Birds do it, bees do it - but snails don't. Not if the mind-altering parasites have got them.

If film-maker David Cronenburg teamed up with the Born Again Virgins to make a film about sex, they'd probably take for their subject matter the mind-altering parasite trichobilharzia ocellata, described recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It's the stuff of nightmares (and late-night Christian TV): an insidious breed of microscopic missionary - tiny creatures that worm their way into the flesh of snails, then "possess" their brains to command a life of chastity.

Apparently the parasites enhance their own chances of survival by hijacking the mechanisms controlling their hosts' behaviour. "Parasites - somewhat like viruses - can force their hosts to act to their benefit," says Victor Mutt of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. By forcing the snails to give up sex, the worms ensure that their surrogate bodies grow at abnormally high rates ensuring the parasites comfortable survival.

Maybe the snails could try a course of Prozac. After all, it's recently been prescribed for freshwater clams to get them in the mood for spawning. And clams aren't the only ones taking prescription drugs. Sitting in a box being peered at is so demoralizing and depressing for Annie, a 22 year old orang-utan at Colchester Zoo in Essex, UK, that she's on Prozac. Her chum Bruno, a black bear, reached mid-life crisis at 30. Far away from his Asiatic home he grew miserable after a change of diet and was started on a course of Valium to help him through the long days in cramped accommodation. But Bruno went cold turkey on 'mother's little helper' when his landlords improved his living conditions. Way to go, Bruno! He just said 'no'. But hold on there... just because Bruno came to terms with life in a ghetto doesn't mean that all other living creatures should choose the 'straight edge'.

Drugs could be the answer to a whole range of animal 'problems', and why not? If they're good enough for us, they're good enough for all life-forms.

Consider the camel: water retention is unpleasant at the best of times, but having to carry it about in full view like that... there's no excuse in a pharmaceutically enhanced civilization. Take a diuretic, please! Likewise, an agitated alligator will clearly benefit from beta blockers settling it down to an acceptable calmness. Let's not limit ourselves to prescription drugs either - recreational drugs abound that would cheer up even the slowest weekend break for any of God's creatures. Who are we to deny sloths the occasional turn of speed, to prevent ecstasy reaching isolated wolves in the community or to close the supply lines of cocaine that might stop those crocodiles crying. And penguins, lazy birds, won't fly. Have they given up, or is it simply lack of confidence? LSD has convinced the most grounded travellers of their aeronautic abilities - penguins could benefit enormously from a tab or two. (perhaps lemmings have already tried it - ed.)

Rhinos need Estee Lauder, gannets need appetite suppressants, limpets need some get-up-and-go, and toads - really only frogs with an acne problem - could do with a spot of Clearasil. All these seriously socially unacceptable human problems could be helped with medical and pharmaceutical preparations. The closer the animal world comes to humanity, the more harmony there'll be - let tigers use balm!

The protection of endangered species is the core mission for many conservation agencies, yet invariably it's the same pleasing-to-the-eye creatures that hog the limelight. Sumatran Tigers and baby Harp Seals push the right buttons with the public, but would promotional images of an endangered Antigua Ground Lizard or Wyoming Toad elicit the same response? Probably not, with new research predicting that only the most aesthetically pleasing creatures may survive humankind's continued reshaping of the Earth.

A species is considered to be endangered if they are few in number or shown to be threatened by changing environmental or predation constraints. This may mean that species are spread so sparsely that it becomes difficult to find mates, or, that there is an imbalance in the food chain; both examples leading to a downward trend in biodiversity. Some would argue, however, that species are continually becoming extinct, and that it's just a natural aspect of the evolutionary process, and, therefore, nothing to be concerned about. But ever since humans began their amble across the face of the Earth some 100,000 years ago, extinctions have increased significantly.

This first human diaspora represents what is known as "phase one" of an identifiable extinction period (the Holocene extinction event), where humans have disrupted natural ecosystems through disease and hunting in areas they had not previously inhabited. "Phase two" began much more recently, around 10,000 years ago, in tandem with the development of agriculture and subsequent technologies. These two phases mark the beginning of the extinction event that we are now witnessing.

