Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Possible Love Molecule? 81

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the love-doctor-is-in dept.
aychamo writes "Psychiatrists from Pavia University have associated early romantic love with a biochemical known as nerve growth factor (NGF). Apparently, levels of NGF in the bloodstream were significantly higher in subjects who were in the early stages of romance than individuals not in a relationship. Interestingly, "subjects in love who--after 12-24 months--maintained the same relationship but were no longer in the same mental state to which they had referred during the initial evaluation" did not have elevated NGF levels."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Possible Love Molecule? More

Possible Love Molecule?

Comments Filter:
  • perhaps this is what tipped cupid's arrows?

    maybe it could be a real dating service... pay to have someone fall for you via remote administration of this love chemical.
    • I'd like to see the development of the love bomb.

      Riot breaks out, and instead of tear gas they love gas them.

      Civil war in wherever? Drop the love bomb!

      • love bomb

        I believe that's called Tequila.

        • Re:cupid's arrow (Score:4, Informative)

          by sgant ( 178166 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @06:38AM (#14145832) Homepage Journal
          I would say more fights break out due to large amounts of tequila than just about anything else. Well, beer being number one followed very closely with tequila.

          Worse yet, tequila usually means fights with vomiting involved.

          Hardly a "love bomb"....unless you're into that kind of thing.
          • u must be from a really wicked neighbourhood .... over here, tequila is quite expensive so people who can afford it usually don't go as low as fighting and vomiting after "overdrinking" ....

            we have cheat vodka for that ...

            and tequila with all it's drinking traditions (lemon, salt etc.) is much more fun and romantic than most of the other drinks
            • tequila with all it's [sic] drinking traditions (lemon, salt etc.) is much more fun and romantic than most of the other drinks
              And don't forget the worms.
              There's nothing more romantic than worms.

      • Love bomb (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dpilot ( 134227 )
        You know this would never fly, and the reason is simple.

        Look how much violence gets on US tv, and what happens? A little muttering about violence, and then more violence. But just watch Janet Jackson's nipple show on TV, and watch the fan REALLY turn dripping brown.

        If we were to drop the love bomb on a rioting crowd, it just might work effectively. Then there might be that REAL crisis, public nudity and some of them might even *gasp* have sexual intercourse.

        Remember, this is the same society that is conside
      • Drugs that help prevent feelings of love for a partner would be extremely useful at rape crisis centers and battered women's shelters, as you could use them to help keep the girl from going back to the jerk.
      • You mean this [newscientist.com]?

        This love bomb basically
        would make enemy soldiers sexually irresistible to each other. Provoking widespread homosexual behaviour among troops would cause a "distasteful but completely non-lethal" blow to morale
        • > would make enemy soldiers sexually irresistible to each other. Provoking widespread homosexual behaviour among troops would cause a "distasteful but completely non-lethal" blow to morale

          A distasteful but completely non-lethal blow.

          Time to post a picture of that damned owl again.

    • Re:cupid's arrow (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      funny, researchers have known for years about oxytonin (sp?) and elevated levels of that during hte first year or so of a relationship. it is also released during orgasm and childbirth (to help endear the child to it's mother suposedly). or so i've read.

      as far as NGF...i'd much prefer a new girlfriend.

      • Re:cupid's arrow (Score:3, Informative)

        by Slime-dogg ( 120473 )

        It is oxytocin, which is the female bonding / lactating chemical, not to be confused with oxycontin. ;)

        There is also PEA (phenylethylamine), which is an anti-depressent / stimulant that is present in higher concentrations during the beginning stages of a relationship (and obtained from chocolate too!). I would venture to say that this chemical has far more addictive qualities than NGF.

  • Strangeness from the wiki:
    Nerve growth factor (NGF), the prototypical growth factor, is a protein secreted by a neuron's target.

    Researchers at the University of Florida at Gainesville have discovered that wounds bathed in NGF healed twice as fast as untreated and unlicked wounds. NGF is found in the saliva of mice. NGF has not been found in human saliva.
    - end wiki quote begin late night music free association

    molecule of love, molecule of love
    mol ... e ... cule of love - apologies to Lou Reed

    You c
    • I can see the infomercials right now, "Billy Mays here. I've got this great product to tell you about. Love juice, it's freshly juiced daily... from rats."
    • I have heard of wierd things being used as aphrodisiacs and this is no exception. Wether or not NGF in your bloodstream would cause feelings of love or are simply the result of some other aspect that causes love remains to be seen. I suppose it is too early to start breeding mice, but if it is proven there will be good money in mice saliva ( or extractions thereof)

  • Just Curious... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ieshan ( 409693 ) <ieshan@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @02:26AM (#14145142) Homepage Journal
    I'm not trying to sound like a smartass - and I really think this is a neat discovery, to isolate an associated molecule, perhaps - but did anyone with a serious biology background really believe that a neurally modulated social interaction that had obvious and enduring systemic physiological effects *wasn't* associated with circulating factors or hormones?

