Ignoring biological facts and blocking publication
September 25, 2013 | James Kohl
Women ‘Smell’ Their Competition Sep 24, 2013 08:40 AM ET /
Excerpt: “Some people might like to believe that people aren’t animals, or at least that our behavior isn’t beholden to the same biological processes as other species,” Maner said.”
My comment: In Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology, the epigenetic effects of human pheromones on gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH), LH, and testosterone explain these results in terms of unconscious affects in men and in women.
The fact that conserved molecular mechanisms in species from microbes to man link non-random experience-driven de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes to behavior sans mutations should be enough to convince most people that similarities exist at every level of examination. The similarities clearly eliminate mutation-driven evolution from any further consideration whatsoever. But many people would rather believe in mutations theory than accept biological facts that link us to other species via nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution. Besides, too many researchers do not understand the role of GnRH in the development of human behavior. They attribute things to sex steroid hormones that can only be caused by the epigenetic effects of olfactory/pheromonal input on the regulation of sex steroid hormones.
For example, see: “Many of our manuscripts and special issues (e.g. Volume 32, Issue 2, 2011) have dealt extensively with the research that has continued to reveal the molecular and cellular actions of sex steroids…” The focus on sex steroids in that special issue of Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology ignores our award-winning work: Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology and everything I have written or co-authored before and since then. Given that degree of ignorance, it is no wonder that scientific progress is slow. Theories are touted as if they were facts, and some people do not recognize the difference between theory and biological facts.
It is a widely known biological fact that mammalian GnRH modulates the molecular and cellular actions of sex steroids, but the editorial (linked above) by John E. Levine, who is Co-Editor-in-Chief of Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, clearly ignores that fact. I wonder if he even reads articles like this one, which was published in the online edition of Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology later in 2013: Roles of sex and gonadal steroids in mammalian pheromonal communication.
Perhaps Levine is confused by the title. It should probably read “Roles of mammalian pheromonal communication in the regulation of sex steroids and behavior, since Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction in mammals via the epigenetic effects of food odors and pheromones on GnRH.
When the editors and co-editors that play their role in information dissemination do not understand the difference between theories and biological facts, how can others? Others may not even see the information as it becomes available, since editors have the ability to block its publication. Sometimes, you get to see only what they want you to see (e.g., not the biological facts).