into play.

fMRIs provide more precise reports of where exactly in the brain the activity takes place when someone lies. Lies activate many regions of the brain, but by measuring the blood flow changes that take place in the brain, researchers have been able to generally deduce that there is a spike in prefrontal cortex activity when a person is lying. This is further confirmed by previous conclusions about this area of the brain. The prefrontal cortex is engaged specifically in planning, the development of an individual’s personality, decision-making, and the way someone socializes (Good Therapy, 2013).

Admittedly, many everyday actions stimulate this area of the brain, but this doesn’t mean the procedure is useless. At this point, researchers, using fMRI detection methods, can accurately distinguish lies from the truth about 85% of the time (Curley, 2013). This statistic does not give rise to it’s official use however. The very rare instances where the tests were suggested as evidence in court, the results were quickly suffocated by opposition from neuroscience experts.

There are some obvious flaws that need to be resolved before fMRIs can be used in court cases and elsewhere. All the tests involve manufactured lies. Participants are instructed when and how to lie, and therefore don’t experience the same emotional stress as with a natural lie. Researchers also estimate that even when the lie is genuine, there may be ways to outmaneuver the machines with subtle movements and breathing control. fMRI technology isn’t yet ready to be applied to the real world, but I would guess that we’ll be seeing its use in the near future.

Image Links

http://brandingmumbojumbo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/pinocchio.jpg

http://images.askmen.com/entertainment/special_feature_60/98_5-things-you-didnt-know-about-interrogation-techniques_flash.jpg
http://www.polytest.org/images/pic08.jpg

When we see a new face, we make an immediate judgement about the person, sometimes without even meaning to. You can’t prevent yourself from having an instant reaction to someone, but there might be a way to control what that reaction is.

Takeo Watanabe and his team at Brown University are conducting experiments to try and manipulate the way people react to seeing certain faces. Previous neurofeedback has shown that the brain mainly controls thoughts, perception, and emotions through the cingulate cortex (Hurley, 2011). This study recorded the activity in the cingulate cortex as individuals processed the images of different faces. Computer software then organized their reactions into three separate categories. There were the faces that a participant preferred, was neutral to, and didn’t like.

With these results in mind, researchers tried to change the participant’s opinions of the different faces by exercising the cingulate cortex. 80% of the people in the study were shown a face they neither like or disliked and then shown a disk. Without telling them how to do so, researchers told the participants to enlarge the image of the disk using their mind. Half of the tests were programmed so that the disk enlarged when the individual thought the same way as they did when seeing a favorable face. The other half were programmed so that the disk enlarged when the individual thought the same way as they did when they saw a face they did not like. This process was repeated over the course of three days in an effort to mold the brain into a certain way of thinking.

The first phase of the experiment was then conducted a second time. The participants were never told what exactly caused the disk to change in size, but their perception of the same faces they were shown the first time changed regardless. The people who were shown a disk that enlarged with positive thoughts responded more positively to faces they had previously thought of as neutral. The people who were shown a disk that enlarged with negative thoughts started to dislike the faces they had previously thought of as neutral. The 20% of participants who never underwent the disk experiment stayed consistent with their reactions to the different faces (Sanders, 2016).
Although these experiments are relatively new, they are beginning to show the power of the subconscious and the ability we have to manipulate it. This provides hope for the large amounts of people struggling with post traumatic stress disorder, depression, or extreme phobias. If we can alter the way people associate with certain faces or experiences, there could be an effective way to combat several mental illnesses in the future.

Image Links

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/MRI_cingulate_cortex.png

http://www.teachingtechnology.com/five%20faces.jpg
http://www.hypnotherapykent.co.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/cure-phobias.png

My name is Hannah Morgan and I’m from Newbury, Massachusetts. I am currently in the Division of Undergraduate Studies and considering a major in the business field. I originally signed up for this class because my advisor didn’t give me any other options, but I can’t imagine a more fitting way to fulfill my science requirements. I’m genuinely interested in the results of scientific studies and the discussion of their legitimacy. I recognize the value of scientific studies to society, I just don’t have any interest in being the person who produces the results. I can’t imagine spending years searching for an answer that may prove to be elusive. I developed a disliking for the scientific process and its frustrations and failures in middle school, and by the time I got through high school biology and chemistry, a science major was out of the question.

Ultimately, I think I was deterred by the hundreds of chemistry jokes and memes that lined the walls of my high school chemistry classroom, like this one…

I like the idea that this class is about critical thinking rather than facts, as every science class I’ve ever taken revolved around memorization. One of the topics that interests me the most is the origin of evil and what drives people to such a lack of compassion, as discussed in this article.