    I mean, there's a systemic effect that's present for a limited duration. I'm not trying to "ruin love", but why should it have worked any differently?
    • Yeah, no kidding, "finding out" that love might be just another biological response is almost as bad as George Lucas pulling the whole "midichlorian" concept out to explain how jedis get their powers! Yech!
      • I'd like to offer congrats to the parent for being the first in this discussion about love and relationships to make a Star Wars reference.

        Everyone knows the true way to get someone to fall in love with you is to hand them a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster. The effect of which is like having your brains smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped round a large gold brick. So it's pretty much like getting married.
    • This logic is the reason anyone is even doing this kind of research. So, yes, you're absolutely right. It makes sense. The government doesn't fund research that doesn't make sense (mod me +1, Funny if you deem appropriate, but I'm being serious).

    • Re:Just Curious... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by blincoln ( 592401 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @04:28AM (#14145500) Homepage Journal
      I mean, there's a systemic effect that's present for a limited duration. I'm not trying to "ruin love", but why should it have worked any differently?

      I agree.

      In my experience, infatuation (which I guess could be misrepresented as the "early stages" of love) is virtually indistinguishable from an addiction to recreational drugs. The evolutionary reasons for it seem pretty obvious - inspiring a driving need to mate with someone is a good way to ensure reproduction.

      • Yeeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw!

        You darned commie liberals with your anti-God science. You're hot darn diggity dog gonna ruin every All American Holywood storyline and put a mult-eye-billion dollar industry out a busness.

        There should be a federal law against that kind a talk.

        Git ta Gitmo you commie liberal athiest muslim terrorist scum sucker gay faggot.

        Time for my pills...

    • I mean, there's a systemic effect that's present for a limited duration. I'm not trying to "ruin love", but why should it have worked any differently?

      If humans would accept the fact their consciousness is nothing more than chemical reactions and nothing really special, then it wouldn't such a big deal.

  • From the cursory look provided by the artice, this seems like horrible science, and something more likely to be 'reported' around the first or second week of february.

    There was no study of the 'affected' people who fell madly in love to determine if this chemical was in their blood before they fell in love. There is just as likely a possibility that those people had the chemical in their blood the whole time. In this case, love is the result of the higher presence of the chemical, and not the cause. This s

    • Re:more bad science (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Hannah E. Davis ( 870669 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @02:38AM (#14145205) Journal
      I agree with the point that you're making, however, the study does seem to strongly indicate a causation relationship. From the summary:

      "Apparently, levels of NGF in the bloodstream were significantly higher in subjects who were in the early stages of romance than individuals not in a relationship."

      If love was the result of the presence of this chemical, as you suggested, we would expect to see a high level of the chemical in at least a small percentage of the individuals who were not in a relationship at the time of the study. This small percentage would represent the people who were ready to fall in love/enter a relationship but had not yet done so. Since the higher levels were found only in people who had recently fallen in love and not in the other groups, including those in long term relationships, the data seems to indicate that it was falling in love/starting a relationship that triggered production of the chemical.

      Of course, a larger study would be needed to more confidently state that there is such a causation relationship, but from what little I've read of this study, there IS some evidence leaning towards that conclusion.
      • Maybe levels of the chemical rise after the person in question meets their prospective partner, causing a particular relationship. In that case, there would not be a group of people who are ready to fall in love. The study may deliberately discard those subjects who were not in relationships at the beginning, but were at the end of the test.

      • If love was the result of the presence of this chemical, as you suggested, we would expect to see a high level of the chemical in at least a small percentage of the individuals who were not in a relationship at the time of the study.

        Actually, I would bet that the researchers did see a high level of the chemical in at least a small percentage of the individuals who were not in a relationahip at the time of the study. The key word here is significant(ly)- this implies only that statistical testing was

    • repeat after me, "Correlation does not imply causality".

      It does imply probability, though.

