Oxytocin: The Hormone of Hype, Hope, and Healing

By Shweta Sahu

Due to his work interrogating the role of certain chemicals in vole behavior at Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Dr. Larry Young has come across the problem of his results being portrayed hyperbolically, as the science sometimes goes to fictional lengths. Yet this work has important implications for mental health. To demonstrate this exaggeration as well as its potential, I am going to address: 1. the buildup of the oxytocin hype, 2. the translation of the research and 3. the ethical implications in humans.

Prairie voles, image courtesy of Flickr user theNerdPatrol

Oxytocin and pair bonding

Dr. Young researches oxytocin (OT), a neuropeptide known to be involved in birthing and associated with maternal bonding, and his lab utilizes voles as an experimental model. Their research was founded upon on the idea that prairie voles are highly social, bi-parental, and monogamous by nature while meadow voles are less social, uniparental, and promiscuous. They investigated differences in oxytocin receptor distribution in the brains of prairie voles and meadow voles and found that in the monogamous prairie voles, there are more oxytocin receptors in the reward system of the brain. Young and colleagues then injected oxytocin antagonists into the nucleus accumbens (NAcc), an area implicated in bonding and reward. They found that prairie voles, whose oxytocin receptors were blocked, would not bond when they mated.

In 2004, Dr. Young began studying the neuropeptide vasopressin. The vasopressin receptor gene (Avpr1a) is expressed in another reward area, the ventral pallidum, which was previously associated with pair bonding in monogamous prairie voles. He then expressed this gene into the ventral pallidum of the promiscuous meadow voles. With the "new" vasopressin receptors, the meadows voles subsequently bonded monogamously like the prairie voles. This experiment showed that a fundamental aspect of behavior can be transformed simply by altering a single gene in an animal.

By this time, Young's research with voles was published in high-impact journals such as Nature. As a result, some media articles made exaggerated claims suggesting that the research was applicable to humans, though Young and his team never said that. The media came up with several catchy titles such as "Monogamouse," and "Genetics could keep Mickey and Mini together," and "Love is a drug for prairie voles to score!" It also brought about the question of "the fidelity gene."

From voles to humans?

The results of the vasopressin and oxytocin research, along with their potential applications in products and the insights gained into the workings of the human body have inspired numerous press releases and even several further scientific studies. In an interesting turn of events, the media coverage inspired Nature to ask Dr. Young to write an essay about love. This signified a transition for Dr. Young wherein he shifted to thinking about the translatability of his work to humans: could a human mother's love be all that different from a chimp or macaque mother's love, which in turn is not all that different from a vole mother's love? Thus, his work at Yerkes shifted to a focus on humans, and his lab sought to discover whether early life experiences can affect our ability to form bonds later in life. Additional research in this area included modeling of depression-like symptoms in voles after the loss of their pair bonded partner and studies of consolation in these animals.

Maternal affection, image courtesy of Wikipedia

The research of Young and his team contributed to a growing body of data suggesting that oxytocin is the pair bonding hormone, not to be confused with the love or “cuddle hormone." In all the OT hype, Dr. Young and others realized that oxytocin had important applications beyond inducing labor and pair bonding in humans and other mammals. Oxytocin is critical in its role with social affiliation more broadly. In fact, one study found that oxytocin increases gaze and the ability to maintain eye contact. Another study showed that oxytocin enhances the brain reward system responses in men when viewing the faces of their female partner; when husbands were put in scanners and viewed pictures of their wives, the same brain regions are activated in humans and in pair bonding voles.

Oxytocin nasal spray?

One particularly interesting study discovered that the administration of intranasal oxytocin spray in humans can increase trust. This, in turn, led to the production of oxytocin-filled perfumes for people to apply externally, and these "Sniff of Trust" products are available on the market. Examples include: Attrakt, Attrakt for Her, and Connekt, though there is no scientific evidence that has supported their efficacy or even the theory that high enough doses from people's clothes are able to pass the blood brain barrier and have any kind of significant effect (the best method to reach the desired effects of oxytocin remains to spray it intranasally). Advertising descriptions include calls to "Wear Connekt and be your true, uninhibited self" and to "Enhance Personal Relationships, Enhance Workplace Bonds, Improve Confidence, Increase Positive Self-Awareness, Experience More Empathy." The ratings for Attrakt for Her got 4.1 stars on Amazon Marketplace and some high praise, most notably one by Valerie Evans:

"I have been using this secretly for about a week. I wanted to see if it affected my husband of 18 years at all. I think it did. He has been a lot more attentive and cuddly the last few days. Every time I turn around he wants a hug, or just wants to hold me. No complaints here :D There is no fragrance to this that I can smell which I love so you can wear it with your regular perfume."

