Recently in Biology Category

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_specter_the_danger_of_science_denial.html

I figured I would make my last post from ted.com, since I have really come to enjoy this site over the course of this semester. This video is of Michael Specter discussing the recent denial of scientific advances. Michael briefly discusses the progression of lifespans in his family from generation to generation. He mentioned that each generation has lived a decade longer than the last, and he plans to live till 90. Through the course of this video he discusses the ways in which we are able to engineer foods to make them more nutritious. We, as a community, have decided that foods that are not 100% natural should be shunned from our diet. However, we are willing to take pill after pill in hopes that it will help us feel better. We have virtually wiped out the threat of small pox in our country, so we no longer get the vaccine. What if small pox is reintroduced? We will all be susceptible once again. The discussion of what problems vaccines can cause has been brought down to the ground by science every time that it is brought up. Yet, people still believe that they are doing their children a favor by neglecting to give them their vaccinations. However, if an unvaccinated individual travels the world and contracts a disease outside of the protective bubble of the United States, not only would they run into a problem for themselves, but they could bring a problem for the rest of us.

What is it that motivates people to take such risky behaviors, but claim them to be safer? Is it the need for power? Reeve describes this as the need to be in control of situations. Could it be that people feel as though they have more control over situations if they eat food that is not genetically engineered or if they avoid vaccinations?

How did this video make you feel? Personally, it really got me thinking about what I felt to be health conscious. I always believed that vaccinations were necessary, and that it was rather ignorant to over look the research that has been done to prove it. This video just reiterated that point for me.

 

Kathleen Bogart, pictured above, has a rare congenital condition called Moebious syndrome.  Moebious syndrome is a neurological disorder that primarily affects the 6th and 7th cranial nerves, leaving those with the condition unable to move their faces. The facial paralysis causes those with the disorder to be unable to smile, frown, suck, grimace, or even blink their eyes.  In addition, their eyes only move laterally, making sideways glances and eye rolling out of the picture as well.  (To learn more about Moebious Syndrome, go to the Moebious Syndrome Foundation). 

Reeve (2009) spent quiet a bit of time throughout the book discussing how important facial expressions are to emotion.  The facial feedback hypothesis, introduced in Chapter 12, states that emotion is the awareness of feedback from our own facial expressions.  Facial expressions are also important in social interactions.  Facial expressions allow us to ascertain the emotion & mood of the people around us and allow the people around us to ascertain out emotional state & mood.  Reeve states that emotions are intrinsic to interpersonal relationships, and they play a role in creating, maintaining, and dissolving interpersonal relationships.  We often automatically mimic other people's emotions during interactions.  By mimicking facial expressions facial feedback hypothesis would state that we are then able to understand the other person's emotional state.

Obviously emotions play a large role in our social interactions, whether it is by how we are feeling or understanding and mimicking the emotions of someone else.  Then by conjecture the inability to express emotions via facial expression, like those suffering from Moebious syndrome, can cause a variety of problems with social interaction.  Some researchers assumed that because those with Moebious cannot mimic facial expressions they would not be able to read other people's emotions as well as those of us who do not have Moebious syndrome.  However, recent research has shown that people who are suffering from Moebious syndrome are able to read facial expression just as well as the rest of us can.  This suggests that the brain uses more than just facial mimicry to evaluate emotions. 

While those who suffer from Moebious syndrome can read others facial expressions just as well as the rest of us, they have to use other methods to display their own emotions.  Most individuals with Moebious develop other nonverbal cues to express emotions.  In the same way that those who are blind have better developed senses of smell, hearing, and touch, those with Moebious syndrome have developed better vocal cues, gestures, and body positions.  This development may also aid those with Moebious in reading other's emotions outside of facial expressions.  In fact it was found that by mimicking one's conversation partner, it is more difficult to determine if they are lying or even uncomfortable. 

While, many of these individuals are able to develop such skills, that still does not make social interaction easy.  Many people are uncomfortable when interacting with someone who does not mimic their facial expressions.  I had never thought about how lucky I am to be able to express my emotions on my face - mostly because many times people are able to read me really easily because I don't control my facial expressions - but I interacting with others is made so much easier by having that ability.