      • No. It doesn't:
        • Large % of those in love owned cars (implying cars cause love)
        • Almost helf of those in love were male (you tell me what it means :-)
        • Small percentage of those in love owned telescopes (implying telescopes make falling in love unlikely)
        • Large % of those in love had eaten at McDonalds (implying McDonalds causes love)

        That's why negative samples, control groups that isolate the issue under test, repeatability and more are much more significant than correlation. Correlation, by itself, is

        • No. It doesn't:

          Actually, it does. Your examples still imply causality, which it doesn't. :-)

          For example, you say: Large % of those in love owned cars (implying cars cause love)

          In this case, you'd have two groups - one which has cars and another which doesn't. If the percantage of people in love within the "has cars" group is significantly higher than in the "doesn't have cars" group, then you can say that "having a car may help find love." If the difference is small, however, you can say it probably ha

          • Sigh. Follow the thread. Those examples were BAD examples; the parent to my post was talking about probability. I was giving examples of MISinterpretations, in order to disprove that assertion. My fault, I should have quoted the parent and spelled it out. Sheesh.

        • Re:more bad science (Score:2, Informative)

          by mattwarden ( 699984 )

          No. It doesn't:

          Um, yes it does.

          Large % of those in love owned cars (implying cars cause love)

          What? No. It does not say that cars cause love. In fact, parent specifically said he was talking about probability. Your example implies that cars and love are related. It doesn't imply that love causes one to have a car, nor the other way around. It could very well be that both love and ownership of a car is caused by a third variable, like wealth.

          # Small percentage of those in love owned telescopes (im

          • None of those has anything to do with causation, necessarily. Nor does correlation suggest causation.

            That's what I said. I suggest you read for content. :)

            • You preceded your examples with an argument "No, it doesn't" to parent's point. I did read for content.
              • Parents point was that correllation implies probability of causuality.

                My examples show (being obviously wrong) that correlation does not imply probability of causuality, by demonstrating several highly correlated issues that have no bearing on the sample conclusions.

                I tried to made it clear that this was what I thought with the first line, so there would be no doubt what I was doing in the list of examples.

                Either I really don't understand your point, or you really didn't understand mine. I'd like to r

                • The way I took the "implies probability" comment was that the implied probability is probability of predictability. In other words, if A occurs, I can say with x probability that B occurs. From my vantage point, you inserted the "of causality". Obviously, I cannot speak to what the comment was really talking about, since it didn't specify the object of the probability.
                  • I understand now. The original comment in the parent of the message I replied to (and quoted in it) was: "Correlation does not imply causality" That message then said, "It does imply probability, though." In this case, the "it" must mean "correlation", agreed Hence my comment -- "No, it doesn't."
                  • You're correct, Matt. That's exactly what I meant. I seem to have chosen my words somewhat poorly.

    • Re:more bad science (Score:2, Interesting)

      by mattwarden ( 699984 )

      repeat after me, "Correlation does not imply causality".

      Usually I don't have to reduce my threshold so low to find this comment. It's always there. Anytime science is performed that deals in correlation, someone has to make this comment.

      Unfortunately, to me it just makes me feel like you don't understand what correlation is. Of course it doesn't show causality. So it's useless? Give me an area of science that doesn't use correlation ever, and I'll show you an area of science that's so obvious it's not i

      • Re:more bad science (Score:5, Insightful)

        by el_womble ( 779715 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @05:19AM (#14145627) Homepage
        I don't think thats the point. Its more that correlation is the science equivalent of vaporware, or "Wake me up when you've got causation".

        Reports of a new correlation between events in the popular press just confound the general public who don't understand science, and assume that because a scientist finds this correlation interesting it must be true. This is proved frequently on Slashdot, where otherwise normal geeks, who have an above average understanding of science (that's a scary thought) are thrown into a frenzy of panic when somebody says something like "High concentration of caffiene in the blood is found to reduce attraction to women".

        I'm not saying Joe 'Karma' Whore should get +5 Insightful everytime they state the obvious, but it would appear that Correlation != Causation can't be said enough when dealing with the public.

         
        • Correlation is not just vaporware. Correlation is an important part of scientific discoveries. When it comes to certain sciences like psychology, causation is very important, because people are looking to solve real world problems. But in other fields, scientists are happy just to find a correlation. You see correlation is a good tool for prediction. Take F=ma, for example. Now this law doesn't state that force causes acceleration, or that acceleration causes force. Rather, it states that they are c
      • What's wrong with a study that finds that there is a relationship between X and Y and should be studied further?

        Nothning is wrong with further studying that. However, that is not what this study does.