Applications for autism?

Perhaps the most hot button topic in oxytocin research is that it has been implicated as a potential therapy in autism spectrum disorder (ASD), which is currently untreatable with pharmacotherapy. Dr. Young notes that researchers are currently working to find a way to get the brain to stimulate an increase in release of oxytocin by means other than the use of chemical sprays. Moreover, some studies have found that increased concentrations of oxytocin in the brain have increased emotion regulation, eye gaze, and ability to interpret nonverbal facial expressions in patients with ASD.

Eye gaze, image courtesy of Wikipedia

According to Young, this, in turn, incites the ethical consideration of whether parents are justified in seeking intranasal OT to treat their autistic children and whether physicians should be allowed to prescribe intranasal OT to their patients if they deem this appropriate. He also asks, should we use oxytocin to promote sociality beyond just those with ASD? Is this a form of cosmetic pharmacology?

Some people have even begun self-administering oxytocin as well as to their children, regardless of whether they have a confirmed diagnosis or not. An Amazon commenter posted:

"We use this on our 6 year old son who maybe on the spectrum. He has terrible meltdowns and has had problems socially. This works as a miracle cure – sometimes. Sometimes he is engaging and interactive, patient, kind, loving, amazing. Others he still has meltdowns.

"This isn’t an approved treatment but works better than language or sensory therapy ever did on the same issues. Plus it helps him sleep. All in all – definitely amazing."

Experts recommend parents to wait until more is known about the long term effects of using oxytocin to treat ASD and other prosocial disorders, but still, "some parents of children with autism have asked doctors to prescribe it... or have purchased lower-dose versions of the drug over the counter." After one clinical trial, one 15-year-old patient with Aspergers was given intranasal oxytocin and he immediately started giggling. "Since then, his parents started buying low-dose over-the-counter oxytocin spray, which they keep at home and with the high school nurse." The patient even notes, “When I’m really stressed or sad, pretty quickly I start feeling a lot more calm. It sort of disrupted the thoughts that were making me nervous.”

Applications for Psychotherapy?

Another ethically controversial scenario Dr. Young raised was the possibility of using OT to promote trust in patients such as for psychotherapy. I’d add that we can venture and ask what this means for the future of healthcare. In accordance with the study that found that oxytocin increases trust, we can theoretically make anyone more trusting, and this has potential applications in all fields! If OT makes people (from any vocation or background) trust more, then patients may open up and tell their doctors and psychiatrists the full extent of their symptoms. In situations outside the medical field, it is possible that investors could look to invest their money in people or corporations they can trust; maybe we could have more effective lawyers once they have 100% trust in their clients, and perhaps everyone wins.

As expected, though, there are many ethical issues to take into consideration before we start entertaining the notion that we can chemically induce trust. Many, including patients in this context of healthcare, often have reasons to withhold trust or choose to cultivate trust over time. Would oxytocin truly enhance or deteriorate the patient-doctor therapeutic alliance? We must ask ourselves, could this actually do more good than harm? Would it be worth it in the grand scheme of things to chemically induce trust or are we fine the way we are, since we have evolved to only produce and utilize a certain amount of oxytocin in our bodies? Could oxytocin assist in positive social interactions in general, even in people who don't specifically have any diagnoses of ASD or another disorder? Might it even be used for cognitive or moral enhancement? Even now, while the science continues to evolve, there is no shortage of oxytocin consumer products. There is a risk that if consumer use continues to outpace the evidence, then the full therapeutic potential of oxytocin may never be realized. In summary, Dr. Young's research provides many examples of how creative basic science research can have a tremendous impact for human populations and the importance of scientific engagement with the media to optimize translation and communication of the key messages.

