Pulse Science

 “Man flu” is the social stigma attached to the supposed ability of men to use every little sniffle to over exaggerate and complain about being ill. Many believe that when ill, women will go on with their work days, suffering in silence, whilst men will be curled up under the covers chugging lemsip and over-exaggerating their sneezes.

 But recent research suggests that concerning their immune system, men may be at a disadvantage. Researchers at McGill University, Canada, have discovered that the female sex hormone, oestrogen, puts females at an advantage when fighting off biological pathogens. Studied using mice lacking the gene for the enzyme Caspase-12, which blocks the immune response against pathogens, they were able to determine that the female mice were much less prone to infection when the gene was reintroduced, due to their levels of oestrogen. Oestrogen naturally blocks the production of this enzyme meaning that women’s first defence against infection is much higher than men’s.

 Further evidence from The University of Cambridge explains that this effect may be due to evolutionary differences between men and women. A study published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, in 2010 states that men’s apparent lowered immune system may be due to behavioural strategies, constituting a “live fast, die young” approach, which increases risk taking behaviour, causing them not having been able to evolve an immune system equal to women’s. Furthermore, it was discovered that when above a particular level of exposure to a pathogen, men’s recovery rate decreases due to continual reinfection, “This selects for lower resistance in males, ultimately leading to the counterintuitive situation where males with higher susceptibility or exposure to infection than females evolve lower immunocompetence.”

 Rhinoviruses are those that cause the common cold, and the University of Queensland has found that pre-menopausal women have a higher adaptive immune response to the introduction of rhinoviruses than men of the same age group – indicating that age also has an effect on immune response, as well as sex.

 This revelation could be linked with the speculation surrounding women’s longer average life span than men’s, and may lead the way for new immunological research and treatments regarding oestrogen. It seems that the battle of the sexes is still not over, but perhaps the so-called ‘fairer sex’ should not be so hasty to call out their sniffling counterparts (as they are seemingly more susceptible to infection,) the next time they reach for the Olbas oil and Kleenex, as their biology has betrayed them.

 - Jennifer Toes.

 THE ENDLESS cascade of anti-wrinkle creams, hair dyes to “cover up those pesky greys” and magazines plastered with the images of young and beautiful perfectly demonstrates the obsession of the human race with youth and delaying senescence. Myths of the fountain of youth or the current pop culture obsession with century-old sparkly vampires are no coincidence – we are simply fascinated by the idea of eternal youth or immortality. Many scientists over the years have gone much further than trying to delay senescence by in fact trying to stop it entirely.

 We senesce and expire because our cells reach something called the ‘Hayflick Limit,’ named after Leonard Hayflick in 1961. The Hayflick Limit describes the finite number of divisions which a human cell can make before expiring. No matter how many potions you slather yourself in; you will never resist the signs of ageing completely as all of our cells all possess small lengths of DNA called telomeres which shorten each time the cell divides. Once the telomeres can no longer shorten, the cell will undergo apoptosis (programmed cell death.)

 However, there are some cells able to survive well past the Hayflick Limit – cancerous cells. Cancer cells possess the enzyme telomerase which is able to synthesise new lengths of DNA, continually extending the telomeres. This was observed in the ‘immortal’ cell line, HeLa cells, originally illegally removed from an African American woman in the 1950’s, named Henrietta Lacks.

 The jellyfish Turritopsis nutricula has been reported to return to its juvenile polyp morph from a medusa state, reversing its life cycle. The ability to be able to revert to a younger form before degeneration can allow the jellyfish to evade death, giving it apparent biological immortality.

Nanotechnology has also been closely linked with life-extension services, through suspended animation or cryogenics, the idea of preserving your body (or just your head) to be woken up in hundreds, possibly thousands of years later. Whilst cryopreservation may work on ova, sperm and even hearts, it has yet to yield a successive result using an entire human.

 Molecular Biologist Cynthia Kenyon, of the University of California, San Francisco, has discovered a gene mutation technique in the worm C. elegans that can double its life span. It has been proposed that as different species of animals all have different life spans, it is feasible to assume that this is partly due to their genetics, and we could investigate this possibility for life-extension. These studies could be applicable to humans and are therefore is a great research interest receiving a lot of attention right now. If this gene mutation was in fact applicable to the human ageing process, lifespan may be able to be extended by 5-10% or even more, adding at least ten years to life. The best part about this discovery is that if it were applied, it would not give you an extra ten elderly years, but simply slow down the ageing process entirely, meaning more youthful years.