        As I said, it takes a physical measurement, and then forms a hypothesis. This hypothesis is then used as the 'result' of the study. Therefore, bad science.

        Im not making a judgement on the usefulness of this data, just the procedure.

    • So why did the people lose the elevated levels of NGF after they "settled" into their relationship?

      And of course they're testing people who are not (yet) in love and hope to re-test them should their status change, but hey, give them time. It's not like working with mice; people falling madly in love is not something that happens on anyone's schedule! Yes, it would be nice to watch someone's NGF levels spike as they are falling madly in love, but it's not like you need that before the data suggests a caus

    • I'm even willing to do the testing myself. All I need is:

      * Siringes (5cc, 10cc, 50cc - just in case)
      * 1 truckload of NGF
      * around 1000 georgeous women (more is always better with statistics)
      * some privacy while conducting the experiments.

      *Please* let me sacrifice my life for science!

  • Cause or effect? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Vo0k ( 760020 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @02:32AM (#14145184) Journal
    Well, the levels rise, but are they the source of the feeling or more like effect of it?

    Tell me why the stars do shine
    Tell me why the ivy twines
    Tell me why the sky's so blue
    and I'll tell you why I love you.

    Nuclear fusion makes stars to shine
    Phototropism makes ivy twine
    Rayleigh scattering makes sky so blue
    Sexual hormones are why I love you.
    • My guess is that it is more likely to be an effect. All biochemical and biophysical regulations in human body are done by brain (at least for those, who has it): blood pressure, adrenaline level etc. By regulating this parameters brain tells body to be more alert, more calm, move faster etc. For example, when you are scared, brain signals "more adrenaline" and heart starts beating faster => you can move (run away) faster. The same with this hormones: brain decides that someone is an appropriate sexual ob

  • In other news... (Score:3, Funny)

    by quest(answer)ion ( 894426 ) <admin.mindofmetal@net> on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @02:40AM (#14145217)
    Research links high blood-content levels of the molecule NGF (nerve growth factor) to frequent delusions or hallucinations, impaired judgment, and a strange speech defect known only as "infantilation," characterized by--among other things--the inability to pronounce the consonants /l/ or /r/.

    Researchers disagree on the exact effects of the dangerous compound, but have all stressed its perception altering characteristics, and have pushed strongly for stricter FDA standards concerning amounts found in consumer products. Hallmark, for example, would be required to either blow up its card factory or allow warning labels on every card.

  • NGF? (Score:1, Troll)

    by AtrN ( 87501 ) *
    "Nerve Growth Factor"? Bullshit. More like "New Girl Friend". Pork like bunnies till it hurts too much.
  • Does the chemical produce the feeling of love, or does feeling in love produce the chemical? Anyone want to donate their brain to science? You'll get it back...I promise.
  • i know if we love each other, a lot of period maintained by both. the ngf make sense, tell us why most of lover in 1 years.
  • You insensitive clods! I thought my relationship was meaningful and deep now its just some chemical that will be gone after a year!

    • You insensitive clods! I thought my relationship was meaningful and deep now its just some chemical that will be gone after a year!

      Eh, so what. Before, your love was powered by alcohol; now it's powered by NGF. BFD.

  • Ah, the bloodstream. (Score:5, Funny)

    by dirtsurfer ( 595452 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @03:59AM (#14145419) Journal
    For the first few months the molecule proliferates throughout the body as NGF phase 1, also known as the "New Girl Friend" molecule. After a set period of time, it transmutes into NGF phase 2, known as "Noticably Getting Fatter". This phase change causes a dramatic decrease in the desire to have sexual intercourse and initiate conversations, eventually leading to the end of the relationship.
    The cycle may then begin a new with a new parter.

  • Logical next step (Score:3, Funny)

    by Dr. Spork ( 142693 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @04:04AM (#14145438)
    If I were on the research team, my next step would be to inject cool single women with NGF and do long informal interviews to figure out what happens. Maybe there'd also be wine. You know, for science!

  • Great! (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    That's absolutely fabulous. Now they can develop an antidote and add it to the drinking water like fourine...

  • News for Joe Blow. Stuff that's wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Seehund ( 86897 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @04:58AM (#14145577) Homepage Journal
    Why does Slashduh keep insisting on trying to report on the life sciences when it (the editors and story submitters) are so obviously clueless about the topic?

    To begin with, why the fuck is there a link to totally idiotic misinterpretations in the popular mainstream media [yahoo.com] instead of a link to an abstract of the original article in Journal of Psychoneuroendocrinology [nih.gov]?

