The link for the study is
right here and the part which proves the lie in the msn article comes at the end (I noted discrepancies using italics and bold):
Our results therefore cannot, at face value, provide an explanation for the pill effect previously reported, but they do emphasize the way in which current circumstances can modulate preferences based on genetic similarity. Mouse studies suggest that odour preference expression varies depending on reproductive status and behavioural context, since lactating female mice prefer to associate with MHC-similar females, presumably using odour (Manning et al. 1992), while females in oestrus prefer odours of MHC-dissimilar males (and other aspects of genetic quality involved in mate choice, Roberts & Gosling 2003). In our study, paired women expressed greater preferences for MHC dissimilarity in odours of unfamiliar men, and there was a non-significant association between fantasizing about extra-pair relationships and MHC-dissimilar odour preference. Such expression of enhanced preference for dissimilarity might be interpreted within the context of desired attributes in extra-pair partners as a means to increase offspring heterozygosity, in common with similar preferences in birds (e.g. Petrie & Kempenaers 1998; Blomqvist et al. 2002), although it is curious that the effect was elicited most strongly in the long-term context question--perhaps this question focuses raters more successfully on desired mate choice characteristics than does rating of odour pleasantness. It may also be that paired women can evaluate odours more accurately, and thus discriminate MHC dissimilarity more effectively, because they have more intimate recent experience of male odour (although we do not know why single women should have preferred MHC-similar men). Similarly, women in established partnerships express clearer or different preferences for traits indicating additive genetic variance than single women, in both visual (Little et al. 2002) and olfactory (Havlicek et al. 2005) modalities, but the extent to which these discrepancies ultimately reflect underlying strategic variation or differences in experience remains a question for further study.
We do not know whether the change in preferences related to pill use is sufficiently strong to influence partner choice, but it could do so if odour plays a significant role in actual human mate choice. Some studies have suggested that women consider the olfactory domain to be an important factor in their assessment of potential partners (e.g. Havlicek et al. 2008). Although we were unable to replicate the effect, Wedekind et al.'s (1995) demonstration of an association between MHC dissimilarity and the reminiscence of current or previous partners suggests that the influence of MHC-odour cues may extend beyond the laboratory. If this is the case, our results indicate that use of the contraceptive pill could lead to choice of an otherwise less preferred partner. (italics and bold added - go to linked report to view the links to studies cited)
Please also note the differences observed between "paired" versus "single" women.
The msn
fabricator "writer" took out all the "ifs" "coulds" "might" then flipped the results on their "head" and called it a story. I have a suggestion for a motto for msn:
"msn: rewriting science one article at a time"
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
