Category Archives: Anthropology and Evolution

Market Smells II: Smell and Tell Walks (28 July Southwark London)

Why join us? We are conducting two Smell and Tell walks in Southwark. Come learn about your sense of smell and its evolution via two flash talks and a series of smell tests. The tests are not clinically diagnostic but provide a rough guide on how your sense of smell performs in different settings.

When: Saturday 28 July at 10am and at 2pm (pick the time you prefer—the sessions are identical!)

How Long: We estimate the walk will take 60 minutes, allowing for a slow pace.

Where: Tate Modern Turbine Hall, assemble starting 9:45amor 1:45am.

How to find us: We will be wearing black aprons with red lettering saying “Test your sense of smell”

What? We are anthropologists interested in understanding variation in olfactory ability in urban industrialized and rural traditional settings (e.g., hunter-gatherers). The Smell and Tell activities are part of this project. We aim to test olfactory ability in the same individuals in three different settings: low odor (Tate), polluted (Southwark Bridge), odor-rich (Borough Market).

Who? Dr. Kara C. Hoover (University of Alaska) is a bioanthropologist focused on human adaptation with particular interests in stress during adaptation to new or changing climates and the evolution of human olfaction. Dr. J. Colette Berbesque (University of Roehampton) is an evolutionary anthropologist focused on hunter-gatherers with particular interests in social status, social stress, egalitarianism.

Your role: You will be asked to complete three separate three-minute odor identification tests. The odors are natural compounds and while some odors may not be pleasant, none are harmful. We will give you an information sheet with your tests scores to take home.

More Info/Expression of interest
Email: kchoover@alaska.edu or Colette.Berbesque@roehampton.ac.uk
Tweet to: @KaraCHoover or @berbesque

Schedule
10am/2pm: Part 1
Brief introduction to the research project and personnel (~7 min)
Divide into two groups (2 guides per group) for Odor ID Test 1

10:25/2:25: Part 2
Stroll in two groups to second test site at Southwark Bridge (~5-10 minutes)
Flash Talks (Group A Flash Talk: Hunter-gatherer smellscapes; Group B Flash Talk: Modern smellscapes)
5-Odor ID Test 2

10:45/2:45: Part 3
Stroll in two groups to third test site at Borough Market (~5 minutes)
Flash Talks (Group A Flash Talk: Modern smellscapes; Group B Flash Talk: Hunter-gatherer smellscapes)
5-Odor ID Test 3

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Anthropology and Evolution, Evolutionary ecology, Olfaction, Science, Senses, Sensory ecology, Smelling in the wild, urban-rural

Smelling in the Wild

With colleague Dr. Colette Berbesque (University of Roehampton), I am about to start two exciting new projects that focus on the human sense of smell in natural environments.

One project will focus on how our sense of smell may be influenced by subsistence. Our project is a corollary study to work by the Sorokowskas and co-workers (here and here) that argue for a relationship between odor acuity and discrimination relative to diet. We are interested in testing the hypothesis controlling for ecology (the other studies used disparate populations which introduced other explanatory variables) and genetics.

The other project will focus on how our sense of smell is influenced by modern living. My work on sensory inequities and our sense of smell in jeopardy were featured in the news media this past year (see here and here and here) and on radio (BBC Radio 5, BBC Radio Ulster, Dermot and Dave on Today FM Ireland, and Talk Radio Ireland) and form a platform for this project that generates supportive empirical data. We are interested in understanding how the human sense of smell is affected by modern living and how well-being is impacted by environmental effects.

Stay tuned at Smelling in the Wild for details of our upcoming pop-up pilot studies and how to get involved!!

Leave a comment

Filed under Anthropology and Evolution, Evolutionary ecology, Olfaction, primate social life, Senses, Sensory ecology, sensory inequities, Smelling in the wild, stress, Uncategorized, urban-rural, Well-being

Sex and Evolution?

I like Michael Stoddart’s books in general–he has some great contributions to make and is one of a few popular scientists promoting olfaction. While reading his most recent book, I have been a bit frustrated by the simplistic view of human evolution and behavior. A recent Guardian piece by him “Smell evolution and the sex brain: Why we’re monogamous and use perfume” captures the source of my frustration. As a biological anthropologist, I find it hard to read the following sentence:

To keep male and female together to provide protection for babies, a suite of anatomical and physiological features evolved to promote the constant availability of sex throughout the year – irrespective of the monthly ovulation cycle.

The argument is that a suite of traits evolved (e.g., reduced sexual dimorphism, hidden estrus) to render human females receptive to sex at any time and this has led to monogamy–meanwhile male receptivity to sex is used as an explanation for purported male promiscuity. Huh! The constant male bias in science is at the heart of taxonomy–our class is called mammal because male scientists felt the key trait of mammals was the use of mammary glands to feed offspring.