It's dubbed the Holocene extinction event because recent mass die-offs are comparable to early prehistoric mass extinctions that occurred as a result of impact events, tectonic shifts and volcanic activity. It's come about thanks to human interventions, like the destruction of natural habitats, the introduction of foreign species, production of greenhouse gases and overexploitation of species. The World Conservation Union says that approximately 7,500 animals are currently considered endangered. But while there's no shortage of endangered animals, most people, if asked to name some, could probably only come up with a half-dozen of the usual suspects (usually including tigers, pandas and whales). Why are we so myopic when it comes to the other creatures that are disappearing?

Conservation biologists currently researching this and related questions put it down to a human proclivity to aesthetic values associated with certain animals - a "cuteness" factor, in other words. David Stokes, a conservation biologist at the University of Washington, focused on penguins in his study, finding that the penguins most popular with the public are those displaying warm colors such as red, orange or intense yellow on the upper body, head and neck. But Stokes says that penguins have it relatively easy compared with other species, whose looks don't seem to resonate as widely with the public. "Penguins are lucky because they are popular with people, especially right now. But that's not true of 99.9 percent of the species out there," says Stokes. "Even the penguin species I found to be among the least appealing to people are tourist attractions."

The success of feature animations and documentaries such as Happy Feet and March Of The Penguins, aside from confirming Stokes' conclusion that we are obsessed with penguins, also shows that humans have a tendency to anthropomorphize nature, and in ways that make animals appear either good or evil (Disney animations being a prime example). Perhaps these depictions also influence how we weigh up the worth of an animal. Stokes says that we tend to favor animals with particular characteristics, especially adult animals that retain baby-like features (neoteny), such as large eyes or a big head, rather than the; "millions of insects and countless slimy invertebrates that occupy the oceans." To a certain degree this must be true, or why would conservation campaigns play the cuteness card when trying to attract donations?

But are conservationist groups shooting themselves in the foot? By only using human-friendly species of animals in their campaigns they may be inadvertently downplaying the enormous rate of extinction that is occurring right under the public's nose. Sure, the volunteers and organizers who doggedly hunt down donations to fund conservation research are to be admired, but perhaps the time is ripe for a change in PR strategy. Maybe it's time that the public was made aware about the plight of the Iowa Pleistocene Snail, or the James Spinymussel, because each is just as necessary to their particular ecosystems as the wide-eyed Cape Mountain Zebra is to its. If an audience can listen to Al Gore discuss the science of climate change for a couple of hours, anything's possible. Right?

But Stokes' main point is the responsibility that each of us has toward natural environments that we have become largely dislocated and independent from, and that these responsibilities should rise above how cute or beautiful we find a species. "The work pretty conclusively shows there is a large difference of appeal among organisms, even among closely related organisms," says Stokes. "For different kinds of organisms, different qualities seem to cause differences of appeal." Stokes cites some clear examples where aesthetic qualities have, for no other observable reason, overridden environmental priorities. He relates how the introduction of mountain goats to Olympic National Park in Washington State led to the destruction of park ecosystems, but, amazingly, the goats have not been removed because of their popularity with the public. Stokes also gives an account of how conservationists went about trying to eradicate the foreign English ivy from public lands, with their attempts ultimately stymied by the persistence of home owners to use the vines as an attractive addition to their gardens.

The message is that we humans need to get over our preference for the aesthetic and become more aware of the necessary role that each animal plays in its natural habitat. "We do have these big differences in how we feel about living things," says Stokes, "and these feelings are going to play a big role in what we choose to conserve." Perhaps conservationist publicity campaigns aimed at educating the public about the extent of the endangered species problem, rather than pushing our cute buttons, would be a good start.

What is the difference between a genetic abnormality and genetic evolution? Is the human body’s adaptability responsible for many of the conditions that we call mental disorders? Researchers concede that the science world is still in the dark about the causes of autism and asperger’s disorder, but they also concede that autism and asperger’s are most likely genetically oriented. Is it possible that in disorders such as autism and Asperger’s we are witnessing evolution at work?

“From my clinical experience I consider that children and adults with Asperger’s Syndrome have a different, not defective, way of thinking,” says Tony Attwood, a clinical psychologist at Griffith University and author of Asperger's syndrome: A Guide for Parents and Professionals. We all have a different perspective on the world from the person sitting next to us, so perhaps autism and Asperger’s are just relative extremes to the much more prevalent mild differences of individual perspective. The information that bombards our brains everyday is analyzed, processed and scrutinized until we arrive at a consistent model of the world that allows us to cope with everyday life. How this happens must rely heavily on how our brains are constructed and how our genes and DNA sequencing determine our final brain composition during embryo development.