To learn more about some of the research being conducted concerning facial expressions, Moebious syndrome, and Kathleen Bogart read this recent NY Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/health/06mind.html?pagewanted=1&sq=emotions&st=cse&scp=4

So as I was reading chapter twelve, one section that caught my interest was affective computing.  What exactly is affective computing?  Affective computing is the result of persuasive evidence that exists for distinctive autonomic nervous system activity associated with fear, anger, disgust, and sadness. For example, with anger, there is increased heart rate and increased skin temperature which facilitate strong, assertive (adaptive) behavior.  With fear, heart rate increased while skin temperature decreased.  With disgust, both heart rate and skin temperature decreased.  With sadness, heart rate increased while skin temperature was stable. These four emotions, however, are among the few emotions with distinct autonomic nervous system reactions.  As Reeve states, "If no specific pattern of behavior has survival value for an emotion (like jealousy), there is little reason for the development of a specific pattern of autonomic nervous system activity." In other words, for jealousy and other emotions which don't fit distinct patterns, there is no universally appropriate bodily response because it depends on the situation more than it does on the emotion itself.  Thus, it is very unlikely that in the future humans will ever develop and evolve a single pattern of ANS activity for those emotions. 

STILL, for those emotions that show an ANS specific pattern (found through various studies) which I mentioned above (anger, fear, sadness, disgust, and additionally joy), there are future technological implications.  Essentially, it is possible that in the future we are going to be able to build machines that read our emotions.  As Reeve states, "Imagine electronic sensors built into steering wheels, mobile telephones, handles of bicycles, pilot simulators, computer joysticks, and golf clubs which constantly monitor its user's ANS (autonomic nervous system) arousal.  This would be the field of affective computing!  While these sensors would be limited in measuring only those basic emotions, additional technology like a digital camera or video camera could capture and analyze facial expressions and monitor movements of the user's face like the following features:  the user's frontalis, corrugators, orbiculris oculi, zygomaticus, nasalis, depressors, etc.  There is a great picture demonstrating faces of interest in our text after Tiger Woods hits a tee shot on page 341.  Computers already using technology analyzing user's facial muscles are actually already in existence, and are able to score facial movements just as accurate and actually faster than people. 

Here is a link which discusses affective computing and past, present, and future research projects regarding the technology:

http://affect.media.mit.edu/

Here is quick excerpt from the link:

Affective Computing is computing that relates to, arises from, or deliberately influences emotion or other affective phenomena.

Emotion is fundamental to human experience, influencing cognition, perception, and everyday tasks such as learning, communication, and even rational decision-making. However, technologists have largely ignored emotion and created an often frustrating experience for people, in part because affect has been misunderstood and hard to measure. Our research develops new technologies and theories that advance basic understanding of affect and its role in human experience. We aim to restore a proper balance between emotion and cognition in the design of technologies for addressing human needs.

Our research has contributed to: (1) Designing new ways for people to communicate affective-cognitive states, especially through creation of novel wearable sensors and new machine learning algorithms that jointly analyze multimodal channels of information; (2) Creating new techniques to assess frustration, stress, and mood indirectly, through natural interaction and conversation; (3) Showing how computers can be more emotionally intelligent, especially responding to a person's frustration in a way that reduces negative feelings; (4) Inventing personal technologies for improving self-awareness of affective state and its selective communication to others; (5) Increasing understanding of how affect influences personal health; and (6) Pioneering studies examining ethical issues in affective computing.

 

Will these technologies actually come into play in the near future?  Who knows, but if they do, they will revolutionize seemingly every field of business, sport, and life.  Would this necessarily be a progressive adaptation within our culture? Definitely an interesting topic to consider...  

    http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Anesthesia-Drugs-a-Possible-Cure-for-Depression-1137964.htm

 

    I think it's always interesting to hear different perspectives about depression. In this article, the basic argument is (as the title says) that small amounts of anesthesia can help provide relief from depression. It is in part due to the increased demand for anesthesia in the market (more surgeries being done, etc.) that other applications for it are the subject of current research.  In the study, researchers "(administered) a single low dose" of an anesthetic that "produced almost immediate relief from depression in (a group) that did not respond to any other type of depression therapy."

 

      It may be very important to note that anesthesia was only given to patients who did not respond to other forms of treatment. Although I believe modern forms of anesthesia are likely to be relatively safe in moderation, we must be very careful not to get carried away with this type of research. We should conduct these studies in as safe of a way as possible and be ever wary of problems that arise. As any of us who have taken BioPsychology probably know, it was just within the last century that procedures like prefrontal lobotomies were lauded as a great procedure until the full extent of their effects became known. My main point here is that we may have a moral obligation to remain skeptical of any procedures when we have not yet been able to study its long-term effects. Only then can we be more confident that such procedures are the right course of action.

 

    In any case, the doses of anesthesia that have been applied thus far are relatively low and seem to be well within safety guidelines. Because of this, I would have to agree that this treatment does sound very promising for patients facing depression for which nothing else has worked. Another reason this research is promising is not just about the level of effectiveness, but also the amount of time it takes until the drugs take effect. Many common treatments for depression require at least a few weeks to produce noticeable alleviation of symptoms. As mentioned before, some of the effects of low dose anesthesia can occur almost immediately. One reason for this is because the anesthesia approach "targets a different system in the brain." Having taken BioPsychology last semester, I found this part of the discussion especially interesting - it mentioned that "all (current) antidepressants work on monoamine transmitters... but ketamine (the anesthesia) involves (blocking the action of glutamate)."   

 

     I was very happy to read the final section of the article - it mentioned that psychosis was a possible side effect of the drug, and that it is unlikely that is will be approved for treating depression. As in so many psychology articles, the conclusion was that more research needs to be done. I think this touches on a point that is sometimes difficult to appreciate. It is very difficult for us to watch our loved ones in pain and suffering, from mental diseases such as depression, but unlike on television, it is very rare to find some miraculous experimental drug that will solve all problems. It is not that researchers are unkind or uncaring, but rather that new procedures that have not yet even been fully investigated can very well make a person's problems even worse. I believe the work of clinical psychologists and medical doctors is in many ways more stressing because it is not a lifeless object they are working on, but rather a human being. Mistakes are not acceptable, in both a moral and legal sense. I hope my meaning is not misconstrued here; I believe this research is very important, but I also am very concerned that people will try to pursue this treatment before trying more well-known, better established treatments for depression.  

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100309/Activity-in-lateral-prefrontal-cortex-may-improve-emotion-regulation-in-day-to-day-life.aspx

 

I found this to be a rather interesting article. I think it directly relates to the material we studied in Chapter 3 (dealing with the emotional brain). One of the main reasons I found it interesting is because it seems to go against common sense, or at least against conventional wisdom. Many of us have undoubtedly heard others tell us not to go to bed angry, but this study suggests that "brain activity (specifically in the lateral prefrontal cortex) is a far better indicator of how someone will feel in the days following a fight with his or her partner." Generally those who had high activity in this area had a better mood than those who had low activity in this area. I believe what helps set this recent study apart is that it did not take place entirely in a laboratory, but also involved real situations/relationships. In other words, one can probably be more confident of its external validity.

 

In our textbook (starting on p. 61 in Chapter 3), Reeve writes about the relationship between the prefrontal cortex and affect. Here it mentions that, "the limbic system receives incoming sensory stimulation (that) activate rather automatic emotional reactions... stimulation of the cortex can generate emotional states." Reeve also makes the point that one must make a distinction between the left and right side of the prefrontal cortex because each is qualitatively different from the other. Reeve also makes reference to the Behavioral Inhibition System, which includes the two dimensions of personality, one of which is "how sensitive versus stable a person is to threats, punishments, and the experience of negative emotion (Reeve 2009, p.61)."

 

 I was actually rather impressed with the physiological measures used - researchers used an fMRI, recorded facial expressions, and tested cognitive skills. As I mentioned before, the researcher (Hooker) found that  the level of activity in their lateral prefrontal cortex may be a significant factor in predicting a person's experiences, ability to bounce back, etc.