Want to cite this post?



Sahu, S. (2016). Oxytocin: The Hormone of Hype, Hope, and Healing. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on , from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2016/05/oxytocin-hormone-of-hype-hope-and.html

Response to “Society Does Not Make Gender” by Dr. Larry Young and Brian Alexander

"A queer symbol of new gender image"

by Finnish artist Susi Waegelein

At the beginning of August, Ruth Padawer published a piece in the New York Times magazine about gender non-conforming children and parents. Last week, Dr. Larry Young of Emory University and science writer Brian Alexander (who are publishing a book together, The Chemistry Between Us) published a response to the article, in which they argue, essentially, that gender is biologically hardwired into the brains of fetuses by the organizational effects of hormones. They go on to implicitly endorse what has been called the “brain sex theory” of transgender identity/behavior. According to this theory, hormones organize the sex/gender of the brain much later than they organize the sex/gender of the genitals, allowing for a discordance to develop between the two (Bao 2011).



Admirably, Young and Alexander use the brain sex theory to argue for an acceptance of gender non-conforming children. They write, “so rather than seeing threat, we should embrace all shades of gender, whether snips and snails, sugar and spice, or somewhere in between.” However, there are (at least) four major problems with their argument: they essentialize gender; they uncritically embrace human brain organization theory; they uncritically embrace the double-edged sword of essentialism on behalf of transgender people; and they selectively (mis)use evidence about intersex and transgender people to support an ideological claim about the innateness of gender differences.





Essentializing sex/gender



In their post, Young and Alexander write, “Society -- toy makers, churches, parents, fashion magazines -- does not make gender.” They go on to argue, “Such [hormonally driven brain] organization, not advertising, is why boys, as a group, are more likely to shoot a doll full of BBs, while girls, as a group, are more likely to dress dolls and "nurture" them.” They also chastise most feminists for trying to “ignore real differences between typical boys and girls.”

Do these things really not make gender?

Photographs by Janet McKnight

I’m going to assume for the sake of my own sanity that what Young and Alexander meant was “society alone does not make gender.” If that’s what they meant, I agree wholeheartedly. Feminist sciences studies scholars view sex/gender as the product of a continuing interaction (or “intra-action” as Karen Barad puts it) of biological and social factors, within a larger framework that sees the biological and the social as co-constitutive.

If Young and Alexander meant (improbably) that “society does not at all make gender,” then I refer them to the fields of history and anthropology, which have spent decades accumulating evidence that ideas about gender vary across time and culture, and that different ideas about gender influence how people think, feel, and behave as gendered beings. I would also point out that evidence of average differences between populations of boys and girls or men and women do not, in themselves, confirm the innateness of gender as even infants adapt themselves to the gendered contexts in which they find themselves. And if you believe that in today’s world, infants, children and adults are no longer socialized into gender roles, then I refer you once again to Cordelia Fine’s excellent book, Delusions of Gender, in which she uses substantial evidence, primarily from cognitive science, to argue that gender stereotypes are very much alive and well and that these stereotypes powerfully influence our feelings, thoughts, and behavior, often unconsciously.



Uncritical embrace of human brain organization theory

Image from Harvard University Press

Young and Alexander write, “Unfortunately, neither side [those who encourage gender diversity and those who oppose it] seems to have heard of something called the Organizational Hypothesis.” Unfortunately, neither Young nor Alexander seems to have heard of the serious critiques that have been made of the Organizational Hypothesis in regards to humans. The most comprehensive critique has been made by Rebecca M. Jordan-Young in her book Brain Storm: The Flaws in The Science of Sex Differences (2010). In the book, Jordan-Young reviews the more than three-hundred scientific studies conducted between the late 1960s and 2008 on the organizational hypothesis in humans. She concludes that the evidence from these three-hundred studies is too disjointed and even contradictory to provide real support for the claim that sex/gender or sexual orientation are “hardwired” into the human brain prenatally by the action of hormones. According to Jordan-Young, in the three domains with the most evidence for hard-wiring – feminine and masculine sexual behavior, sexual orientation, and sex-typed interests – different scientists have used such different definitions of, for example, “feminine sexuality” that different studies cannot actually be said to support one another.