 A few hundred years ago our average life spans were less than half what they are now, so in this time of rapid technological advancement in the field of life-extension, who’s to say what our lifespan may be in 50, 100 or 1000 years – and could some of us still be around to see it?

- Jennifer Toes

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but when ‘they’ told you science was cool ‘they’ were lying. I wish science was cool. I mean genuinely cool. I understand that public reception of science has improved. We could even suggest that this is the ‘golden age’ for science, a renaissance of some sort. I know the truth is difficult to swallow and deep down in our elated little hearts there is cynic singing out the truth; science is cool to what Stephanie Meyer is to literature.

I finished my Biology and Chemistry A-levels just over a year ago and I can tell you, as a biology undergrad, I’ve never been more relieved. The only reason why I chose to do science at university was the amazing, science online community. I knew science got better than this, but my classmates didn’t.They saw science as a tedious, boring and superfluous subject; a relic of times gone by – who needs science these days when business is much more attractive monetary and career wise?

I remember my first practical as a Biology undergrad. I was stressing myself out, trying to get the right results.  My mind was wrapped around superfluous grades, and I completely ignored the entire point of this practical until my lecturer sat beside me and asked me a simple but powerful question; “why are you doing it like that?” I was dumbstruck, I pointed to the given instructions and he shrugged his shoulders, “how do you know that’s the best technique?” There was the problem.  We were forcing ourselves to memorise answers and no longer inspired us to ask questions.

Science is meant to be revolutionary; it’s meant to be on the cutting edge, the front line of human knowledge. We need to create a new generation of thinkers who can lift our fear of the unknown, ease the suffering in the world and invent more ludicrous dimensions in which to watch predictable Hollywood films. Instead, we have zombie-like teens memorising answers from their revision guides.

Fellow budding scientist, you should never believe in answers. There are no answers, merely suggestions. Everything is made up and everything can be destroyed; even the so-called ‘facts’ you commit to memory. So, wander around blindly, bump into walls and then tear them down.

Educators, I wish you would listen. I know why you don’t. We’re not very serious individuals, confused and wide eyed, wandering around aimlessly trying to put the puzzle pieces of life together. But, shut up and listen. Stop telling us ‘science is cool’. We don’t believe you.  We are confined by your way of learning. Curriculums need to stop being so compartmentalised. We need interdisciplinary values in science. When they intersect, you get to see and make the coolest things, advancing the territories of knowledge and increasing the prospects for future generations.

Let’s experiment. Instead of teaching people how to answer questions, teach them to ask - and listen when they do. Who knows, we might even learn something.

-Aamna

 THE CONCEPT of the zombie apocalypse is pretty darn frequent in pop culture these days – with films like 28 Days Later becoming cult classics, it’s hard to escape the hordes of zombie fiction out there.  But how far away from fact is the fiction?

 There are even a few deluded souls out there that live in bomb shelters with ten years’ worth of ravioli and a shot gun. But in reality, most people scoff at the idea of a worldwide epidemic wiping out mankind, much less the idea of a ‘zombie apocalypse’ – where all infected lose their human consciousness and become violent. However, thanks to recent scientific advances, we’re actually a lot closer to a ‘zombie apocalypse’ than you might think.

 There have been actual documented cases of brain parasites turning their hosts into a zombie-like state. In particular, the parasite D. dendriticum hijacks the intermediate hosts’ nervous system causing it to move to the tip of a blade of grass, allowing maximum visibility by predators. This of course helps the parasite progress to its main host, continuing its life cycle. Similar examples have been observed in Costa Rican spiders, when bitten by a parasitoid wasp. The spider, Plesiometa argyra, has larvae deposited into its body that cause it to weave a silk cocoon for its captors before being killed. It is frightening to think that a parasite could hijack our entire nervous system, causing us to do things beyond our control, even take over our consciousness. Does the idea of a zombie infection seem so farfetched now?

  The virus seen in ’28 Days Later’ is known as the ‘Rage virus,’ which causes its hosts to become uncontrollably violent and lose coherent thought. There are a few infections out there that present symptoms not a million miles away from the fabled ‘rage’ virus. Specifically, the rabies virus causes aggression and psychotic symptoms including paranoia, hallucinations and delirium. Both animals and humans can be infected by changing their brain chemistry. Rabies seems to be the most logical vehicle for an infection resembling a ‘zombie’ outbreak – there’s the aggression, the mindlessness and the fact that it spreads through a bite.