 

The main reason why I chose this article and wanted to share it with others is because I am rather fascinated by the unconscious activity that takes place in the brain. As others probably have heard, there have been studies that suggest people actually have a tendency to make better decisions having slept on it - I think I heard about this in Social Psychology. I believe I also heard data that supports this in my BioPsychology course. While sleeping, our brain continues to process information. It's very interesting to think of the possibility that being angry while we go to sleep may actually help us better deal with our problems, confront them face on with our subconscious attention. This may be drifting a little bit from Motivation and Emotion, but I find it very interesting how I have often woken up with solutions to some of my problems that I had never thought of before - I believe my mental activity throughout the night has sometimes helped me come up with effective solutions.

 

In any case, this study  does provide insight and understanding into physiological activities, such as the activation of certain brain structures and subsequent impact on emotional states. For the reasons I have mentioned, I actually believe this type of research is very important and may lead to more effective interventions for people facing certain problems, such as depression.

 

The article ends with the following...

  

While Hooker acknowledges that more work must be done to develop clinical applications for the research, it may be that lateral prefrontal cortex function provides information about a person's vulnerability to develop mood problems after a stressful event. This raises the question as to whether increasing lateral prefrontal cortex function will improve emotion regulation capacity.

 

 

Nervousness, excitement, insomnia, flushed face, psychomotor agitation, rambling flow of thoughts and speech...with all of these symptoms you would think you were looking at the definition for a disorder according to the DSM.  As a matter of fact you are...these are symptoms for the psychological disorder of Caffeine Intoxication. Caffeine intoxication sounds like a made up disorder but it is very real and does appear in the DSM. Surprisingly enough, Daniel Nobel is being evaluation to see if that is what caused him to hospitalize two University of Washington students last Monday when he hit them with his car that morning. Can it really be that something as simple as caffeine is altering our behavior so much that it is considered a psychiatric disorder that can alter how we operate a vehicle just as alcohol can? According to researchers this is exactly what happened to Nobel when he was charged with vehicular assault and a hit and run on the by the University of Washington's Police. Blood tests are not back from the lab yet but from my understanding of the article alcohol consumption was rule out therefore there is some underlying cause as to why Noble was acting in such disarray that morning. Investigators and researchers predicted that Noble consumed approximately 2g of caffeine which is 10 times the amount an average person consumes a day (200mg). Normally people develop a tolerance to this drug and do not see such drastic results; however, there are clinics and treatment centers designed to get people "clean" from the addiction of caffeine.  After reading this article I became very interesting is this concept. Never have I heard that someone was driving recklessly due to caffeine overdoes. I am currently in a course at UNI called Drugs and Individual Behavior. In this class when we talked about stimulants we discussed caffeine and the effects is has on our body and in turn on our behavior. This article makes me think...if I was evaluated this case would I deem that Caffeine intoxication was a severe enough diagnosis that I would accept this for the reason for this ridiculous behavior that place two people in the hospital? For some reason (even after learning about how caffeine is a drug and can alter how the brain functions) I can not seem to link it in the same category as anxiety disorder, schizophrenia, and diseases such as alcoholism.

 

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/man-caffeinated-psychosis-defense-hit-run/story?id=9306666

In 1872, American physician George Huntington described a disease that can be traced back to the Middle Ages, when it was referred to as chorea.  Chorea is a term that describes the uncontrollable movements that are seen in individuals who are affected by the disease.  This disease was found to be hereditary and progressive.  Today this disease is called Huntington's disease (HD).  Currently more than 15,000 Americans are living with HD, with at least another 150,000 others who have a 50% chance of developing the disease.  This disease is passed from generation to generation, destroying families who have to watch their loved ones lose the ability to feel, think, and move (National Institutes of Health, 2009).

