That seems to be the end of the MHC-smelling your mates and the recent pill “revelation”.
Already I was disappointed when erv used science (or, well high school statistics) to make a mockery the latest hot news item.
It is a very bad shame that people who are supposed to be competent to report on science don’t understand what error bars are for.
I’d heard of MHC-smell relatedness before back when I was in high school from the BBC and ABC. But by the time I got home from work, erv has gone a destroyed my trust in the whole idea, with real science (this time she actually goes and talks to a scientist*)
Humans do not have well developed vomeronasal organs. Ok, what what? That’s ~nasal as in nose, or, oh, just look at wikipedia. As human-like apes have become more reliant on colour-based vision, our sense of smell has diminished. We just don’t have the capacity for being able to strongly sense smell differences associated with MHC.
So why is research still being done with smell-based MHC detection in humans?
Could there be non-olfactory cues in MHC distinction in humans and human-like apes? Differences in sweat light refraction perhaps?
*yes erv is a scientist in her own right, but just to perfect, she goes and talks to a scientist with appropriate knowledge – it’s a machiavellian scheme alright