    Needless to say, the Yahoo!/Reuters article was awful.
    "The powerful emotions that bowl over new lovers are triggered by a molecule known as nerve growth factor (NGF), according to Pavia University researchers."

    No! The researchers said no such thing at all!
    They said that they have shown that there's a high plasma level of NGF in subjects who have recently fallen in love. That is all, and it's not surprising or ground breaking. We already know that love (and other emotions) are associated with varying levels of growth factors in general and neurotrophins in particular, along with a host of other changes in our chemistry. For example, here [nih.gov] is a study showing that kissing affects immune responses by way of NGF. NGF is no "love molecule" any more than it is a "stress molecule" or a "healing molecule". NGF does not cause love or kissing! Quit being sensationalistic retards!

    Slashdot supposedly reports "news for nerds, stuff that matters". Then why is it OK to report laymen's misconceptions about "love molecules", when it would be unacceptable to propagate e.g. laymen's misconceptions in the mainstream media about "hackers", or calling a harddisk a "virus device" (only because it can also store computer viruses)?
    Why is it OK to post biology news from Yahoo! instead of from the original source, when a submission containing just as vague, dumbed down and incorrect news from Yahoo! about e.g. the Linux kernel would never get published here (other than for comedic effect)?

    I humbly suggest that Slashduh should quit reporting on other sciences than technology. You'll obviously never get it right or even know what actually is the stuff that matters in those news.

    • Re:News for Joe Blow. Stuff that's wrong. (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I humbly suggest that Slashduh should quit reporting on other sciences than technology. You'll obviously never get it right or even know what actually is the stuff that matters in those news.

      As a fellow(?) biologist, I totally agree. Not only are most of the things found in the Science section here wrong, uninteresting, irrelevant or misrepresented old news, but judging from the number of comments to the stories, people just aren't interested. The average /. reader seems to only read this section when there

      • Ok, so, a suggestion (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Julian Morrison ( 5575 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @07:54AM (#14146073)
        Being an interested layman, I don't want to read junk science anymore than you, a scientist, want the public to be dog-ignorant. Slashdot is Slashdot, it's arse for trustworthy info, but often interesting for comments. Rather than trying to reform the incorrigible, why not get together with a few other like minded scientists and start publishing your own competitor Slashdot-style blog of "genuinely interesting but real and undistorted science news"? I'm sure there's plenty of it out there to be told.
        • Or just convince Taco et al to hire a dedicated science editor who knows his stuff? Seems like there's definitely a need for one.
        • You might be interested to know that some climatologists did just that; its called ReadClimate [realclimate.org]. A vast improvement over the usual "AGW is going to kill us all! No its not! I don't understand a damn thing about testing hypotheses about complex systems, but I have a strong opinion anyway! Those dumb scientists are forgetting about water vapour - where's my Nobel Prize?!" gibberish that attends any climate posting here.

  • Simple mechanism (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Nature makes sure that a couple stays at least paired up for the time until the mother has fully recovered from birth.

    That's a relic from (wo)mens eary days, with no birth control and morale in society: you fall in love, have sex, have a child. Thats how nature intended it.

    Not that it isn't uncool, that there is a special molecule involved ;-)

  • Love molecule (Score:3, Funny)

    by FidelCatsro ( 861135 ) * <fidelcatsro@gmaDALIil.com minus painter> on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @07:06AM (#14145912) Journal
    "Love Molecule" is something really insulting to say about someone's manhood
  • It's not you, it's my Nerve Growth Factor! We can still be friends, right?
  • From my (admittedly brief) glance at this, it would seem to indicate this increase in NGF could just as easily be a result of the relationship, rather than a cause- sort of a "love makes your nerves grow" sort of thing.

  • Opposite Meaning? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ElitistWhiner ( 79961 )
    Is there an opposite effect like a NGF killer protein responsible for modulating behavior in humans in the absence of love? Does that mean that people going through divorce, love lost, heartbroken or the Thrill is Gone are equally biologically driven by some whigged-out molecule?

  • Soma? (Score:1)

    by dlvu5 ( 661576 )
    "Hug me till you drug me, honey; Kiss me till I'm in a coma; Hug me, honey, snuggly bunny; Love's as good as soma."
  • It seems likely that it would be an advantage to have a mechanism to encourage long term memory building during such a time, as falling in love does represent a major permanant change in ones day to day life, and one would do well to learn as much as possible during that time. I'm not saying I am aware of a link between NGF and mamory creation or retention, just that it would make sense.

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close