Increasing the diversity of voices in academia has allowed us, slowly, to move away from teleological explanations for human behavior based on western society. In biological and evolutionary anthropology, human reproduction is a hot topic and more complicated. Stoddart does qualify his statement a bit:

Yet Homo Sapiens is the only species among the 5,500 kinds of mammal to maintain monogamous family relationships – or at least serially so – and to live in densely populated areas. This combination is extremely rare in nature.

Marriage, as an institution is barely thousands of years old (our species is 200,000 years old) and the concept of marrying for love younger still. Divorce is higher today partly because there are fewer economic and political structures keeping people together–religion is what is left and that doesn’t appear strong enough for most people–divorce was central in Henry the VIII’s split with the Pope. Most cultures are polygamous even if most end up practicing monogamy (mainly due to financial and/or political constraints–not enough money or power to gain more spouses). Perhaps the clearest statement we can make on pair-bonding is that humans can, and often do, come together in a pair-bond for a period of time with a goal of child rearing but this shared interest isn’t immediately linked to sexual monogamy–they are separate issues. The period of shared interest (if it occurs) enables the child to reach a point where the ‘village’ can take on some of the burden through formal and informal education. But, even western society regularly abandons its children–part of the year, I live next door to a youth shelter and drop-in center so I see it daily.

I suppose most humans are humanists–Jon Marks is a biological anthropologist who has written many books on the subject from an evolutionary perspective with a goal to distinguish us from all the other primates. I am not a humanist even if I do appreciate what we have accomplished as a species (there’s a lot to be ashamed of too…). I think there is an inherent fallacy in not recognizing that we are animals and that we cheat and lie and love and, yes, react to odors just as animals do. We may be enculturated to curb instincts but the instincts that we are enculturated to curb and how we do so vary cross-culturally. The goal to overcome our instincts with reason is a cultural one, not a biological or evolutionary one.

And, contrary to this blanket statement:

Today we have a global fragrance market equal to the GDP of a medium-sized country. But because our nose (unlike the VNO) ultimately sends all smells for rational analysis by the brain, we do not slavishly respond to sex smells in the way dogs or mice do. An alluring perfume may help a relationship, but no perfume comes with a guarantee!

odors are first processed in the areas of the emotional center of the brain where memories are also deal with–we react to odors before the frontal lobe (where reasoning attempts to modulate instinct) gets the data and formulates a response. Maybe we wear perfume because it smells good–it takes us to places we want to be or reminds of us of memories we love or smells like things we love to eat–maybe wearing perfume is about sensuality not mating. Why is so much academic work reductionist? But, perhaps that is why I am a biological anthropologist, rather than a biologist. Still, I take the point that we may not react to odors with the full behavioral response other animals might, but we react nonetheless. The closing statement of the piece is perhaps the strangest, and to an anthropologist, the most off-putting:

And so we can live in at least relative harmony with our fellows, benefitting from the long-term genetic and evolutionary advantages provided by monogamy, while participating socially in everything society has to offer.

There probably should be more biological anthropologists writing popular press books on human evolution and this gives me even more motivation to get my long overdue book Smell of Evolution out!

Leave a comment

Filed under anthropology, Anthropology and Evolution, Olfaction, primate social life, religion, Science, Senses, sex

Is odorant diversity driving olfactory receptor genetic variation?

Olfactory receptor genes have more variation than most gene families in the human genome. The only family with greater diversity is the major histocompatibility complex (MHC). Both families also exhibit high heterozygosity. Due to its association with disease, the MHC is well-studied. The explanation for the maintenance of MHC diversity is pathogen-driven selection–either through heterozygote advantage or frequency-dependent selection (see here for a review); a small number of papers (here’s two: and 2) have also argued for divergent allele advantage. A diversity of  pathogens will result in a diversity of MHC genes over time; as a species develops resistance to a disease, an evolutionary respones occurs in the disease-causing agent. The common analogy is the evolutionary arms race, also called the Red Queen Hypothesis.

If we apply that same model to olfaction in light of a few recent findings. there might be something worth pursuing. We know we can smell millions of odors. Such a diversity of odorants in the environment that vary from region to region may result in incredible diversity in the human olfactory receptor subgenome–especially if we look at it from the perspective of divergent allele advantage.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anthropology and Evolution, Olfaction, Senses, Uncategorized

Inhale for health

This research is a bit old (October 2013) but recently caught my eye:

Research out of Japan shows that walking in the woods also may play a role in fighting cancer. Plants emit a chemical called phytoncides that protects them from rotting and insects. When people breathe it in, there is an increase in the level of “natural killer” cells, which are part of a person’s immune response to cancer.

“When we walk in a forest or park, our levels of white blood cells increase and it also lowers our pulse rate, blood pressure and level of the stress hormone cortisol,” Michelfelder said.

There is rare evidence of cancer (osteocarcanoma) in prehistoric hunter-gatherer populations (see here for a nice public science summary) and mummies (another public science review is found here). This may be because we can’t detect it and accurately determine its frequency. Modern techniques like CT scanning make inroads into non-invasive paleopathology data gathering but skeletons have a limited capacity to reveal diseases of the past. This is partly because the lesions (like most pathologies) often don’t reach the bones, take too long to reach the bones before death, or are nonspecific.

