Author: justinzaluk

Justin Zaluk

Professor Vejdemo-Johansson

HON 223

22 November 2021

“Here’s How Long the Perfect Hug Should Last, According to Science”

        After searching for a recent piece of scientific advancement, I uncovered the New York Post article “Here’s How Long the Perfect Hug Should Last, According to Science ”, by Hannah Sparks. It was published on November 17th, and documents a study performed by scientists at Goldsmiths, University of London. Researchers attempted to gain a better understanding of what defines an ideal embrace, and the effects such an interaction may have. After gaining forty participants, they assigned a partner to each of them and were blindfolded, directing them to hug in intervals of one, five, or ten seconds. Furthermore, each embrace was done either in a “criss-cross” or “neck-waist” form, with participants reporting their feelings after zero, three, and six minutes. The author explains how after this data was collected, it was revealed that five to ten second embraces of any form had a larger positive impact than longer ones. The researchers hope to use this revelation to better understand the “factors that influence hugging evaluation and behavior” and how this plays into one’s emotions on a larger scale. Sparks also explains how such a common interaction can have so many underlying factors that define it.

        The peer-reviewed research paper that is associated with this article, titled “The influence of duration, arm crossing style, gender, and emotional closeness on hugging behaviour”, was published in the journal Acta Psychologica. This paper explains the study in greater detail, first describing the lack of information regarding a hug’s effect on emotions and stress. Additionally, it initially illustrated the power calculations that determined how a sample size of forty eight women would be sufficient for results to be obtained, along with it being approved by the local ethics committee. A visual diagram exhibits the specific procedure that took place, with each participant performing a “pre-hug self-rating”, receiving the first hug, and listening to an audiobook to measure their attention. This process was repeated two more times, with three participants being excluded for not performing the hug interval correctly. Visual bar graphs show how one to ten second hugs of either criss-cross or neck-waist style induced the most pleasure and positive feelings, at about seventy percent. The paper thoroughly explains any limitations, such as women only being considered, and whether or not the environment contributed to the decision of what style of hug would be used. Finally, it briefly explains a second experiment that contributed to this, involving both men and women. After one hundred three hugs were observed, it was further supported that short, criss cross embraces between both genders resulted in the most pleasurable feelings.

        After analyzing the New York Post article and published paper in great detail, it became clear that similarities and discrepancies were prevalent. As an example, when comparing Spark’s article with the contents of the paper’s abstract, it was noticeable how both summed up the results and methods of the study in an easy, legible way. However, the New York Post article focused mainly on the first experiment, and did not mention the second one in as much detail. Aside from this, if I had not read the paper, the article still would have provided me with a sufficient amount of information. In comparing the paper itself to the article, more discrepancies became clear. Not only did the paper mention various limitations, but it also included visual charts and diagrams that were not available in the article. It was also able to include more information, as each experiment was separated into the sections “participants”, “procedures”, “measures and conditions”, “results”, and “discussions”. These differences were minor, as both publications still gave necessary general background information, along with the way that these studies can be used in the future. As a whole, Hannah Spark’s article, along with the research paper, allowed me to understand a new instance of scientific progress and compare it in numerous ways.

 

Works Cited

Dueren, Anna L., et al. “The Influence of Duration, Arm Crossing Style, Gender, and Emotional Closeness on Hugging Behaviour.” Acta Psychologica, vol. 221, 2021, p. 103441., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103441. 

Sparks, Hannah. “Here’s How Long the Perfect Hug Should Last, According to Science.” New York Post, New York Post, 17 Nov. 2021, https://nypost.com/2021/11/17/heres-how-long-perfect-hug-should-last-according-to-science/. 