Interestingly, Richard Dawkins considers DNA-as-blueprint to be a bad analogy, claiming that using origami provides a much better one. “The main organization of the body is initially laid down by a series of foldings and invaginations of layer cells. Once the main body plan is safely in place, later stages in development consist largely of growth, as if the embryo were being inflated, in all its parts, like a balloon,” says Dawkins. Unlike most balloons, however, “different parts of the body inflate at different rates, the rates being carefully controlled,” Dawkins adds. The important point here is that cells know what to do in reference to adjacent cells. Dawkins claims that cells attract, repel, change shape, die and even secrete chemicals that may affect neighboring cells. “All cells contain the same genes,” says Dawkins, “so it can’t be their genes that distinguish cell behavior. What does distinguish a cell is which of the genes are turned on. Which usually is reflected in the gene products – proteins – that it contains.”

This leaves a lot of scope for variation in individual people, and perhaps external factors affect how genes turn on and off during this embryonic phase. Dawkins says that certain social and environmental conditions play an influential role in how the gene pool is divided. Religion, language, geographical location and social customs all ensure that mating is not just a random process. “I am suggesting that human culture has done very odd things to our genetics in the past,” says Dawkins. However, Dawkins also claims that taking the totality of our genes into account “we are a very uniform species,” and that these so called differences are mostly superfluous.

Recent studies show that autism and Asperger’s are not similar to those gene anomalies that Dawkins describes. Evidence is mounting to support suspicions that autism has genetic roots, and it is not peculiar to specific locales determined by culture or geography and is blind to cultural specifics.

Interestingly, Matt Ridley, author of Nature via Nurture, claims that those with Asperger’s disorder: “are more than twice as likely to have fathers and grandfathers who worked in engineering.” Ridley also says that on a “standard test of autistic tendencies, scientists generally score higher than non-scientists and physicists and engineers score higher than biologists.” Collectively, various experts claim that the prevalence of autism or autistic disorder is 1:1000, and Asperger’s disorder at anywhere from 1:150 to 1:500, depending on what you read. That’s quite a high figure, and it doesn’t include those who fit somewhere in between. On the face of it, then, we are looking at a society that has a full spectrum of ways of seeing and interpreting the world, and these perspectives and abilities might be passed on to our progeny.

A study conducted by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, claimed that no single gene produces Asperger’s disorder. Rather, the commonly accepted model states that it is a result of the accumulation of between five-to-ten genetic mutations. "Having one of these variants appears to approximately double an individuals risk for the disorder, but it is an accumulation of genetic factors that cause the disease,” said Joseph Buxbaum, Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. "Identifying all or most of the genes involved will lead to new diagnostic tools and new approaches to treatment," Buxbaum added. Considering that the disorder affects so many parts of a person’s mental composition, any treatment for autism or Asperger’s may also change the person’s personality in fundamental ways; a point that researchers and medical practitioners might want to think about. Consider this statement from Jim Sinclair, who holds a BA in psychology, has autism himself, and also advocates for those with autistic disorder: “Autism isn't something a person has, or a shell that a person is trapped inside. There's no normal child hidden behind the autism. Autism is a way of being. It is pervasive; it colors every experience, every sensation, perception, thought, emotion and encounter - every aspect of existence. It is not possible to separate the autism from the person – and if it were possible, the person you'd have left would not be the same person you started with.”

Conditions such as autism and Asperger’s raise controversial questions on normalcy in society. If autism is proved conclusively to be biological, there is consequently nothing about autism that can be “cured”, without also changing the person in fundamental ways. But what is normal is also a moot point, and it seems that society and culture have a larger role to play in that respect. Describing the characteristics of certain animal survival techniques, Dawkins says that the “brain needs to construct a mental model of a three dimensional world.” All of these world models are constructed via different attributes like a keen sense of smell or sonar. Could certain conditions that we call “disorders” really be evolution at work?

Chat to any god-botherer about evolution and they'll tell you that it doesn't exist, that there's no such thing. They'll pay lip-service to the scientific elbow-grease that has gone into evolutionary research, but they'll argue that the end product is only ever a "theory." Overlooking the obvious confusion over the term "theory," what these folks are really saying is that there is no physical evidence for natural selection. "Where are the transitional fossils," they point out; "where are the intermediate creatures?"