As stated above HD is a progressive disease that causes the loss of control over movement, behavioral changes, and memory loss over time.  The onset of HD is generally slow and insidious making it hard to distinguish when an individual transitions from being a risk for HD to having HD (Maio, 1992).  On average symptoms of HD begin around 40 years of age (Meiser & Dunn, 2000), although the disease has been seen in children as young as 2, and adults as old as 70 (Quaid et al., 2008).  After the onset, individuals with HD generally live for 10-15 years.  Currently there is no way to cure the disease or to slow the progression of the disease (Meiser & Dunn, 2000).  Patients suffering from HD commonly die from infection (such as pneumonia), injuries related to a fall, or other complications from HD (National Institutes of Health, 2009).

Earlier in the semester we talked about the brain and how certain hormones influence or are activated due to emotions. Neurotransmitters such as dopamine, serotonin, norepinephrine, and endorphins are just a few that have been shown to influence mood and emotion. What we did not go in detail about was the parts of the brain that make contribute to moods, emotions, and behaviors. I found an article that discuss' this very topic.
Arousal is a process that involves cortical, behavioral, and autonomic mechanisms (Reeve, 2009, p. 374) This article talks about the cortical (activity of the brain) part of being aroused and the emotional reactions that can evolve from being aroused. Reeve (2009) lists four principles to explain arousal's contribution to motivation. There are two that relate to the study explained below:
1) A person's arousal level is mostly a function of how stimulating the environment is.
2) People engage in behavior to increase or decrease their level of arousal.
A new study was done to test if the lateral prefrontal cortex (LPFC) was a region of the brain that could help people control emotional reactions such as negative moods, rumination (not being able to get something off your mind), and substance abuse. After having several people in stable, healthy relationships journal daily and have brain scans done while viewing positive, negative, and neutral facial expressions of their partner, it was found that LPFC activity did predict how one would react to an interpersonal conflict. When there was a day of no interpersonal conflict, the LPFC activity was not related to the next day's mood or behavior. On the contrast, when there was a day when interpersonal conflict did occur LPFC did predict mood and behavior the next day. Low levels of LPFC activity was related for high levels of negative moods, rumination, and substance abuse.
This study is helpful when talking about coping with stress. To avoid bad coping strategies like over-eating or substance abuse, people can become aware and learn to introduce positive strategies such as counting to 10. If you are a person who has low LPFC function, it is possible you may become more susceptible to such behaviors.
Link:
http://news.oneindia.in/2010/03/03/howto-control-emotional-outbursts-in-front-of-yourpartner.html

I chose this article because it explains the physiology behind one of my favorite past times: kissing / making out.  I was goofing around on the web the other day and through digg.com (great website - go to it!) I found the website below.  It's an article called "Why We Kiss: the Science of Sex." It's fascinating, so I wanted to share this article with you.

 

The article explains that although the use of pheromones to create attraction is thought to not work for humans, chemicals are still used in communication.  The article outlines how women are more attracted to the scent of a man who can help them to produce healthier children.  It also explains that twice as many adults turn their head to the right than the left while kissing.  (You're all thinking about which side you prefer, aren't you?)

 

Another cool topic covered by the site is that men and women see kissing differently.  Most women would never have sex with someone without kissing them first but most men would.  And men are more likely to initiate French kissing because saliva contains testosterone, and testosterone can increase arousal.  Indications show that men can also gauge the amount of estrogen a woman has (indicator of fertility) via this method.

 

However, the most fascinating part of the article (for me) was kissing's effects upon hormone levels.  In general, kissing releases a ton of hormones that make us feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but the site focuses on the levels of cortisol (the stress hormone) and oxytocin (the bonding hormone).  In long-term relationships, cortisol levels dropped after kissing. And oxytocin levels increased ONLY in the males.  My girlfriend wasn't too happy to hear this, but I now understand partly why I enjoy kissing so much.

 

During a quick search for more information, I found the other link.  At howstuffworks.com, they have a lot of information about how kissing works, its history, effects, and the anatomy of a kiss. It also includes more information on kissing's effects upon dopamine, serotonin, and adrenaline, too.

 

http://www.divinecaroline.com/22081/76045-kiss--science-sex

 

http://people.howstuffworks.com/kissing.htm

I was at www.askmen.com and saw this title for an article, so I couldn't resist.