The rarity of evidence for cancer may also be because it simply wasn’t there. Most cancers occur at the end of of or after reproductive years; the shorter human life span ‘in the wild’ would likely lead to fewer cases of cancer experienced by our prehistoric relatives and not impact net reproductive success (meaning any cancer-causing genes would persist in human populations). Persistent cancer-causing genes interact with the modern environment and longer life span to reach modern cancer frequencies. I wonder if lifestyles that take one into the woods for significant periods of time (e.g., prehistoric hunter-gatherers, modern populations leading ‘traditional’ lifestyles) reduce cancer incidence?

I am reminded of something I heard when I was a kid about the actor Dirk Benedict (from Battlestar Galactica–the original Starbuck!–and the A-Team) having had overcome prostate cancer by disappearing into the woods and the wilds of the country and eating a macrobiotic diet. I looked up his story to see if I remembered correctly. I had mostly:

When I learned I had a tumor—I refused to be tested for malignancy—I weighed 180 pounds. When I came out of the mountains of New Hampshire six weeks later, I weighed 155. I went to stay in a friend’s cabin because I didn’t want any distractions, any temptations, anybody calling up to say, “Let’s go have a bagel.” Well, all hell broke loose. Some days I felt on top of the world, and other days I couldn’t get out of bed. Sometimes I couldn’t walk up the stairs, and sometimes I’d ride, run and chop wood for 24 hours.

I never did go into a hospital. Instead, I packed up my duffel bag and became a vagabond, traveling to Montana, Maine, California, New York City, Wisconsin, hitchhiking across the country once and driving across twice.

Did the woods help? Maybe! The sense of smell–yet another benefit!

Leave a comment

Filed under Anthropology and Evolution, Olfaction, Senses, Uncategorized

The Scent of a Man

A new study (published here) suggest that scientists unable to replicate  behavioral studies in rats and mice may be due to the presence of male researchers.

The presence of male experimenters produced a stress response in mice and rats equivalent to that caused by restraining the rodents for 15 minutes in a tube or forcing them to swim for three minutes. This stress-induced reaction made mice and rats of both sexes less sensitive to pain.

The chemical signals emitted by males of any species are detectable by other species. Since males secrete these pheromones at higher concentrations than women, the effects tend to be limited to male researchers. Rats and mice acclimatize over time to the male researchers, suggesting an ‘easing’ in period prior to experimentation or perhaps, even better, even more effort to promote women in science!

Since there is growing evidence that humans respond to pheromones, I wonder if there is a similar effect caused by male researchers on human subjects; namely, is stress induced in males and females when experiments are conducted by men? Outside the lab, does the scent of a man induce stress and reduce pain response, but in a good way? I’ll end with ‘Boys‘ by Robots in Disguise.

1 Comment

Filed under anthropology, Anthropology and Evolution, Olfaction, Senses, sex

The piggy smell of Eurasian genetic landscapes

Between 6000-4000 years ago (according to study published in Nature Communications), indigenous Mesolithic hunter-gatherers acquired pigs from Neolithic farmers immigrating to Europe. I have been interested in Pleistocene pigs for a while (and their continued association with humans into the Holocene). The reason for my interest is that pigs produce a lot of androstenone (a sex steroid), especially males, and humans vary in their genotypic/phenotypic perception of androstenone.

Human variation in androstenone perception depends on two non synonymous SNPs (Keller et al. 2007), R88W and T133M. These SNPs appear to play a role in meat preference: Lunde et al. (2012) found that wild type humans (RT/RT) rated the meat of non-castrated male pigs less favorably than those with variant alleles (RT/WM and WM/WM). HapMap and 1000 Genomes are great resources but do not capture the variation local human populations, let alone the anthropological underpinnings of variation. In my lab and using a wide mix of global human populations, I found significant variation in androstenone perception frequencies, with higher frequencies of mutations throughout Eurasia–an area heavily invested in pig meat throughout human prehistory; in Japanese and Northern Europeans, the frequency of homozygote recessive mutations is much higher and these areas have a rich history with pigs–especially Japan.

Currently, I am working through the archaeological data for human-pig interaction in Europe and Asia (with a special focus on Asia as the origin of all pigs–see here and here for starting places) to interpret the results of the genetic data. Both the archaeological data and genetic data are thin when taken across such a huge space but they are a starting point; a neat study would be to find a locale with a rich archaeological record, human population to test for the gene and perception, and a good ethnohistory on the relationship with pigs–something I am working on right now.

Combining data from the archaeological record and the genetic history of human populations adds depth to what could, on their own, be interesting but uncontextual datasets. Taken together, these datasets can paint a more detailed picture of the evolutionary inter-relationship between genes and diet.

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis, anthropology, Anthropology and Evolution, Food, Olfaction, Senses