Richard Dawkins vs Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinolgy and ethology

Growing Up in Ethology Richard Dawkins

Article excerpt with my emphasis: Niko had by then, under the influence of Robert Hinde, Danny Lehrman and others, disowned much of The Study of Instinct (Tinbergen 1951). He was still loyal to Social Behaviour in Animals (Tinbergen 1953) even though, with the ‘sociobiological’ hindsight that came later, much of that book now seems nearly as disownable as The Study of Instinct. I wonder how much of our present theory will eventually be disowned by the hindsights of the future. I suspect not much, where the ‘gene’s eye view’ of social behaviour is concerned, but I would say that, wouldn’t I?

My comment: In fewer than 4 years, the gene’s eye view of social behavior has led to the inevitable link from sensory input to gene activation in hormone-secreting cells of invertebrate and vertebrate brain tissue, which is responsible for adaptively evolved behavior. Dawkin’s approach has been discredited, especially by the past writings of Tinbergen. For example see: Taking note of Tinbergen, or: the promise of a biology of behaviour. (with my emphasis)

“The second reason why we are now poised to adopt an integrative approach to mammalian behaviour reflects the release of constraints on our ability to conduct the kinds of research needed. Innovations and improvements in techniques and methods over the last 50 years (ranging from more field-friendly, non-invasive techniques to monitor physiological processes, to improved molecular and genetic techniques that permit the study of gene–environment interactions, as well as epigenetic and epistatic effects, to the increased computing power that has enabled more powerful forms of statistical and phylogenetic analyses) have allowed us to conduct more sophisticated, wide-ranging studies that naturally combine two or more levels of explanation.”

Who else, besides Dawkins, could not have predicted that epigenetic effects on the gene-cell-tissue-organ-organ system pathway must be balanced to achieve epistasis, which is required for adaptive evolution to non-randomly occur? Is he joking when he writes about what might change: “I suspect not much, where the ‘gene’s eye view’ of social behaviour is concerned, but I would say that, wouldn’t I?”

I think that others might also continue to joke about such things if they were as unaware as Dawkins appears to be that pheromones (i.e., social odors) control nutrient-dependent reproduction in species from microbes to man. How is it, for example, that someone who claims to have grown up in ethology missed our award-winning review: Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology. Would he rather just ignore it, along with Tinbergen’s promise of a biology of behavior? Clearly, it is the integration of neuroendocrinology and ethology that supports Tinbergen’s ‘promise’ that ‘a biology of behavior’ would be detailed. Perhaps the problem is that the biology of behavior is so clearly not due to random mutations.

Entropy vs. pheromone controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation

The emergence of complex behaviors through causal entropic forces

When, in the context of physics, mathematics, and human superiority  someone asks — “…but so what?” –  it is almost invariably because they know nothing about molecular biology, Darwin’s ‘conditions of existence’,  Tinbergen’s ‘survival value’,  or the unified biology of behavior (see for example[subscription required]: Taking note of Tinbergen, or: the promise of a biology of behaviour.  Simply put, it’s as if they know nothing at all about adaptive evolution of our brain and behavior.

Clearly, such questions do not come from intelligent people.  Intelligent people typically take the time to learn about the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization that link sensory input directly to behavior in species from microbes to man, which is why intelligent people do not simply ask “…but so what?”

Food, pheromones, and EEDs (epigenetically effected diseases)

The epigenetic effects of nutrients and pheromones contribute to epistasis and to diseases.

A psychiatry-research yahoo group participant asked if there is a term for diseases related to lifestyle: “lifestyle diseases” – and how individuals can lead lives that harm them. He noted that these diseases “…are the the stuff of psychiatry– to better identify them is to identify a huge chunk of psychiatry’s field.” He asked:  “What do we call these lifestyle diseases?”

See for example: All In Your Head? by Robert C. Bransfield, M.D.

Excerpt: “Complex, poorly understood diseases are often considered to predominately have a psychological basis until proven otherwise. Tuberculosis, hypertension, and stomach ulcers were once considered to be psychosomatic.”

My comment: Rather than continue to use vague terms like psychosomatic or somatopsychic that do not address cause and effect, I proposed that lifestyle diseases be categorized as epigenetically effected diseases (EEDs). Specific designations under this broad based categorization would include disorders involving nutrient stress (e.g., the absence of nutrients or excess) and social stress (e.g., the absence of conspecifics or presence of potentially harmful conspecifics).

Consumption of too many or too few calories falls under nutrient stress. Lack of social interactions or negative interactions with others fall under social stress.

Physical stress due to bad diet, drugs and lack or occasionally excess of exercise is easier for doctors to understand. Social stress associated with “troubled lives/lifestyles”  -  styles of work, love, and family life can cause major psychological stress and simultaneously cause physical stress that may even result in cancer and other autoimmune diseases.