 Furthermore, there was been a case of ‘zombification’ reported in 1980. The Haitian man, Clairvius Narcisse, was found eighteen years after his supposed death, claiming he had been drugged by a neurotoxin and had spent the time in a ‘dream-like’ state, with no will of his own. But there are many sceptics to this story.

  Our moods are controlled by our hormones – the reason SSRI’s are prescribed for depression and why anti-psychotic medication is so effective. The pattern we see here is a change in the nervous system or brain chemistry and any parasite that can hijack them is going to survive. They are vicious little organisms that can alter your perception and behaviour, causing you to do dangerous things. We are only a few neuro-pathways or hormones away from a complete behaviour reversal – so next time you watch a zombie film, remember that you should probably start saving up those twinkies, just in case.

- Jennifer Toes.

Lady Gaga’s “born this way” is blasting in the background as I type the newest article in Pulse Science. Coincidence? Not when Gaga is involved.

As a student studying genetics, I’ve been interested in a topic that many scientists find too controversial to talk about. I’ve been interested in finding out about this so-called “gay gene” and the questions it poses.

Can human sexuality be explained by Biology? Is there a gene that determines our sexuality? If so, what does this mean for the future?

If sexuality can be explained by genetics alone, then many arguments by anti-gay protestors to block equal rights bill will lose all its force.  I can’t really see the logic in continuing to discriminate against a group of people if homosexuality is biologically determined. (However, I get the feeling the religious right will still a find an excuse to continue being  ………. I’m sure you’re creative enough to fill in the blanks)

In the summer of 1993, Dean H. Hamer and his research team at the National Cancer Institute announced their discovered evidence of a connection between genetics and some male homosexuality. By constructing family trees in instances where two or more brothers are gay, and performing actual laboratory testing of the supposed homosexual DNA, Hamer located a region near the end of the long arm of the X chromosome that likely contains a gene influencing sexual orientation.

Men receive an X chromosome from their mother and a Y chromosome from their father (women receive two X’s, one from each parent), therefore it is assumed that the possible gay gene is inherited maternally. Mothers can pass on this gene without themselves, nor their daughters, being homosexual. A parallel study of lesbian genetics is yet incomplete; and the present study of gay men will certainly require replication and confirmation to render indisputable proof

The media had a field day. There were sensationalised reports that a so-called gay gene has been found. Huzzah! But then the criticism began flooding in. Many of the limitations in the data are a reflection of the difficulties in conducting studies with so many political and social ramifications.

Over 10 years later, where is science on human sexuality? Well, everything is still pretty grey. It might always be. No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, Research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.

Would we even want a gay gene to be found? Dr. James Watson, 68, who helped discover DNA, reportedly told the London Sunday Telegraph: “If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn’t want a homosexual child, well, let her (abort the fetus).” 

Other sceptics envision a bleak future where people living in oppressed Heterosexist societies are scanned for this “gay gene” and eradicated.

On the other hand, a homosexual man could claim that homosexuality could not be judged immoral, on the grounds that it is natural. A cross-national study in the United States, the Philippines, and Sweden found that those who believed that “homosexuals are born that way” held significantly more positive attitudes toward homosexuality than those who believed that “homosexuals choose to be that way” and/or “learn to be that way”

It’s all speculation for now and will remain so for a while.

Even if scientist never discover a gay gene, there are far more important ethical questions we should be asking ourselves. Does our biological predisposition toward a specific behaviour in itself make that behaviour moral or immoral? 

And why should one group’s view on morality determine how millions of people live their lives?

-A

Thank you so much for all the support

Because you’re worth the truth.

We all want moisturising cream to hydrate your skin. And they do. They all do that. That expensive cream you use is no more effective than a tub of Vaseline.  Most creams actually aimed to get the effect of Vaseline without all the greasiness and they have. Job well done. But, cosmetic companies didn’t stop there.

I think it’s important to first explain how the skin actually works. The skin is meant to be a barrier. It’s meant to protect you by stopping things from getting in. Yet, hundreds of face cream claim that smearing their product on your face will make the skin “soak it up” and those good cells will take it in, and make a difference on your appearance! I’m afraid this is not the case. The skin is meant to be impermebale, so it doesn’t do much “absorbing.”