Justin Zaluk

Professor Vejdemo-Johansson

HON 223

8 November 2021

“Scientists Pinpoint Personality Traits that Increase Risk of Alzheimer’s”

        The scientific news article “Scientists Pinpoint Personality Traits that Increase Risk of Alzheimer’s”, published by the New York Post and written by Vanessa Chalmers, conveys an intriguing scientific discovery that is based off of a peer reviewed research paper. As a way to give some background regarding this prominent topic, the article explains the five major categories of personalities that researchers look at when considering mental health. These “conscientiousness”, “agreeableness”, “neuroticism”, “openness”, and “extroversion” personality types involve individuals that range from compassionate and calm, to anxious and depressed. Chalmers goes on to elaborate how a group of scientists conducted a study known as the “Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging”, in which three thousand individuals participated in a complex personality assessment. These researchers performed brain scans on the participants a year later, searching for evidence of tau and amyloid proteins around brain cells, which are both largely connected to gradual memory loss. The article explains how it was revealed that the neuroticism personality type displayed higher protein buildup, when compared to the more calm-natured conscientious members. Although Chalmers makes it clear that correlation does not necessarily mean causation in this case, this revelation can be helpful in exploring the lifestyles of neurotic and conscientious individuals. As a result, new links to the causes of Alzheimer’s, the most common form of dementia, could possibly be revealed and studied in greater detail.

        The aforementioned scientific study was reported in a peer-reviewed research paper posted in the journal Biological Psychiatry, and is titled “Personality associations with amyloid and tau: Results from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging and meta-analysis”. Throughout the first section of this publication, a general background involving the five personality types, along with their theorized link to dementia, is briefly explained. However, the nature of the Baltimore Aging study is displayed in greater detail. Older adults, free of dementia and other major diseases, were the only individuals that participated. The research team describes how one “PET” brain scan was taken for tau and amyloid proteins, within a year of the personality self-assessment. The tau PET scans involved the F-AV-1451 radiotracer to look for the protein, while the amyloid scans used the PiB compound, over a seventy minute duration. In a visual table, the paper reports the results of the study, which included higher measured volumes of tau and amyloid proteins in participants that were identified with neuroticism. Finally, the paper expands on important limitations of the study, and how it could improve in the future. This includes utilizing a wider and more diverse sample group, as well as more extensive studies of the tau protein, combined with observer ratings. This could produce more accurate results, and allow for the underlying causes of Alzheimer’s to be better understood. These findings also referenced and reviewed twelve existing studies involving dementia and personality, allowing the information conveyed to be more precise.

        Many discrepancies, similarities, and unique aspects can be found when viewing both the research paper and Vanessa Chalmer’s article. For instance, the paper’s abstract and content of the article can be specifically compared. Both pieces of text include a brief background, method, and results that catch the reader’s attention and use simple terminology. Although the abstract delved deeper into “positron emission tomography” (PET) brain scans, it sums up the study in a coherent way, allowing the reader to focus deeper on the research paper if desired. The research paper, which was relatively easy to find after reading the New York Post article, had more notable differences than the abstract. As an example, specific measurements such as confidence intervals, length of brain scanning, and protein volumes were all used as supporting evidence for the discovery, and were not located in the article. Furthermore, the previously mentioned limitations are crucial to understanding the trustworthiness of the study, and were not published in the brief article. Aside from this, similarities were present as well. These included extensive descriptions of the five main personality types, as well as how they can give insight into an individual’s lifestyle. All of these similarities and differences between the article, abstract and paper itself did not take away from the study being described. This instance of scientific advancement allows for new theories to be made involving the prevention or treatment of Alzheimer’s in the future.

 

Works Cited

Chalmers, Vanessa. “Scientists Pinpoint Personality Traits That Increase Risk of Alzheimer’s.” New York Post, New York Post, 1 Nov. 2021, https://nypost.com/2021/10/28/scientists-pinpoint-personality-traits-that-increase-risk-of-alzheimers/. 

Terracciano, Antonio, et al. “Personality Associations with Amyloid and Tau: Results from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging and Meta-Analysis.” Biological Psychiatry, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2021.08.021. 

