PDA

View Full Version : Human brain parasite precisely alters fear


alkemical
04-03-2007, 04:56 PM
Human brain parasite precisely alters fear
Scientists say discovery could shed light on how fear is generated (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17920003/wid/11915773?GT1=9246)


Rats usually have an innate fear of cat urine. The fear extends to rodents that have never seen a feline and those generations removed from ever meeting a cat. After they get infected with the brain parasite Toxoplasma gondii, however, rats become attracted to cat pee, increasing the chance they'll become cat food.

This much researchers knew. But a new study shows the parasite, which also infects more half the world's human population, seems to target a rat's fear of cat urine with almost surgical precision, leaving other kinds of fear alone.

This discovery could shed light "on how fear is generated in the first place" and how people can potentially better manage phobias, researcher Ajai Vyas, a Stanford University neuroscientist, told LiveScience.

Hijacking the mind
T. gondii is a parasitic germ whose primary hosts are cats. However, it can be found in most warm-blooded animals, including an estimated 50 million people in the United States. One study suggests the parasite has altered human behavior enough to shape entire cultures.

In cats, the protozoan reproduces sexually, while it reproduces asexually in other animals.

The germ seems to especially like infesting the brain — "parasites hijacking the mind," Vyas said. Although the disease it causes in humans is rarely dangerous, it is the reason that pregnant women are sometimes told to avoid cat litter boxes (toxoplasmosis is risky for infants and others with compromised immune systems). Some scientists have suspected it might be linked to mental disorders such as schizophrenia and even neuroticism.

In 2000, scientists revealed T. gondii could modify the brains of rats to make them attracted to cat urine instead of afraid of it. Researchers suspect the germ does so to make it easier for it to jump into cats to begin the sexual part of its life cycle.

Vyas and his colleagues now show how specific this brain reprogramming is when it comes to rats, findings detailed online April 2 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Just cat pee
Rats infected with the parasite became mildly attracted to bobcat pee. However, they remained as fearful of open spaces as normal rats. They reacted normally to sound cues that suggested mild electrical shocks were coming. Normally rats are somewhat reticent when it comes to eating food that smells unfamiliar. And the infected rats were, just like the normal rats, reticent when it came to food scented with the unfamiliar odor of coriander.

"One would thus assume that if something messes up with fear to cat pee, it will also mess up a variety of related behaviors," Vyas said. "We do not see that. Toxoplasma affects fear to cat odors with almost surgical precision."

In addition, "we show that parasites are a little more likely to be found in amygdala [a region of the brain] than in other brain areas," Vyas said. "This is important because the amygdala is involved in a variety of fear-related behaviors."

Future investigations can explore how exactly the parasite modifies the brain in such a precise manner. Potential targets in the brain for research include the stress hormone corticosterone and the brain chemical dopamine. Scientists might also want to see whether infected rats become less afraid of pictures of cats or scents of different predators of rats.

© 2007 LiveScience.com. All rights reserved

defenseman
04-03-2007, 05:05 PM
nice read...interesting break from the routine horse puckey...dman

Spider
04-03-2007, 06:39 PM
well this explains my fear of Big busted blonds driving rigs ;D

loborugger
04-03-2007, 11:15 PM
well this explains my fear of Big busted blonds driving rigs ;D


Sorry, all I got outta that line was, "well this explains my fear of Big busted blonds."

just saying

ant1999e
04-03-2007, 11:21 PM
I've seen alot of big busted blonds at truckstops. Those guys really should get some exercise. It's really unhealthy.

Spider
04-04-2007, 12:57 AM
I've seen alot of big busted blonds at truckstops. Those guys really should get some exercise. It's really unhealthy.

LOL ......i saw a guy that tipped the scales around 400 pounds ,so fat he waddled .had his kid with him doing everything ........and he was a blonde

Spider
04-04-2007, 12:58 AM
Sorry, all I got outta that line was, "well this explains my fear of Big busted blonds."

just saying

hang out at a truck stop , then come back here ;D

alkemical
04-04-2007, 09:22 AM
nice read...interesting break from the routine horse puckey...dman

I love this type of stuff Dman.

alkemical
04-30-2007, 11:04 PM
POISONED BY BAD SITUATIONS (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/RVGUJPCSIF1.DTL&type=books)

Professor behind Stanford Prison Experiment says being in a cruel place can make you act evil

The Lucifer Effect

Understanding How Good People Turn Evil

By Philip Zimbardo

RANDOM HOUSE; 551 PAGES; $27.95
In the summer of 1971, Palo Alto became the home for one of psychology's most influential and compelling experiments. Philip Zimbardo, a young professor at Stanford, wanted to know how situations influenced behavior. He chose about 20 healthy college-age men, randomly assigned them roles as prisoners or guards and created prison-like conditions in the basement of a university building. He was supposed to pay them $15 a day for two weeks of imprisonment and guarding. Within days, however, the experiment turned into a nightmare, and through the intervention of one of his colleagues (later to become his wife), the whole thing was called off. Social psychology would never be the same.