I don’t have the space here to summarize the entire book. Slate has a slightly longer summary here. I would recommend the book to everyone and especially to scientists conducting research in the field of brain organization theory. Even if scientists end up disagreeing with Jordan-Young’s analysis, it at least needs to be reckoned with, which Young and Alexander clearly have not done.



Uncritical embrace of the double-edged sword of essentialism



In another post for the Neuroethics Blog, Cyd Cipolla talks about the “double-edged sword of essentialism” and sexual orientation. A number of gay-rights supporters have argued that scientific evidence for the innateness of homosexuality (a gay person is “born this way”) should lead to an increase in acceptance for homosexuality. However, as Cyd points out, depending on your already formed beliefs about homosexuality, you could also use scientific evidence for the innateness of homosexuality either to develop biological/medical “treatments” for homosexuality or to conclude that homosexual people can’t be “fixed” and thus should be eradicated. At the same time, calling for gay rights on the basis of the innateness of homosexuality excludes from the conversation those gay people who do not believe their sexuality is innate (remember the furor over Cynthia Nixon’s comments?).

Classic "born this way" argument for gay rights

Are they also are referencing the hypothesized relationship between sexual orientation and handedness?

Picture by Photo Munki

As in the case of sexual orientation, some transgender activists have argued that transgender people are “born this way” and thus should be accepted by society. Some trans activists and allies have specifically used the “brain sex theory” to support their claim that transgender people are “born this way” (e.g. “A Conversation with Milton Diamond, Ph.D.” in The Phallus Palace). This is basically the claim that Young and Alexander make, arguing that gender non-conforming children should not be forced to conform to expectations “in opposition to their wiring” as “in the end, our brains will out.”

However, as in the case of sexual orientation, this plea for acceptance on the basis of innateness is double-edged sword. The “brain sex theory” could also be used to develop biological/medical “treatments” for transgender identity/behavior. At the same time, arguing that gender is fixed before birth (even if arguing that gender may be incongruent with chromosomes and/or genitals) may exclude gender-fluid people from the conversation (to my knowledge, the brain organization theory doesn’t account well for gender fluidity, if I’m wrong, please let me know).



Selective (mis)uses of evidence about intersex and transgender people to support an ideological claim about the innateness of gender differences



Some feminist scholars and queer theorists have used intersex people or transgender people as evidence to support arguments about the social construction of gender (for a critique, see Invisible Lives by Vivian Namaste). Alternatively, a number of scientists have used intersex people as evidence to support arguments about the innateness of gender differences. Both uses are problematic if the ideological lens employed in any particular argument obscures the complexity of intersex or transgender lives.



In their post, Young and Alexander use studies of people with 5-alpha reductase deficiency (5-ARD) to provide evidence for the innateness of gender (people with 5-ARD are exposed to male-typical levels of androgens prenatally, but appear to be female until puberty, at which point their bodies become more male-typical looking). Jordan-Young extensively critiques the interpretation of studies of people with 5-ARD offered by brain-organization theorists (see pages 66-69). Of the use of any study of intersex people to support brain-organization theory, Jordan-Young writes, “the controversy recounted above highlights the difficulty in deciding whether psychosexual differences among intersex people are due to the direct effect of hormones on the brain, or to other factors like indirect effects on behavior via the development of atypical genitals, or the experience of illness and multiple surgeries” (78).

Young and Alexander also reference androgen-insensitivity syndrome so I am including this picture again:

"Women with AIS and related DSD conditions who want AIS to be represented by real, proud people instead of stigmatizing pictures where the face has been removed"

Image by Ksaviano

Although Young and Alexander don’t quite argue that transgender people provide evidence for the innateness of gender, some studies have made precisely this claim (e.g. Garcia-Falgueras et al. 2011). As in the case of the use of intersex people as evidence for gender-innateness, I believe the use of transgender subjects as evidence gender-innateness often obscures the complexity of transgender lives. Ironically enough, some of the gender non-conforming children described by Ruth Padawer don’t seem to be well accounted for by the “brain sex theory.” One boy, Alex, switches back and forth between feminine and masculine dress and behavior. A second boy, Jose, went through a long period during which he wanted to dress and behave in “girly” ways. By age 9, he was much less interested in wearing dresses, although he still liked to play with dolls. Understanding these complex lives requires understanding the role of ever-changing ideas about what are appropriate dress and behavior for boys and girls and the role of biology in the production of sex/gender identity and behavior.