It's no wonder that so many (mostly American) people still doubt evolution; they just don't know what it means. Their eyes start to glaze over when biologists use terms like alleles, macro/microevolution, genetic drift, and speciation. What the evolutionary naysayers want is some definitive bit of evidence that would prove evolution once and for all – a smoking gun.

Unfortunately, evolutionary timescales don't easily work in science's favor; we can't see a limb turn into a wing overnight. But thanks to new analysis techniques, we can actually document natural selection in its slow-and-steady progress.

Biologists at Cornell University, who have been studying genetic changes occurring in the human genome over the last 15,000 to 100,000 years, have found that over this relatively short period of time the human genome has changed by a staggering 10 percent. "We undertook a very careful study of genetic differences within and among major human groups, and aimed to explain why certain parts of the genome differed," says lead author Scott Williamson, an assistant professor of computational biology. "We aimed to eliminate as many possible confounding variables as possible, and when all is said and done, we find that as much as 10 percent of the genome may have been affected by one of these bouts of recent selection." These changes amount to natural selection at work; the adaptations needed for survival.

The Cornell study goes a long way in identifying the small, gradual changes (microevolution) that demonstrate species divergence from a common ancestor millions of years ago (macroevolution). It makes many human-to-human comparisons throughout the complete human genome; rather than comparing a human to mice or chimpanzees. In this way, it can show how we humans have been changing over time, due to our ancestors being exposed to – among other selective pressures – different climates as they spread across the globe.

One example of the type of change humans have undergone is our tolerance to lactose; or lack thereof, in the case of our dairy challenged ancestors. Lactose is an enzyme found in milk, and prior to the domestication of animals humans did not have the capacity to digest milk after infancy. Some time after humans began migrating and domesticating animals, we developed a gene that allowed us to tolerate consuming milk into adulthood. "As humans have populated the world, there has been strong selective pressure at the genetic level for fortuitous mutations that allow digestion of a new food source or tolerate infection by a pathogen that the population may not have faced in a previous environment," explains Williamson.

Now that scientists are readily identifying genomic changes due to selective pressures, what's next? Would it be too far fetched to suggest that social pressures could affect brain function at a genetic level? At least one study has identified collective behavioral differences between Western cultures like the United States and China, possibly suggesting the beginning of brain divergence among humans.

The study, from the University of Chicago, makes the claim that people living in the United States have difficulties with accepting another person's point of view, which they put down to US culture prizing individualism. They say that in China, where a collectivist attitude is encouraged, quite the opposite is true, with Chinese citizens being much more in tune with how others are thinking. As a result, the researchers argue that there may be more scope for communication confusion among Western citizens relative to citizens of China. "Members of these two cultures seem to have a fundamentally different focus in social situations. Members of collectivist cultures tend to be interdependent and to have self-concepts defined in terms of relationships and social obligations," says Boaz Keysar, a Professor in Psychology at the University of Chicago. "In contrast, members of individualist cultures tend to strive for independence and have self-concepts defined in terms of their own aspirations and achievements."

The team's conclusions may seem a little wayward – perhaps verging on cultural propaganda – but they are based on a very straightforward group cooperation experiment. Teams of Americans and Chinese were pitted against each other whilst manipulating objects on a grid, with one person from each team being the "director," and another acting as the worker, or "subject." Time and again it was shown that the Chinese had a clear advantage; the subject understanding the director's perspective, or vision, as though it were second nature. "Despite the obvious simplicity of the task, the majority of American subjects (65 percent) failed to consider the director's perspective at least once during the experiment, by asking the director which object he or she meant or by moving an object the director could not see," explained Keysar. Comparatively, only one of the Chinese appeared to flounder during the course of the experiment.

"Apparently, the interdependence that pervades Chinese culture has its effect on members of the culture over time, taking advantage of the human ability to distinguish between the mind of the self and that of the other, and developing this ability to allow Chinese to unreflectively interpret the actions of another person from his or her perspective," the study's authors concluded.

