Oxytocin is a wonderful hormone. Produced by the hypothalamus, it stimulates uterine contractions during childbirth, promotes mother-infant bonding, and it's one of those chemicals released during sex that cause you to feel all snuggly and well-inclined towards your partner afterwards.
It's part of the glue that holds families and wolf packs alike together, is involved in the development of trusting behaviors, and soon...

it may be available in a nasal spray.

In this week's Nature, a Swiss-American team published the results of a study where they gave either oxytocin or a placebo, aerosolized in a nasal spray, to 178 volunteers in an experiment wherein they were then asked to play a game where they would hand various amounts of money to a 'trustee' who would triple their investment, and then decide how much of the proceeds to share with the 'investor'.

The results were startling; over twice as many of the subjects who received oxytocin exhibited 'maximum trust', handing over the maximum allowed amount of money to the 'trustee', as did the men who received placebo (all the subjects in this study were male, in their 20s). Furthermore, this increased trust, and subsequent risk-taking, was stimulated by the social interaction with the 'trustee'; when the participants were dosed and given the same 'investment' options via computer, there was no difference in investment level between the two groups.

A CNN synopsis of the study's results can be found here:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/06/01/trust.hormone.ap/index.html

I was sufficiently intrigued by this that I shared this story with a colleague, and we talked with some amusement about the possibilities for abuse of such an easily portable, potently neuroactive chemical. I envisioned it being released in high-roller rooms in Las Vegas, or luxury car showrooms. My colleague, a large quiet mammologist, smirked as he walked out of my office, and then walked back in a moment later, the smile wiped off of his face.

"Not Las Vegas... but law enforcement. Think of the confessions you could get!" He leaned forward, conspiratorially, and spoke softly behind his hand. "You don't *really* need a lawyer, you can tell us what happened..."

"True, but such a confession would never be admissible in court...", I replied.

"Do you think that at places like Guantanamo Bay, they'd care much about that? Or that we'd even *know* about it?"

"You could detect it in blood and cerebrospinal fluid, but it'd have to be tested within a couple of hours..."

We both sat there for a moment, sobered.

I'm really fascinated by endocrinology myself, and it'll be very interesting as they begin to unravel exactly *what*, oxytocin interacts with, both neurologically and socially (what are our 'releasing behaviors' regarding this hormone?) to produce its effects. But considering that this is a potent hormone that crosses the blood-brain barrier, *and it can be synthesized in the laboratory*, the possibilites for use and abuse are both widespread and not a little frightening.

What do you guys envision happening, either in reality/policy or hypothetically, with this hormone?

Regards,
Nydia

Look out if salesmen of anytype get their hands on it."Surely you want to own the very first lime green Pinto on your block, trust me all your friends will be green with envy!!"

Or if Politicians are able to mass release it at rallys..."Donate to my campaign fund till it hurts, trust me I'll make America better!!"

Or perhaps on the battle field "c'mon, lay down your arms, trust us we won't shoot ya!!!"

Or perhaps used by police during a mob scene..."You really aren't all that enraged by (insert topic of the day), trust us it'll be all better in the morning".

Or as the new date rape drug of choice "Hey baby what's your sign, you know you want me you know you do....trust me!!!"

OoOO at the American Idol contest, "C'mon Simon, singing on key isn't all that important...trust me!!!

Trust me, it'll be great.../squirts aerosol can into the internet!!

Fandros

Hey, this study makes sense, but it has that "everyone treated it as a joke" smell about it. I mean, no one ever hands money to someone who says they'll "triple your investment." Even if they are your best friend. And you've just had smoking hot sex with them. Twice. Plus their sister.

This sounds like those drug surveys they gave us in high school. They were given during P.E. The sooner you get it done, the sooner you play killerball or basketball.

"How many times/day do you shoot up? 1. Never 2. 1/week 3. 1/day 4. more than once per day?"

We always just ran down the sheet marking every worst possible answer. 2 months later the local little paper would have a headline about massive drug problems at the high school.

Mirdorr, the study was blind. The participants did not know whether they were receiving oxytocin or a placebo, for obvious reasons :). Also, the amounts they were permitted to risk were fairly small, and the rules of the game were that the 'trustee' *would* triple the investment, but that the 'gamble' was in trusting how much of that the 'trustee' would return to him... at least as far as I understand it. It is significant to note, however, that even among the 'least trusting' individuals in both groups, the amount invested was greater than when they were given the options via computer, suggesting that the human element was a positive influence upon trust development even among the very skeptical.

Btw, congratulations :) A little loony bird (Jazya) told me that you're a father... :)

Very interesting study. I can't see the FDA allowing something like this in the American market though.

That's especially funny after just reading the Roald Dahl short story Bitch.

The idea of not being able to trust our own responses to things is a little eerie, isn't it? Where's my robot body :>

Roald Dahl? As in, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Roald Dahl? /blinks)

I just scanned a bibliography of his works, and I had no idea that he was that prolific, nor that he wrote quite a bit of adult fiction (I unwittingly read some of his horror stories as a child in anthologies that are listed on his biblio page as well). I will have to check some of it out...