A simple plea



In sum, while I agree with the main conclusion of Young and Alexander’s post (that we should embrace all shades of gender), the way they make their argument is problematic as it essentializes gender, uncritically accepts human brain organization theory, bases a call for transgender acceptance on biological essentialism, and (mis)uses studies of intersex people to support an ideological claim about gender essentialism.

Image from Routledge

In other blog posts, I have encouraged neuroscientists to contribute thoughtfully to public discussions about gender and sexuality. Neuroscientists can perform an important service by explaining neuroscience research to the public and by reflecting on the ethical and/or policy implications of this research. To this encouragement, I would add another: neuroscientists who want to participate in public conversations about ethics and policy would do well to engage with scholars in other fields, especially the social sciences and humanities, who are working in similar areas. For example, I would encourage Young and Alexander to consider engaging with scholars in the emerging field of Transgender Studies (yes, there is a small, but growing field – check out this reader for an introduction) if they plan to continue contributing to public conversations about trans issues. I remain convinced that conversations across disciplines will lead to more thoughtful and reflective work, including more thoughtful and reflective public scholarship, on the part of all involved.



I end with a simple plea: regardless of the relative contributions of genetics, prenatal hormones, parenting, environment of rearing, social expectations about gender, or personal agency in the production of any gender non-conforming child’s sex/gender identity or presentation, all gender non-conforming children deserve love and support and they deserve to be free from harassment and bullying, especially at school. Period.







Want to cite this post?

Gupta, K. (2012). Response to “Society Does Not Make Gender” by Dr. Larry Young and Brian Alexander. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on
, from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2012/08/response-to-society-does-not-make.html

Why Do Voles Fall in Love? Interview with Feminist Science Studies Scholar Angela Willey

Dr. Angela Willey

In May I attended a great conference, the 4th biennial conference of the Association for Feminist Epistemologies, Methodologies, Metaphysics, and Science Studies (FEMMSS). At the conference, I heard a wonderful plenary talk by Dr. Angela Willey and her colleagues. Dr. Willey is one of our own - a recent (2010) graduate of Emory’s doctoral program in Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. In her work, she examines the cultural assumptions underpinning contemporary neuroscience research on monogamy and the social implications of this research. At the conference, I asked Dr. Willey if she would agree to be interviewed about her work for the Neuroethics Blog, and she graciously agreed. Before sharing what she said, I am just going to give you a little background about Dr. Willey and about the neuroscience research on monogamy that she analyzes.

About Dr. Willey

Dr. Willey has a B.A. from Fordham University and an M.S. in Gender Studies from the London School of Economics and Political Science. She earned her Ph.D. in Women’s Studies from Emory University in 2010. As part of her dissertation, she undertook an ethnographic analysis of the research on pair bonding that is taking place at Emory University in the lab of Dr. Larry Young. After graduating from Emory, Dr. Willey completed a teaching postdoc in LGBT Studies at Carleton College. Dr. Willey is currently Assistant Professor of Feminist Science Studies at the Five Colleges, with her home at UMass. She is working on her first book. You can read her published work here and here.

Contemporary Scientific Research on Monogamy: Dr. Larry Young’s Lab

Vole (Image from Howlsthunder)

Here I am just going to give a quick and simplified overview of the work taking place at Dr. Young’s lab. The lab has worked with two species of voles, one of which is “socially monogamous” (they form long-term male-female bonds) while the other is “socially promiscuous” (males and females separate after mating). The lab has offered a causal genetic and neurological explanation for this difference: in male voles, for example, the lab has found a difference between the socially monogamous species and the socially promiscuous species in an area of the genome responsible for regulating the expression of vasopression receptors. According to the theory, this difference in the genome produces a different pattern of vasopression receptors in the brains of the monogamous males compared to the promiscuous males, which, in turn, leads to a differential behavioral response to the release of vasopression that occurs during sexual activity – specifically, the formation of long-term pair bonds in the monogamous males but not in the promiscuous males (Young 2009; Young and Wang 2004; Lim et al 2004)

More recently, researchers in the lab have argued that understanding monogamy in voles can help us to understand what they call “prosocial” behavior in humans (which they identify as cooperation, compassion, bonding and social reciprocity). In turn, according to these researchers, this can help us to understand and develop drug treatments for what Young calls “human disorders characterized by social impairments” such as autism (McGraw and Young 2010; Young 2011).