While studies with children have shown that the ability to appreciate another's point of view is universal, could cultural pressures evidenced by the University of Chicago study actually manifest as selective pressures? It was the brain that was to eventually separate us from our chimp cousins, so could yet more divergence emerge from the mysterious grey goop between our ears?

http://hubpages.com/hub/How-to-back-down-gracefully-in-an-argument

Homo Superior
By Rusty Rockets

Genetic engineering is getting serious. Recently researchers have shown that otherwise "hardwired" or innate responses, such as fear, can be manipulated and even reversed, that extreme muscle growth is possible, and that sexual preference can be changed. Genetic manipulations like these go well beyond the promised cosmetic enhancements – such as changing skin and eye color – and may in fact allow us to become the drivers of our species' evolution. But are we capable of handling our newfound god status? If we could create a fearless, well-fed, disease-free world, would this lead to a golden age of peace, love, and understanding, or will it be business as usual?

In his 1883 book entitled Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche set out his concept of the Übermensch, or superman, and how humanity should rise above its coarse, beastly nature. So far it has been shown that evolution can be sped up through "synthetic evolution" in the lab, as well as accelerating of its own accord due to the increasing size of the human population. These are amazing developments in themselves, but are still far from the challenge that Nietzsche devised of generating a higher transhuman species. But add to these developments the recent experiments in what you could call "directed selection" – the ability to knockout certain genes to produce a change in behavior or physiology – and we're well on the way to becoming masters of our own destinies.

In August of this year, scientists at the John Hopkins Medical Institution improved upon earlier experiments on muscle growth in both mice and men by creating a mouse with four times the muscle mass of normal mice. The researchers found that the muscle-bound mice become buff when there is an absence of a gene that creates the protein myostatin. But they later discovered that the mice become even more pumped when there is also an overproduction of a second protein known as follistatin. "To my surprise and delight, there was an additive effect," explains Se-Jin Lee, a professor of molecular biology and genetics, who added that the beefed-up mice averaged a 117 percent increase in muscle fiber size, and a 73 percent increase in total muscle fibers compared with normal mice. Lee suspects that there may be other proteins that interact with myostatin that will lead to even greater muscle growth.

Lee can see promising clinical applications for muscle enhancement, such as treating diseases or accidents where there is muscle loss, wasting, or "beefing up" livestock. But what about military, sporting, and cosmetic muscle enhancement? Surely they too will be on the cards. Gargantuan battlefield soldiers, Olympians that you've only ever read about in Greek mythology, and streets filled with muscle-rippling men and women who just want to look like a comic book hero.

But becoming superhuman isn't just about looking like a bag of walnuts. To attain true Nietzschean superhuman status we would also have to be able to keep our emotions in check. And as it turns out, scientists are also well on the way to doing just this, as recent experiments on fear suppression have shown.

Most fears expressed by humans and other animals toward natural predators are believed to be instinctive. Our intense fear of sharks is just one example, and the fear that mice harbor toward cats is another. But experiments conducted at the University of Iowa (UI) during August of this year produced a mouse that shows no fear of cats at all. The UI study, headed by assistant professor of psychiatry John Wemmie, showed that a disruption of a protein known as ASIC1a alters innate fears toward external stimuli such as predator odor, open spaces, and loud noises. "Showing that pharmacologically blocking the channel reduces innate fear behavior, in theory, sets the stage for investigating whether therapies that block these ion channels in humans might be effective in anxiety disorders," says Wemmie. "This study raises that possibility that blocking this protein might be useful for depression as well as anxiety."

More recently, University of Tokyo scientists reported that they are also a step closer to understanding fear, after producing a genetically altered mouse that can get up close and personal with a cat. "Mice are naturally terrified of cats, and usually panic or flee at the smell of one. But mice with certain nasal cells removed through genetic engineering didn't display any fear," stated research team leader Ko Kobayakawa. "People have thought mice are fearful of cats because cats prey on them, but that's not the case."

Both groups of scientists believe that this is only the beginning of modifying strong emotional responses, and it seems that there is now the potential to turn off all kinds of brain states that were once thought to be fixed.

But what would a world without depression, anxiety, or fear be like? While it may be perceived as desirable to rid society of the ghastly feelings of dread and hopelessness associated with these conditions, would such a move be a mistake? Are these conditions necessary to a degree?