As it's part of askmen.com, the article is geared towards providing advice for men - in this instance, particularly straight men.  The article is examining the traits of gay men and why straight women love the gays so much for them.  They talk about clothing style, physical fitness, sensitivity, faithfulness, and fun.

Most heterosexual men's fashion is based on three things: sneakers, wrangler jeans, and a t-shirt.  And while this is fine for us men, women are typically more sophisticated.  They want to be able to talk about their outfits, hair, skin care, etc.  Who is going to provide more to a conversation on hair, a straight guy who puts on a hat until it lies flat, or a gay guy who can compare and contrasts features of different products?

It's harder for women to maintain a set weight for various reasons - partly because their bodies are continuously preparing itself to hold a child each month.  As the article says, " [in] many instances, gay men simply take better care of themselves than we do . . ."  Their gay best friend is, however, someone who will tell them the new ways to lose weight or who will go to the gym with them.

 

The website tells how an article by the National Academy of Sciences in 2008 describes how heterosexual women's brains and homosexual men's brains are similar - making it more likely that their brains function the same way.  This would explain one reason why gay men tend to be more willing to talk about their emotions than we, heterosexual men, are.

 

Faithfulness is yet another quality that women love in their gay men.  They don't have to worry about the man leaving them for another woman.  It removes a deep-seated insecurity.

 

And lastly, gay men are just more fun.  They can comparatively talk about sex with women and give them tips from a guy's perspective on what feels good without being embarrassed.

 

This can all be explained with a simple answer: the psychological need for relatedness.  Gay men can just relate to straight women on levels that straight men cannot.  However, this is NOT an excuse to not try.

 

As my mom always says, "try walking in the other person's shoes for a while."  If we straight men try this, I'm sure we can all relate to females much better and avoid unnecessary arguments - because sleeping on the couch sucks!

 

http://www.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith_300/332b_why-women-love-gay-men.html

We talked about testosterone in class and how it affects sexual behavior, aggression, etc. In this article it discusses the benefits and risks of testosterone therapy and the question of whether or not it can make men feel like they did in their youth. Testosterone does a lot for men: helps maintain bone density, muscle mass, sex drive, sperm production, etc. But around the age of 40, men start producing less and less testosterone and therefore, may feel like something is changing in their bodies. Although it's unclear whether naturally declining testosterone produces symptoms for men, it has been seen that men with diseases that lower their testosterone have seen such symptoms as decreased sexual function, increase in fat mass, memory loss, mood changes, depression, etc. I have read some text refer to the decrease in testosterone as a man's menopause. The article recapped that studies have found that testosterone therapy is able to restore testosterone amounts to that of a youthful man, but it is unclear whether or not it there is any benefit of doing so. While there are benefits to testosterone therapy there are also risks: increased balding, acne, enlarged breasts, fluid retention, etc.

Here is the link to the two page article:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/testosterone-therapy/MC00030

When I was trying to come up with a topic for my blog entry this week I googled search for Oxytocin and google automatically added autism after oxytocin.  I thought that this was interesting and decided to continue to search for articles about this association.  In a journal article by Modahl et al. (1998) a connection was found between the presence of autism and  levels of oxytocin.  This article can be found at:  http://lynnwaterhouse.intrasun.tcnj.edu/Plasma%20oxytocin%20levels%20in%20autistic%20children.pdf

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100210/full/news.2010.66.html

http://www.drugabuse.gov/ResearchReports/MDMA/default.html

This is a great resource to find information about many drugs from effects on the brain to addiction treatment.

For those of you that don't know MDMA, ecstasy or 3,4-Methylendioxymethamphetamine is a DEA schedule 1 substance.  Schedule 1 means drugs under this category have no medical use and a high potential for abuse. It is classified as a psychoactive amphetamine, meaning it has both psychedelic and stimulant like effects. Known for its relationship with Intimacy, it also diminishes feelings of anxiety, fear, depression and emotions run wild. The positive effects include mental stimulation, emotional warmth, empathy towards others, and a general sense of wellbeing.