Even my brief exposure to this research has made me concerned about the associational links being made in this research between prosocial behavior, monogamy, cooperation, mental health, and compassion on the one hand and promiscuity, social impairments, autism, and mental disorder on the other; thus I was excited to hear more from Dr. Willey about her analysis of this research.

Read on for her insights!

Question: In your dissertation, you argue that Young's lab is "naturalizing" coupling. Can you explain what you mean by that?

Well, the most direct answer to this question is that Young says again and again that the lab is using the prairie vole to study attachment, because prairie voles are, like humans, monogamous.  This claim, that because they are monogamous prairie voles are like humans, was the major rationale for a successful initiative to get the vole genome mapped, an effort headed up by Young’s lab.  So this isn’t my argument, their work actually begins from the assumption that humans are monogamous (an assumption that has not gone uncontested scientifically).  By the way, by “monogamy” they mean “social monogamy” (pair bonding, or coupling), not necessarily sexual fidelity, which is how it is often represented in the press.  So if they begin from this premise – the monogamous human – any human behavior not assimilable within the definition of monogamy is pathology of some kind, a “difference” to be explained.

Question: Can you describe some of the problems you see with linking research on monogamy in prairie voles to research on autism in humans?

So this is one of the interesting things for me about becoming more neuro-literate – my critique of this model is not a critique of translational research per se.  That is to say, the idea that animals used for research are too different from humans to be relevant models is a popular critique that is far less compelling to me than it once was.

There are of course (difficult to avoid) issues with the language we use to describe animal behavior.  It’s easy to naturalize a complex, contested, and historically recent institution like marriage, when our cultural investments in it run so deep. 

My critique is of what I’ve called “the imposition of sexuality as an interpretive grid” for bonding behavior.  I’m not convinced that the attachments observed among prairie voles are accurately described as monogamous or even as “pair bonds”.  The will to distinguish bonds of monogamy not only from “promiscuous” behavior, but from, for example, friendship, seems to have its roots in deeply entrenched assumptions about sexuality and human nature.

Oxytocin (Image adapted from SirLyric)

If we were to say something like, “the administration of oxytocin often seems to make voles more likely to want to spend time in closer proximity to a familiar animal than one they just met”, we might extrapolate that administration of oxytocin might – at least sometimes – encourage individuals with low interest in interacting with family members (often parents) to prefer their company (at least physical proximity) to that of strangers.  This articulates a link without relying on the naturalization of monogamy.  

Of course it leaves aside any question about the role of pharmaceutical companies in creating markets, downplaying risks, and so on.  It still leaves intact the frame that encourages us to value lives and ways of being in the world according to norms of “productivity” and nuclear kinship.  Also, intranasal oxytocin may be efficacious for encouraging social behavior, but if high circulating levels of oxytocin could actually cause the brain to produce less of it, as with other hormones, well, this is a problem.

So I guess I see the immediate problem as a risk of both “monogamy” and “autism” going uniterrogated as straightforward categories of analysis.  More broadly, I see manifold problems about funding and other forces that shape our curiosities and our work and, thus, what we know.   

Question: Can you tell me a little bit about what it was like to do observations in Young's lab as a feminist scholar (potentially) critical of their work?

Visiting Young’s lab was a great experience for me.  So, let me give a little background about how I came to the lab in the first place.  I had collected all of this press coverage on a “monogamy gene”, which cited a couple of big papers out of Young’s lab (this is in 2004-2005).  The coverage consisted in large part of predictable re-instantiations of familiar gendered narratives about male infidelity – male monogamy as a question to be explained and female monogamy totally taken for granted as natural.  The press seemed to fixate on speculations about the possibility of treating or exonerating cheating husbands on the basis of genetics.  The heteronormative assumptions embedded in this old evolutionary story about human nature and reproduction – that sexuality is primarily reproductive and that men and women are different sexually because of sperm and eggs – have been challenged for decades by feminist science studies and queer studies scholars, and of course dissenting scientists (some of whom fall into one or both of the former categories).