Once the apparently normal young men were assigned the roles as guards, they very quickly developed tyrannical and abusive strategies for controlling "their" prisoners. As they seemed to forget that the basement offices were only the scene of an experiment, the guards became intensely protective of their authority. Sadism reared its head as the prisoners sank into their new identities as powerless people trapped in the system. Some of the prisoners suffered severe, if temporary, mental anguish, as they seemed to forget they could break their contracts and leave. The roles of prisoner and guard overwhelmed personal identity.

Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment was a landmark because it undermined our core belief in the integrity of the individual moral self. For the past few hundred years, the dominant view in Western cultures has been that the individual self is formed over time, and that its chief characteristics are expressed not only variously in everyday life but also in extreme situations. In other words, we have preferred to think that some people behave badly and others behave well because of who they really are, and though situations may constrain an individual, they don't totally remake him or her.

Zimbardo thought otherwise, and as a social psychologist in the late 1960s, he believed that situations determine how we act in a significant way. But even he was unprepared for the radical transformation that simple role-playing brought about. Even he, as the chief experimenter, fell into a role as "head of the prison" and lost perspective on what was going on. He became more concerned about whether his prisoners were going to be "liberated" by an attack from the outside than about the welfare of his volunteer subjects. Only after he called off the experiment did Zimbardo realize that he, too, had become a prisoner of the situation he had created for research.

"The Lucifer Effect" provides a very detailed account of the now familiar experiment, and it remains fascinating to see how quickly and powerfully the situation changed the participants' behavior. But why, after all these years, is Zimbardo returning to the experiment? Abu Ghraib. It has brought the experiment back into the limelight and the author back into the courts as an expert witness. Although he is clear in saying that situations do not excuse illegal behavior, Zimbardo testified on behalf of one of the defendants to underscore how a normal person could be led into the worst sorts of behavior by a situation that seemed to demand abuse.

Zimbardo's message to the tribunal and to his readers is clear: Even you might behave tyrannically and violently if you were in a situation that encouraged such behavior. The experiment "has emerged as a powerful illustration of the potentially toxic impact of bad systems and bad situations in making good people behave in pathological ways that are alien to their nature."

Zimbardo does not believe that those bad situations reveal that we aren't such good people after all. For all his knowledge of the power of social context to determine who we are and what we do, he retains an even deeper faith that most people really are good and could prevent the distortion of personality by avoiding poisonous roles and institutions. He does not think he discovered that our innate sadism and love of tyranny are uncovered by situations that allow us to behave violently. His is the more comforting view that we can maintain our moral standards as true expressions of who we really are by creating more consistently moral or just institutions.

Zimbardo's video testimony (he did not want to go to the very bad situation of Iraq) did not have much effect on the military court. That seems to have been the real stimulus for writing "The Lucifer Effect." The social psychologist plays the role of prosecutor in the last sections of this very long book to indict those responsible for creating "the System" that really is responsible for the bad situation of Abu Ghraib.

But all the evidence he brings together is readily available elsewhere, and the psychologist goes through much familiar political territory to show that the Bush administration is ultimately responsible (is guilty) for creating the poisonous contexts in which "otherwise normal" men and women behaved so badly. We are repeatedly told that it's the barrel, not a few apples, that's rotten.

Finally, and rather embarrassingly, this great psychologist provides a "ten-step program to resist unwanted influences." Where do human "wants," the individual's desires, come from in the first place? Zimbardo hasn't a clue. The banality of his "program" does a disservice to the quality of his experimental work. We don't need to be told to declare, "I am Me, the best I can be." Who does he think will be helped by the "resisting influence guide" (no joke, it's a guide against influence) on the "Lucifer Effect" Web site?

Zimbardo's parting message is to be yourself and to celebrate heroes. But his real cultural contribution occurred when he himself got lost in an experiment in a Stanford basement more than 30 years ago. That's when he, and we, discovered that we don't know who we are, nor what we can become, when we find ourselves in a new role in a novel situation.

Michael Roth is the former president of the California College of the Arts. He is now president of Wesleyan University.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/RVGUJPCSIF1.DTL

This article appeared on page M - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

yavoon
04-30-2007, 11:07 PM
I just read next by michael crichton, I think u'd like it clav.

colosilverado
04-30-2007, 11:28 PM
Ha, I fooled them damn parasites! My brain was removed a loooong time ago and replaced by a ball bearing. It rolls around and finds the right hole, once in awhile. Speaking of the right hole, I still do have my busty blonde-detector, which sits in front of that ball bearing, I guess. It is the only thing up there that works right and goes 24-7.

Those parasites make me think of an episode of 3rd Rock from the Sun where Harry thought that snow was a horde of albino brain-chiggers.....