 

Justin Zaluk

Professor Vejdemo-Johansson

HON 223

18 October 2021

“This Parasite Turns Plants Into Zombies”

        The article “This Parasite Turns Plants Into Zombies”, produced by Veronique Greenwood and published by the New York Times, caught my interest after searching the internet for a scientific news item based on a published research paper. This intriguing article begins by briefly explaining the transformations brought upon an adolescent mustard plant, affected by what is known as Aster Yellows phytoplasma, a type of parasite. Greenwood continues by providing details regarding the effects of such a parasite on plants it brings under its control. In this case, the mustard plant was placed into an eternal state of youth, with long, “witches’ broom” shaped stems protruding from it. In an effort to better understand and uncover the source of such a unique phenomenon, scientists from the John Innes Centre in England performed a study honing on the phytoplasma’s tactics. The news publication states how the team revealed that a protein known as “SAP05”is the main culprit in the long-lasting youth of these plants. By binding on to plant proteins, it is possibly also protected due to a longer life span and increased resilience to “stress of an infection”. When wrapping up, the article also details how such a finding from these researchers may help in the protection of crops, as these types of parasites can cause widespread destruction, resulting in many other financial and health related issues.

        Linked to the previously described New York Times article was the scientific research paper that was formulated and published by the John Innes Centre scientists. It was published on September 17, 2021, on Cell, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and is titled “Parasitic modulation of host development by ubiquitin-independent protein degradation”. Throughout the introduction of this paper, background information regarding other prominent parasites is conveyed, addressing the idea that the causes of “host modifications” need more information to be fully understood. The first part of this study involved applying SAP05 to a plant named “RPN10”, and observing its effects. It was noted that fertility was “compromised”, and the plant grew oddly shaped flowers and stems. Additionally, the study goes on to describe attempts made to manually give plants resistance to the SAP05 protein. The team successfully altered nucleotides within the genes of plant RPN10, thus achieving resistance to SAP05. However, the research paper illustrates how this is not necessarily beneficial, with better reactions to infection coming from fauna affected by the parasite. The paper wraps up by describing the limitations of this study, which included limited “gene targeting tools”, as well as an assortment of other symptoms that has to be noted for each plant subject. Furthermore, the results displayed that 26 of the 32 tested plants developed typical SAP05 effects, affirming the scientists hypotheses that this protein is responsible for the creation of these “zombie” plants.

        Both the New York Times Article and published research paper shared numerous similarities and discrepancies that differentiate them from each other. First, when compared  strictly to the abstract of the paper, their content agreed. The main points that paralleled between both included the effects of SAP05, ability to engineer plants to resist them, and background of plant parasites. They each served as a general overview that provides the reader with a basic yet coherent understanding of the study at hand. The paper’s abstract did use some more scientific classifications when compared to the abstract, but this difference was minor. Most discrepancies, while still few, were present when the article was analyzed with the paper itself. As an example, in the results section of the research, the scientists detailed how SAP05 led to certain degradation in “the 26S proteasome”, and gave a more in depth look at the reduction of plant development issues. These were not mentioned in the article, making it a notable difference. Furthermore, the limitations of the study, as well as numerous visual charts, were available within the paper, but not Greenwood’s article. When searching for comparisons, I noticed that the potential uses of this discovery were found in both, which included “Phytoplasma SAP05 effectors may enable a more direct TPD technology”. Clearly, this news item explains an important revelation in the scientific community. The article seeks to provide a quick understanding of the topic, while the research paper can be used to analyze data on a deeper level.

 

Works Cited

Greenwood, Veronique. “This Parasite Turns Plants into Zombies.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 1 Oct. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/science/zombie-plants-parasites.html. 

Huang, Weijie, et al. “Parasitic Modulation of Host Development by Ubiquitin-Independent Protein Degradation.” Cell, vol. 184, no. 20, 17 Sept. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.029. 

 

Attached below is the link to my scientific news article source #1.

Justin Zaluk HON 223 News Article Source #1 (1)