Experimentation on sexuality is another example of genetic manipulation that may have far-reaching and unknown effects on society. Heated arguments rage over whether homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" or innate sexual behavior, but now science has shown that there is a genetic homosexuality-switch that can be turned on or off. Neurobiologists from the University of Illinois at Chicago were able to use either genetic manipulation or drugs to turn fruit flies' homosexual behavior on and off within hours. Commenting on experiments that had male flies courting other male flies, lead researcher David Featherstone expressed his surprise at the results. "It was very dramatic," said Featherstone. "The mutant males treated other males exactly the same way normal male flies would treat a female. They even attempted copulation."

It's unlikely that Nietzsche intended his Übermensch to be gay, as he probably thought that this would decrease population levels. Likewise, people who are not gay may view a gay-switch as a "cure" for homosexuality. But what if homosexuality is a necessary trait needed to ensure the survival of the species? Perhaps homosexuality is nature's way of maintaining population levels, by having a percentage of the population attracted to the same sex.

The truth is that we just don't know what effects the genetic manipulations that we put into effect now will unleash on future generations. Only then will we be able to observe the changes to our species, and how successive generations will either benefit or suffer as a result. Philosophers have labored for years over how Nietzsche's prescribed cultivation of cultural and physical traits might transform our values. Who could predict what the consequences of eradicating fear among populations would be? Would such an alteration to the way that we perceive the world bring peace, or would fearless societies lead to greater conflict? Mind you, if we start messing with otherwise innate fears, anxieties, and sexuality, our awareness of such changes may become somewhat muted.

Despite the past horrors of eugenics – which Nietzsche associated with the Übermensch – it's difficult to seriously argue for genetic engineering research to be scrapped altogether, as it's this kind of research that is likely to produce treatments for otherwise untreatable diseases and mental illnesses. But there's undoubtedly a certain amount of risk involved with genetic engineering, either due to unforeseen consequences – such as the contamination of non-GM crops with GM crops – or through deliberate misuse. But the fact remains that if we want to find cures for human ills, extend life, or even change the way that we think, then this will require tampering with fundamental aspects of our genetic composition. Even after animal experiments, nobody can guarantee what the short and long-term fallout from these genetic tinkerings will be among human populations, but do we not proceed because of these unknowns? The risks may be great, but so too are the rewards.

Ever wondered why uncouth, scruffy rock musicians are pursued by legions of doting, lovelorn female fans? Or why women threw themselves at Pablo Picasso? Well, a new study suggests that creativity may confer an evolutionary advantage in finding a mate; indicating that creative types have increased sexual appeal. But paradoxically, people who have certain traits predictive of schizophrenia - a condition not normally associated with evolutionary fitness - also have a higher propensity toward artistic ability. This creative ability, say some evolutionary experts, is far from being a disadvantage, as creativity is highly attractive when it comes to mate choice.

Like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Stephen Pinker, evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller considers sexual selection to be right up there in importance with natural selection. Advocates of sexual selection argue that competition between members of the same sex drives the evolution of particular traits that mates of the opposite sex find attractive. Miller, author of The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature, claims that traits like morality, art, language and creativity, influence the way in which the human mind evolves. It may sound like a stretch, but recent studies show that reliable predictions of mate choice can be made using these kinds of traits as a guide. Before looking more closely at these studies, however, it's worth first considering whether creativity is actually quantifiable.

Neuroscientist V. S. Ramachandran's musings on savants, who display exceptional skills in a very specific field, is illuminating in this respect, as he "unashamedly speculates" that a savant's talents may stem from an enlarged section of the brain called the angular gyrus. "You can imagine an explosion of talent resulting from this simple but 'anomalous' increase in brain volume," says Ramachandran, adding: "The same argument might hold for drawing, music, language, indeed any human trait." Ramachandran explains that this theory is at least in part testable, and points to examples where damage to the right parietal cortex "can profoundly disrupt artistic skills, just as damage to the left disrupts calculation." Ramachandran also considers possible the idea that these esoteric human traits can be attractive to mates in the way that a male peacock's plume is attractive, as exceptional ability in music, poetry or drawing may be an "externally visible signature of a giant brain." Citing Dawkins, Ramachandran argues "that this 'truth in advertising' may play an important role in mate selection."