The temporary tightening you feel after applying an anti-wrinkle cream is not a miracle.  These creams contain long chains of amino acid, which momentarily contracts and tightens when applied on your face. The key words in this paragraph are “temporary” and “momentarily.”

Words like Regenium XY technology, Nutrileuim and ATP Stimuline claim to be the “magic ingredient.” Here is some groundbreaking news for you… They’re not.

Here’s the thing about science, it shouldn’t be a mystery. There isn’t any magic involved. Science is the intimate relationship between theory and experiments. But cosmetic companies have gotten away with bad science for decades.  They use words like “toxins”, but never explain what these so called toxins are. They are quiet about their methods, so scientists are unable to test them so peer review is thrown out the window. Worse, they use untestable theories and focus more on their so-called “good” results.

Cosmetics companies hide behind people in white coats and use words not familiar with the general public in order to sound “sciencey”, thus giving credibility to their products.

Repeat after me: cosmetics creams are not the answer to my problems.

Want to look and feel good? Don’t take any shortcuts. It’s all about exercising, eating your greens and being well rested. 

-A

Animal Research is a controversial topic that is regularly splashed on front-page news. The latest is a call from Animal Aid asking the British public to stop funding some of our biggest charities. This includes Alzheimer’s Society, British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK and Parkinson’s UK. The work of these charities is important, but the question remains: are animals a victim of charity?

When it comes to animal research, many people advocate the three “R”: reduction, refinement and replacement.

Reduction

• Reducing the number of animals used in experiments by:
• Improving experimental techniques
• Improving techniques of data analysis
• Sharing information with other researchers

Refinement: 

• Refining the experiment or the way the animals are cared for so as to reduce their suffering by:
• Using less invasive techniques
• Better medical care
• Better living conditions

Replacement

• Experimenting on cell cultures instead of whole animals
• Using computer models
• Studying human volunteers
• Using epidemiological studies

But, we have to ask ourselves; do we have a right to experiment on animals?

First, we need to take a step back and look at what makes a ‘right’ in science and philosophy. Science is a study based in empirical evidence, so right and wrong is demonstrated by testing hypothesis. In philosophy, the question of what makes something is a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ lies on two important things: assumptions and consistency. 

As humans, we assign moral value to ourselves because we can respond to stimuli and sense. According to some people if an organism cannot feel or experience what happens to it, morally, from the point of view of the organism, it is not important what happens to it. Following from this argument it is logical to conclude that moral status must be granted based on sentience. Therefore, as most animals are sentient, have sensation, can feel pain, pleasure, and experiences matter to them from their perspective, they must have a moral status and by definition they deserve some sort of respect. We therefore have a responsibility to not expose them to unnecessary suffering or cruelty. However, does moral status equate to rights and fundamentally a right to life?

Most of us would be horrified at the idea of killing humans due to overpopulation and damage to the environment - many would argue this is exactly the state we find ourselves in - yet few would suggest a human culling. Nevertheless, the government has recently announced a badger cull and Scilly Islands back plans to poison brown rats. Is there then a difference between humans and animals and if so what is it?

The most critical claim when debating the definition of a right is claim. I can claim a right not to be killed by someone else and in return, they can claim the right not to be killed by myself, however it would be absurd for me to claim the right to not be attacked by a lion. There is a significant difference here. A lion is not a moral agent. To be a moral agent, one must be able to reflect on decisions and evaluate whether they are or were based on good reasons. If a lion were to attack, we would not hold it morally responsible in the same way we would a person.

This theory of ethics is far from perfect and has come under criticism for exclusively assigning rights to those who have responsibilities despite the fact we appear to endow people with rights who have no responsibilities and no duty to acknowledge our own rights. For example, were someone convicted of murder but pleaded insanity and it was found they were incapable of making a moral assessment , it would obviously be ridiculous to deem them not responsible morally and therefore free from punishment, however they would almost certainly have some element of their right to freedom retracted.

Animals are incapable of assessing their own beliefs and actions and so cannot meaningfully either give their consent to be killed or to deny it. The argument that its inability to give consent does not mean that it is not entitled to a right to life is flawed, to follow it to the extreme would result in the granting of rights to plants, bacteria and any living organism as well as inanimate object � after all a blade of grass or a rock cannot give or deny consent yet it would be bizarre to argue that they had any entitlement to rights. The right to life must be based on whether an organism is capable of making a meaningful reflection on whether it should live or die and then giving or denying consent.

Alison Hills has defended animal research, stating, “Defenders of animal rights are correct to say that a prejudice towards your own species is wrong, just as racism and sexism are wrong. They go on to conclude that animals and humans have equal rights. However, this is a mistake. Humans of all races and all sexes have equal rights because they are equal in ways relevant to having those rights: they can use their vote, they can do the same jobs, and they can give or withhold their consent to what happens to them. Animals are not equal to humans in these ways.”

So, do animals matter to scientist? Many scientists have declared that denying animals a right to life in no way is there an advocating of harming, killing or allowing animals to unnecessarily suffer. It is NOT a natural step to say that as they do not have a right to life they can therefore be killed.

Animals have a moral status, we must remember that what happens to them matters; the reasons for killing must outweigh the reasons for not; these reasons truly are numerous as well.

Just as animals cannot give their consent regarding their life or death, they cannot give it in terms of medical research. Whereas people can consent to an experiment - and many regularly do - and therefore their wishes should be respected. The Declaration of Helsinki, usually regarded as the document, which defends the foundations of human ethics, supports this stance, suggesting that animal research can be morally justified on a basis of consent if the benefits are great enough.

Animal Aid claims “Animals do not get the same diseases as we do and different species react very differently to drugs and procedures. Drugs that are shown to be safe in animals have often later proved to be dangerous in humans, while valuable cures and treatments can be missed if they fail in animal tests.”

Understanding Animal Research has responded with ”Obviously there are differences between animals and people. But under the skin, the biology of humans and other animals, particularly mammals, is remarkably similar. We have the same organs, controlled by the same nerves and hormones, as many other species. Where there are differences, researchers know about them, and such differences can actually help scientific understanding of a particular problem.Many animals suffer quite naturally from the same diseases as humans, and can be used to study those diseases. In other cases, researchers can use an ‘animal model’ of a disease which is close to the human condition.”

Undoubtedly, scientific research must be heavily regulated as indeed it is within the UK by British as well as European law. Wherever possible non-animal research methods must be used.  A ban on all animal research is not plausible. However, we do need to develop replacement methods for testing the toxicity of new drugs etc. I would recommend more dialogue between campaigners and scientists. People who believe that ‘alternatives’ can replace animal research need to speak to a scientist. Do you really believe that people would experiment on animals if there were another way? 

The Editor of Nature magazine Adam Rutherford explains, “Scientists who reluctantly use animals because they, as experts, feel that there are no better alternatives.” He goes on to say that; scientists “don’t do this for fun. In many, if not most cases there are no alternatives. Cell cultures are cheaper, easier and not painful to work on. If there were viable cultures, then we would be using them.” The fact of the matter is “Alternatives are always sought, and reduction of numbers is a prerequisite in the granting of any animal research license. But animal research is essential.”

We open this debate to our readers: Animal testing for medical research… Yay or nay?

-A

GREGOR MENDEL is undoubtedly a bit of an A-list celebrity when it comes to the study of genetics. He is responsible for the revered model of Medelian genetics and is a major part of the understanding of the theory of evolution, championed by none other than Charles Darwin himself. Without Mendel’s significant contribution to genetics, much of what we know about the natural history of mankind and all other currently living (and long dead) organisms may be a mystery.

 Mendel’s work was primarily based around the genetics of a pea plant – whether that be height, pea colour, pea texture, or flower colour. He bred pea plants of different genetic traits to observe the traits inherited by their offspring. Before Mendel’s work was widely publicised and accepted, it was thought that the genetic traits of the parental generation were ‘blended’ together to form the traits of their offspring. In the case of the pea plant, this method of inheritance suggests that a short plant bred with a tall plant would produce a plant of medium height. But this mechanism proved problematic in the pattern of inheritance for many studies – how would distinct characteristics reappear in later generations, if they had been blended together in a previous generation?

Mendel’s paper “Experiments on Plant Hybridization,” published in 1865, provided the answer to this problem and proposed the existence of discrete units of inheritance, also known as ‘genes’.  In the example used in the diagram below, Mendel crossed a tall plant (TT) and a short plant (tt) which created an F1 generation of ‘Tt’ plants. However, as you can see, the ‘Tt’ plants were not a blend of both traits (a medium height,) but in fact were all tall and the short trait seemed to have disappeared.