Pheromones, GnRH, and social neuroscience

Gordon Research Conference, 18-23 August 2013, West Dover, VT

Neuroethology: Behavior, Evolution & Neurobiology
Networks, Circuits, and Modules

Note: there is no mention of pheromones or social odors in any presentation title.

Excerpt: “The sixth Neuroethology GRC will be taking place at a time when classical neuroethological topics on sensory and motor systems are increasingly integrated with molecular and genomic approaches, social neuroscience, computational neurobiology, and robotics.”

The final conference presentation is at 8:30 pm – 9:05 pm by Yoshitaka Oka (University of Tokyo) “GnRH neurons involved in central regulation of reproduction and reproductive behavior.”

My comment: Why did they save for last the only conference presentation that links the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution of microbes to man? This might delay the opportunity for others to interpret their findings in the context of glucose uptake-regulation and pheromone-regulation of the GnRH neuronal system in mammals. Others might also then miss the opportunity to link adaptively evolved hormone-organized and hormone-activated behaviors in invertebrates to vertebrates (e.g., via the honeybee model organism).

I’m certain that the conference organizers realize the “…central regulation of reproduction and reproductive behavior” is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. Perhaps they simply hope to provide a surprise ending.  I hope I haven’t spoiled the surprise, but I think the role of GnRH should be considered at the beginning of any study design, since GnRH is conserved and its receptor is diversified across 400 million years of vertebrate evolution. That means it can also be linked to the adaptive evolution of species from microbes to man via olfaction and odor receptors.

See for example:
Neurobiological mechanisms underlying GnRH pulse generation by the hypothalamus

and

Innate versus learned odour processing in the mouse olfactory bulb

Other conference presentations that may be consistent with the facts about GnRH include:

Lauren O’Connell (Harvard University): “Evolutionary origins of neural substrates”

Seth Grant (Edinburgh University): “The cognitive big bang: Experimental approaches to vertebrate cognitive complexity”

Richard James (Bath University): “Animal social networks”

Nicholas Christakis (Harvard School of Public Health): “The evolutionary origins of social homophily”

Michael Platt (Duke University) “Primate social ethology: Tinbergen’s four questions revisited”

Amir Ayali (Tel Aviv University) “Multifaceted amine modulation in the insect STNS”

Jens Herberholz (University of Maryland) “Neural plasticity and behavioral consistency”

Eve Marder (Brandeis University) “Robust neuromodulation in the face of parameter variability”

Karen Maruska (Louisiana State University) “Understanding the link between genes and complex behaviors: Insights from network, genomic, and epistatic analyses”

Kim Hoke (Colorado State University) “Context shapes transcriptional and neural networks to modulate behavior”

Amy Toth (Iowa State University) “Genomic mechanisms of social dominance in paper wasps”

Ralph Greenspan (University of California, San Diego) “Epistatic gene interactions and behavior in Drosophila”

Emma Coddington (Willamette University) “Hormonal modulation of neural rhythms underlying reproductive behaviors”

Pheromones, GnRH and social neuroscience

ordon Research Conference, 18-23 August 2013, West Dover, VT

Neuroethology: Behavior, Evolution & Neurobiology
Networks, Circuits, and Modules

Excerpt: “The sixth Neuroethology GRC will be taking place at a time when classical neuroethological topics on sensory and motor systems are increasingly integrated with molecular and genomic approaches, social neuroscience, computational neurobiology, and robotics.”

————————————-

The final conference presentation is at 8:30 pm – 9:05 pm by Yoshitaka Oka (University of Tokyo) “GnRH neurons involved in central regulation of reproduction and reproductive behavior”

My comment: Why did they save for last the only conference presentation that links the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution of microbes to man? This might delay the opportunity for others to interpret their findings in the context of glucose uptake-regulation and pheromone-regulation of the GnRH neuronal system in mammals. Others might also then miss the opportunity to link adaptively evolved hormone-organized and hormone-activated behaviors in invertebrates to vertebrates (e.g., via the honeybee model organism).

Do the conference organizers not realize that the “…central regulation of reproduction and reproductive behavior” is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled? Perhaps they simply hope to provide a surprise ending. If so, I hope I haven’t spoiled the surprise, but I think it’s an ending that should have been considered at the beginning of any study design, since GnRH is conserved and its receptor is diversified across 400 million years of vertebrate evolution, which means it can also be linked to the adaptive evolution of species from microbes to man via olfaction and odor receptors.

See for example:
Neurobiological mechanisms underlying GnRH pulse generation by the hypothalamus
and
Innate versus learned odour processing in the mouse olfactory bulb