Despite what seems to be logically valid reasoning, Ramachandran stresses that the talents and specializations associated with the savant are not enough. They will not become a Picasso or Einstein, because they are missing one vital, ineffable ingredient: creativity. "There are those who assert that creativity is simply the ability to randomly link seemingly unrelated ideas, but surely that is not enough," writes Ramachandran. We may have a fantastic grasp of language, and think that we can knock out a half decent metaphor on call, but it is actually harder than most people think. Yet when we come across something truly creative, it speaks volumes to us, "In fact," says Ramachandran, "it's crystal clear once it is explained and has that 'why didn't I think of that?' quality that characterizes the most beautiful and creative insights."

But if creative juices are responsible for an evolutionary advantage, there must surely be some aspect of this seemingly ineffable trait that can be identified as heritable. This brings us back to Geoffrey Miller, who argues that traits such as creativity are a result of personality disorders such as schizophrenia. Yes, that's right; Miller is arguing that what is usually considered to be an evolutionary disadvantage is actually just the opposite.

After conducting their own study, researchers Daniel Nettle and Helen Clegg believe that they have confirmed Miller's assertions, and in doing so have solved a long standing mystery. "There is an evolutionary puzzle surrounding the persistence of schizophrenia, since it is substantially heritable and associated with sharply reduced fitness," the authors begin in their paper entitled "Schizotypy, creativity and mating success in humans", published in The Proceedings of the Royal Society. The authors cite previous studies that claim schizophrenia is associated with poor health and reduced chances of reproduction, but add: "The fact that this does not appear to happen has lead many commentators to speculate that there must be other, beneficial effects of the traits."

Nettle and Clegg state that schizophrenia-proneness manifests in a number of different personality traits collectively known as schizotypy, with schizotypy coming in 4 distinct dimensions. Schizophrenia patients score more highly on all 4 dimensions, say the authors, with schizotypy scores being predictive of schizophrenia in longitudinal studies. The authors also point to studies of people within the creative arts who display increased levels of certain schizotypy traits, as well as a bulging case file of people with psychiatric illness in artistically successful families. Nettle and Clegg believe that there is enough evidence to support the idea that "artistic creativity is a candidate for the evolutionarily beneficial effect of schizotypy."

Studying a cross section of the community which was augmented by a targeted sampling of artists and poets, Nettle and Clegg set about examining the subjects' mating conquests, measured by such things as the length, type and number of encounters each subject had. The study included a mix of the 4 schizotypy dimensions:

• Unusual experiences
  Contains items referring to perceptual and cognitive aberrations and magical thinking.
• Cognitive disorganization
  Describes difficulties of attention and concentration.
• Impulsive non-conformity
  Refers to violent and reckless behaviors.
• Introvertive anhedonia
  Measures lack of enjoyment and social withdrawal.

It was found that not all schizotypy dimensions are advantageous in regard to creative attractiveness. Cognitive disorganization, for example, was not included in the path analysis, because they found it had no significant bearing on creativity or mating success, and introvertive anhedonia was found to have an inhibiting effect on both creativity and the number of mates.

Of the two remaining dimensions, unusual experiences was found to have a positive impact on creative activity, which in turn led to a positive effect on the number of partners, while impulsive non-conformity had a significant positive effect on the number of partners. Nettle and Clegg believe that these results are enough to support Miller's hypothesis that artistic creativity functions as a mating display. "The results are consistent with the view that schizotypal traits are maintained in the human population at significant levels because the negative effects in terms of psychosis and other psychopathology are offset by enhanced mating success."

These findings raise interesting questions. Where do we acquire our receptiveness to creativity and our appreciation for creative works? Is it innate, or are the people exhibiting creative schizotypy traits doing the hard work for us, by presenting reality to us in novel, imaginative and inventive ways? Whether or not we have a natural capacity for creative appreciation, our like or dislike of specific creative works may be primed by prior creative achievements.

One recent study illustrates this point. It examined what is known as "white space" in the advertising industry, and showed that what might appear to be an innate pull toward specific aesthetics in humans has actually been acquired from prior periods in art. In this particular case, the researchers found that our appreciation for white space - and the refined, chic qualities it conveys - harked back to the 1950s minimalist period. They also found that subjects unaware of the origins of white space still appreciated its intended qualities nonetheless. Given these findings, can we conclude that while humans have a capacity for creativity or creative appreciation, that this creativity is influenced by social norms predicated on past creative periods? A creative feedback loop, if you like, that constantly advertises one aspect of evolutionary fitness: creativity.