 Before being made a schedule 1 controlled substance, ecstasy was actually used in psychotherapy, couples therapy and to treat anxiety disorders as well as clinical depression. Though there were no formal, documented clinical trials or FDA approval.  Therapists called it "penicillin for the soul" saying it allowed the user to communicate insight about their problems.  Though DEA still deemed it schedule 1 eventually, in late 2000 FDA actually approved MDMA for 2 sessions of psychotherapy for those experiencing PTSD.  Ecstasy was actually criminalized in all members of the United Nations in a UN agreement; this is for manufacture, sale or production of the drug. There are limited exceptions for scientific/medical research.

MDMA first broke out in the club scene, mostly at long extended dance parties called raves. It was mostly used by adolescents and young adults, but this typical profile has been changing. There is now widespread use outside of the club scene. Recent research has also shown the drug is moving from predominately white users to minority users. It also appears to be a rising trend in the "urban gay male" scene. This is a rising concern because of the existing high level of sexual activity in gay males; it causes an increase in high risk behavior that may lead to many sexually transmitted diseases. The first question is why? Perhaps they seem to frequent urban dance clubs in higher numbers. Also, why the movement away from white adolescents and young adults?

Ecstasy has incredible effects on the brain with just one or two tablets. Though its mechanism of activity is not fully understood in its simplest sense it alters the activity of dopamine, serotonin and norepinephrine by increasing their production. Though the process involving serotonin is more complicated due to the fact that it is not only a combination serotonin reuptake inhibitor, but also a serotonin-releasing agent, in addition to the other two transmitters it makes MDMA a neorepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor and a serotonin-norepinephrine-dopamine releasing agent. Confused yet?  

More specifically the effects of the drug cause all the previously mentioned positive effects of the drug. The excess release of the serotonin causes the brain to become depleted of this key transmitter. This is the largest contributor to the "hangover" effects that users can experience for several days after taking the drug. More research is needed, but it appears that this serotonin damage in humans can cause  long term effects such as confusion, depression, and significantly impact the memory and attention process.

So even with more research needed, the fact people still choose to do these drugs is very interesting to me. Some are ignorant, but others completely willing to take the risk despite their knowledge of the effects. The drug also can be addictive, the body can develop tolerance, and the brain changes to compensate for the difference in chemical production. Are people attracted to the emotional state they reach after doing the drug, or is it simply a chemical dependency?

http://www.themedguru.com/20100114/newsfeature/people-happiest-during-weekends-study-86131803.html

I found this article to be rather interesting, the study suggests that weekends have a significant effect on the body. Researchers suggest that, "simply being in charge of your own day, spending quality time with family, provides better mood, greater vitality and (fewer) physical ailments from Friday evening to Sunday afternoon."

 

While the results of this study are probably to be expected - most people are visibly happier on the weekends -  it is interesting to hear about what they believe specifically causes physiological changes, such as hormone release, and a more positive attitude overall.

 

They attribute some of these changes to higher feelings of autonomy. At first, I wondered if this effect was mainly seen in those with relatively low paying jobs (those with consistently low autonomy throughout the week), but the effect was found regardless of occupation, age, gender, or relationship status.

 

I actually found it very interesting that even those with high status jobs experience this effect on weekends. I have generally thought that workers with high status already tend to have significantly higher levels of autonomy and leisure, so the presence of the weekend would not make as much of a difference to them. According to this study, I may be wrong.

 

 I wonder if another reason for this affect is that people are often able to rest more on weekends. In BioPsychology I remember the author (John Pinel) mentioning that over time people can gradually reduce the amount of time they sleep to as little as two hours per night with only minor effects, but I have not yet looked at the studies on which he based those statements. I wonder how much of a role (perhaps 2 additional hours) additional sleep can play in improving one's mental and physical condition. I find studies involving sleep to be among the most interesting, and from what I have read it seems like much more research needs to be conducted in this area.   

 

Another question I have is, "Why don't the effects seem to carry past Sunday afternoon?" I suppose the answer may lie in their original report, but if it does it would be rather odd for them not to have included it in the article. I have often heard people say that they will be revitalized and refreshed for work after the weekend, but in my experience I'm not sure people tend to be any better or any worse at their jobs whether it is a Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday. In any case, I think some of the questions that arise from this article merit further research.