Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeControl concerns
Posted by TogetherinParis on 07 Jun 2013 at 18:11 GMT
Congratulations on a breakthrough paper! I have only a couple of trivial quibbles. Auto-emissions/auto-receptions went uncontrolled. Of course, no one has ever controlled for this, so it may be a new idea to everyone. The brush border pheromone sensing areas covering about half of the upper respiratory system should have some isolation from other non-experimental semiochemical sources. By covering each subject's own axillae with petroleum jelly or by placing an odorant barrier between those pheromone receptive surfaces and the subject's own (and experimenter's own) armpits, the sensitivity of pheromone recognition might be more pronounced. With isolation of the pheromone reception areas of the upper respiratory system and the gut from axillary pheromone sources, behavior changes, sometimes dramatically, too, over the course of a few days.
Of course, the concentrations of test chemical are non-physiological, but given the lack of distraction control, larger concentrations allowed statistically significant changes. Good job of overcoming a significant experimental difficulty! Bravo!