Clifton Road separates the main Emory campus from

the Emory Hospital and the Yerkes Primate Research Center,

where Young's lab is located (Photo by Daniel Castro)

Initially I was just interested in the popular discourse, but as I became increasingly interested in the scientific claims being represented there, I contacted Young and asked to meet with him.  From our first contact, where I explained that I was trying to understand the lab’s publications (as a non-scientist) and how their claims were represented in the press and taken up in clinical treatment trials, he was friendly and helpful.  I asked lots of questions every time I met with Young or the graduate students who agreed to talk with me.  Everyone greeted my questions in a spirit of intellectual rigor and I think genuine interest in the possibility for radically interdisciplinary communication.  I say radically interdisciplinary because neuroscience and women’s studies are of course both already interdisciplines, but there aren’t a lot of models for talking between them, as you know.  But this was a moment filled with excitement about the possibilities of talking across the parts of campuses so often separated by disciplinary and even architectural constraints (like a busy street, or, as at UMass, a pond).  I gave a power point presentation in the lab on “Monogamy in the Humanities” in order to introduce my research agenda and it generated a lot of really interesting discussion.  

So to answer your question more directly, I think of my experience in the lab as an interesting blurring of lines between study (they taught me about their research and explained a lot of basic concepts in gene-brain-behavior research to me), collaboration (I asked some questions they weren’t already engaging, so we were speaking to each other in our own languages and trying to make some sense to one another), and observation (I have used some of my own observations and conversations we had to help clarify, revise, and deepen my analysis of academic and popular discourses around monogamy and non-monogamy).

As a feminist scholar critical of the ways in which assumptions about human nature find their way into the questions we prioritize and how we frame them, one of the most important things I took from the experience was a sense of the importance of science literacy to feminist work.  We risk reproducing the mystique around scientific knowledge production when we don’t have the tools to ask “what’s actually being measured here and how, how does this model work?”  You can edit for androcentric bias and so on, and reinterpret data with a critical eye, but there’s still so much built into research before the data are generated.  We need critical science literacy.  

Question: Do you see your work as affecting this research program in any way, either by influencing the scientists involved in the research, by changing how other scientists are evaluating the research, and/or by educating the public about the assumptions that are underlying this research?

Oh, this is an interesting question.  I would have to admit that affecting the research or the field was not on my radar initially.  I think this is about the persistence of disciplinary thinking.  I have recently become interested in writing something more “neuro-legible”, as feminist neuroscientist Sari Van Anders has called it, about monogamy.  I collaborated with neuroscientist and women’s studies professor Sara Giordano on a piece called “Why do Voles Fall in Love: Sexual Dimorphism in Monogamy Gene Research”, which seems to have generated some interest in the gendered story of monogamy among students. [Note: the essay is published in the collection Gender and the Science of Difference.]

This has really been one of the most exciting things for me – politically, intellectually – the opportunity that my work on monogamy and on Young’s lab has opened up to meet and advise undergraduate and graduate students thinking at the interstices of science and feminism and/or queer studies.  Young’s lab and labs like it, where themes germane to feminist and queer studies are front and center, attract interesting students who seem to be increasingly curious about if not versed in science studies.  I see possibilities here- if we begin from an understanding that what we know doesn’t just reflect, but also shapes what we are, how do we study sexuality?  Students are struggling with these questions in ways that challenge me in my research and teaching- it’s exciting.

Question: Can you give us a quick preview of where you see your own scholarship headed?

Another photo of Donna Haraway, just because we

love her here at the Neuroethics Blog

(photo by Rusten Hogness)

I’m still ultimately interested in historicizing the couple and in forms of social belonging that exceed the nuclear, privatized family.  My book project uses feminist science studies to try to move beyond a reductive nature/culture debate about coupling.  Many of us across disciplines are trying to think “natureculturally” – to borrow Donna Haraway’s phrasing – about what we are and might be and I see my research as part of that conversation as well.  In addition to the book, I’m working on a project of articulating feminist genealogies for the kind of thinking about materiality, contingency, and embodiment that has emerged in neurofeminisms.