I did a little web-hopping this afternoon and found a cluster of articles on oxytocin/vasopressin and behavior; both of these hormones are tied to pair-bond formation, and if we are similar to our rodent and primate cousins (and there's no overriding reason why we shouldn't be, as we manufacture both of these hormones and their receptors), then the relative presence/absence of these receptors
may play a role in such things as our ability to form intimate relationships and our interest (or lack thereof) in monogamy.

General interest article here, link at the bottom left of the page to an interesting series of scientific abstracts :
http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/love-science.html

(there are also some very... interesting links at the bottom of this page to some pages on 'Paradise Engineering' and the like ;) )

Otherwise, I am a bit surprised that there's been so little speculation about this. This study was done in an ostensibly emotion-neutral setting, what might happen in such a study (or in general use) where 'risking' involved an emotional context?

I have read about it here (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7451).

I have to admit that it didn't strike me odd or creepy. Sounds perfectly plausible to me.

As for future implications, this will 'only' impact the part of humanity with is ruled by instincts and not cold logic. :devil Which of course raises the question of how humane is a person who makes decisions based on logic alone...lot of people might argue that such person is more like a machine.

Oh god, I got carried away again...:o

"That part of humanity", apparently, involves a lot of what it currently means to be human :)

Oxytocin, in both rodents and primates (and surprisingly, even in lizards!), is involved in the formation of 'social memory'. Mice that are Oxt -/- (lack the oxytocin receptor) are unable to form social memories and cannot remember other mice that they meet. It is also linked to the ability to form healthy interpersonal boundaries between individuals, with at least one study in women curiously enough associating low oxytocin levels with an inability to set appropriate interpersonal boundaries and handle being alone well.

Studies also have been done in numerous species which indicate that females deprived of oxytocin, or who have its action blocked, during labor and delivery, fail to develop attachment to, and in fact will reject, their offspring, while unrelated females, if injected with the hormone and presented with the offspring, will fawn over it/them; it also stimulates parental behavior, as well as mate guarding, in males. The hormone is involved in memory encoding as well, linking positive and negative emotional overtones to memory.

Say what you want about being ruled by 'cold logic', but it is these hormones, along with the sex and other steroid hormones, that form the basis of the 'human' social construct. Indeed, individuals who were 'immune' to oxytocin and vasopressin would most likely be sociopaths, and it might be interesting to see the hypothalamus and receptor profile for, say, Ted Bundy or the Unabomber...

Say what you want about being ruled by 'cold logic', but it is these hormones, along with the sex and other steroid hormones, that form the basis of the 'human' social construct. Indeed, individuals who were 'immune' to oxytocin and vasopressin would most likely be sociopaths, and it might be interesting to see the hypothalamus and receptor profile for, say, Ted Bundy or the Unabomber...

I would approach it from a different angle, think autism. Or more specifically high-functioning autism (Asperger's syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger%27s_syndrome)).

I know that I'm making a big leap here but both issues are associated with social interaction and my point is that if someone is unable to form social bonds or unable to navigate the complex interpersonal system of the 'normal' humans that doesn't mean the person is automatically a sociopath.

I just scanned a bibliography of his works, and I had no idea that he was that prolific, nor that he wrote quite a bit of adult fiction (I unwittingly read some of his horror stories as a child in anthologies that are listed on his biblio page as well). I will have to check some of it out...
Beware, for your search for knowledge can only lead to the ugly, hideous truth about schnozzberries. "Schnozzberries? There's no such thing!" you might exclaim. For the love of Wonka, I bid you to keep your innocence of such matters. There's so much time and so little to do as is.*

-Thormir
*scratch that, reverse it

Mirdorr, the study was blind.

Hey, girl, I understand that. It just seems too obvious; dunno how to put it. Then again, people do stupid things on something as cheap as alcohol.

And thanks!

my point is that if someone is unable to form social bonds or unable to navigate the complex interpersonal system of the 'normal' humans that doesn't mean the person is automatically a sociopath.

Nod, perhaps I was using the word 'sociopath' improperly; I didn't mean specifically axe murderers and their ilk, but rather that an inability to respond to these hormones would most likely leave the individual pathologically unable to form normal social relationships and attach appropriate emotional context to events - precisely, as you said, what we see in autism, but also may play a role in folks who are incapable of forming emotional attachments or feeling remorse for injury or neglect of others.

I wouldn't be surprised if there turns out to be some connection between oxytocin and mother-infant bonding on the side of the neonate that impacts normal brain development too, namely that when infants are neglected (don't get not just their survival, but their security and social needs met a la Maslow) not only do they 'fail to thrive', but that this impacts their ability to form later social attachments based on trust. We know that this happens, but not exactly why; wouldn't it be interesting if there was a chemical, hardwiring, smoking gun?