Still, Mendel went further allowing the F1 generation to self-fertilise, creating an F2 generation, in which the short trait reappeared. We can clearly see that the short trait did not disappear nor was it blended away, but rather continued in future generations. This was an interesting observation, and seemed to suggest that some traits were dominant over others – in this case, the tall trait observed in the F1 generation seemed to be dominant over the short trait. Mendel concluded that both parents must each contribute one of two factors to the inherited characteristics of their offspring. Thus Mendel’s laws were born:

1. The Law of Segregation – Alleles (different versions of) a gene segregate from each other into gametes (sperm or ovum.)

2. The Law of Independent Assortment – Alleles do not affect the segregation of other alleles, as they segregate independently.

 There are still a few exceptions these laws, particularly the law of independent assortment; as in more recent years we have observed genes that are linked and therefore do affect how they are assorted. Understanding the pattern of inheritance has greatly helped the study of evolution, as if ‘blending’ were to occur, how would any trait become superior to another?  Without this knowledge we can be certain that the current information available today for the study of evolutionary theory would be greatly diminished.

Happy Birthday, Gregor! 

- J

WE ALL enjoy watching a variety of crime shows such as Criminal Minds and The Mentalist. We pride ourselves in guessing who the villain is, but could you spot out the psychopath in your office?

The latest research has revealed psychopaths are more common among the highest tiers of the corporate world,and scientist are hot on the trail to discover new methods of spotting them out.

Babiak, an industrial psychologist, was hired by seven different companies to help assess whether their employees were good enough for a promotion. While he tested their performance and overall potential, Babiak was permitted to use the Hare Psychopathy Checklist – the psychometric test typically used to assess whether criminals have psychopathic tendencies.

The Psychopathy checklist measures 20 traits of psychopathic behaviour – such as superficial charm and pathological lying. Each trait on the checklist is given a score out of two, before being added up to give the individual a score out of 40. A score above 30 classes the person as a psychopath

 He was in for a shock when he discovered that out of the 203 people he tested, one in 25 of them were classified as psychopaths. Why is this figure so startling? Its four times the number you would have expected to find in the general population.

A closer analysis of the data showed that those ID’d as psychopath have a good impression on their co-workers. Babiak tells BBC Focus “The Company’s in-house evaluations of these people often said stuff like ‘this guy/gal is a team leader – innovative, bright, can be trusted, lights up the room when they step in, and so on.”

But, how do the brains of psychopaths differ from a “normal” brains? It’s definitely not the easiest thing to spot, because there are no clear cut lines. New research underway at a prison in New Mexico could tell us what’s inside the mind of a psychopath. Doctor Kiehl proposes that psychopaths have a defect in an area of the brain known as the para-limbic system – a network of brain structures that work together to detect and understand emotion. They’re also thought to control our inhibitions and our attention.

Kiehl scans the prisoner’s brains with a MRI scanner, and during the scan the individual classed as a psychopath is asked to weigh up a serious moral dilemma – like whether they should divert an out-of-control tram to hit a bus full of schoolchildren or one headed to a retirement home. Interestingly their  brain doesn’t seem to work as expected. Their amygdala should be horrified at this hypothetical disaster, but the scans reveal that it remains cool and collected in psychopaths. In fact, the more severe their psychopathy the less this part of the limbic system seems to react.

So could you spot out the psychopath?

 20-point Hare PCL-R:

Item 1 Glibness/superficial charm

Item 2 Grandiose sense of self-worth

Item 3 Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom

Item 4 Pathological lying

Item 5 Cunning/manipulative

Item 6 Lack of remorse or guilt

Item 7 Shallow affect

Item 8 Callous/lack of empathy

Item 9 Parasitic lifestyle

Item 10 Poor behavioural controls

Item 11 Promiscuous sexual behaviour

Item 12 Early behaviour problems

Item 13 Lack of realistic long-term goals

Item 14 Impulsivity

Item 15 Irresponsibility

Item 16 Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

Item 17 Many short-term marital relationships

Item 18 Juvenile delinquency

Item 19 Revocation of conditional release

Item 20 Criminal versatility

—A

We are a bit photoshop-challenged and in desperate need of a logo, it would be much appreciated!

Click here to submit or email it to us at pulsescience@hotmail.co.uk

Thank you! :)

This is Jen, the newest member of Pulse!

I’m so excited to take on the challenge of contributing to this blog, and an article of mine will be up as soon as my lazy self finishes it.

See you on the flip side :)

- Jen