Want to cite this post?


Gupta, K. (2012). Why Do Voles Fall in Love? Interview with Feminist Science Studies Scholar Angela Willey. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on

-->, from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2012/06/why-do-voles-fall-in-love-interview.html

Oxytocin: Liquid Trust and Artificial Love

The website for the company Vero Labs sells a product called Liquid Trust. It is a hormone-based spray that, when applied like a cologne, is supposed to help win the trust of those around you. According to the website, the spray contains “pure human Oxytocin”, a hormone and neuropeptide that is involved in emotions such as trust, social bonding, and even love. The idea of a commercially available product that can secretly control the behavior of those nearby seems too far-fetched to be possible, and, in fact, it is. But surprisingly, the problem with Liquid Trust is not the ingredients but the dosing. In a 2005 Boston Globe Article neuroeconomist Paul Zak explained that the amount of oxytocin that would be inhaled by standing next to someone wearing Liquid Trust is not enough to have any behavioral effect and called the product “totally bogus”.

A bottle of Liquid Trust

So then, what can oxytocin do if taken in a high enough dose? Zak coauthored a study in the journal Nature that demonstrated the hormone’s trust-increasing effects. In an investment game, participants were more likely to give over money if they had inhaled an oxytocin nasal spray. Oxytocin also helps form emotional bonds in relationships between romantic partners and parents and their children.

An oxytocin molecule (Wikipedia)

Some researchers hope that oxytocin can be used to treat people with conditions such as social anxiety and autism who have trouble feeling comfortable and connected in social situations. But there is also the possibility that it could be abused. The Boston Globe and National Geographic articles mention the possibilities of oxytocin being used at political rallies (to gain the trust of the audience), by businesses (to make customers feel more comfortable spending money), or even as a date-rape drug. Increasing oxytocin levels could also have undesired side effects. For example, doses of oxytocin have been shown to increase ethnocentrism and xenophobia since the hormone seems to primarily increase trust towards those in a person’s “in-group”. While this research seems to suggest that a dose of oxytocin can instantly lead to feelings of trust, comfort, connection, and even love, it is not exactly that simple. Research conducted by Larry Young at Emory University showed that oxytocin and vasopressin (another hormone) can explain the differences in the mating behaviors of the monogamous, pair-bonding prairie voles and the promiscuous meadow voles.

Prairie voles (New York Times)

When the prairie voles mate, oxytocin and vasopressin are released in their brains, leading to lifelong bonding. Giving injections of these hormones to prairie voles that have not mated can still cause them to bond. But giving these hormones to the meadow voles does not affect their behavior since they also lack oxytocin and vasopressin receptors in the regions of the brain involved in reward processing. Genetic differences in the expression of the receptors also mean that even among prairie vole males, some are more likely to be monogamous than others. And there is evidence for the existence of similar genetic differences among humans, meaning that oxytocin will not affect everyone the same way. Still, this research has led to talk of using hormone (and even genetic) therapies to help people stay faithful to their partners and to keep marriages stable. And also to do the exact opposite: creating an “anti-love drug” to prevent people from becoming over-invested in their relationships. These methods of artificially regulating love bring up additional questions about the ethics of using medical technology to change “normal” behaviors and to chemically alter our emotions. While “love drugs” might, at first, seem like a form of mind control, how is taking medication to treat infidelity or infatuation different from taking them to treat depression or ADHD? And how would using oxytocin be different than attending therapy to resolve the same issues? Some of the reluctance towards the medication route might have to do with the negative connotations of psychiatric drugs, but there are deeper issues involved about freewill, our ability to choose, our sense of self, and our position in society. These questions are currently being asked about existing treatments, and as neuroscience and neurotechnology continue to advance, more such issues will arise.



--Jonah Queen


Neuroethics Program Intern





Want to cite this post?


Queen, J. (2011). Oxytocin: Liquid Trust and Artificial Love. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on
, from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2011/10/oxytocin-liquid-trust-and-artificial.html