"New paper on oxytocin reveals why we are generous"

"In the research, [Paul G.] Zak and his colleagues gave doses of oxytocin and a placebo to participants, who were then offered a blinded, one-time decision on how to split a sum of money with a stranger who could accept or reject the split. The results were overwhelming: Those given oxytocin offered 80% more money than those given a placebo."

Oxytocin is a neuromodulater (brain chemical) whose levels in the human body are associated with sexual activity, labor and delivery, and lactation. Its effects include promoting interpersonal connection or bonding, and it may also be involved in regulating our day/night circadian rhythms.

The source article is available online (also here in PDF), but before we look at it, let's just consider what have before us in this EurekAlert report. We learn that Paul Zak had previously found that oxytocin increases trust. I have to wonder whether someone gave this science journalist a large dose of it and then asked him to write this line:

"Zak’s recent paper explains the brain mechanisms responsible for the substantial increase in generosity during the last 50 years."

Our EurekAlert journalist says it explains an increase in generosity over the past 50 years. Has oxytocin been steadily increasing for the last 50 years? And where has it—and its corresponding generosity—been increasing? (I guess we ought assume the journalist was talking about the U.S., since that's often the default answer. But would it have hurt for the writer to say?) Further, does anyone seriously propose that oxytocin by itself explains the brain mechanisms responsible for increasing generosity? Does this new paper really, as the headline claims, "reveal why we are generous"?

Note to reader: Journalists are not always the best source of science information.* That's something to bear in mind when you consider where most people get their "information" on Intelligent Design from.
Note to educators: Students need to be taught how to read articles like this critically. One good way to do that might be—dare I say it?—to teach a scientific Controversy or two.

As it turns out, none of that nonsense was in the journal article, authored by Paul Zak, Angela A. Stanton, and Sheila Ahmadi. What we do find there is a contribution to research on sources of human altruism. As explained in the paper's introduction, altruism poses serious scientific problems, because no good evolutionary explanation has been found for it. Evolution should have, on the face of it, weeded out any hint of altruism every time it raised its little genetic head. None of the proposed explanations accommodate all the data. But in the Biblical scheme, altruism fits. It's a reflection of the image of God in humans. (That it has neurochemical correlates is also consistent with the Biblical understanding, which does say, after all, that we are creatures with physical bodies.)

This paper is a fine addition to our knowledge base on altruism, and I leave it to you to explore its findings on generosity, empathy, altruism, and oxytocin. I don't think it has moved us very much closer, though, to explaining an evolutionary basis for altruism. My guess—my prediction—is that the problem will remain unsolved, because it's a search for an answer in the wrong places.

*They're not always the best examples of grammar and spelling, either: "Oxytocin’s effect on generosity is more than three times larger then his work from 2005, which demonstrated that oxytocin increases trust."

Posted: Wed - November 7, 2007 at 06:31 AM |

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson getCategoryName("<$CategoryUUID$>");

"New paper on oxytocin reveals why we are generous"

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson