07/17/2003
Sex and the Underworld
Last week my wife and I watched the movie “Woman of the Year” with Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy. According to a segment on the following day’s Sunday Morning TV show, it was during the filming of that movie that Kate and Spence began their celebrated love affair. In one scene in the movie, Tracy walks out of Hepburn’s apartment even though it was apparent that he could well have gone much further than the romantic kissing that preceded his departure. He explains to her the next day that she was the only woman in the world that he would walk out on in that situation, that he was in love with her and wouldn’t take advantage of her.
This modest behavior contrasts sharply with today’s films in which couples hop in bed together at the drop of a hat. (By the way, whatever happened to men’s hats?) This talk of sex provides a segue into the work of Satoshi Kanazawa, who claims a relationship between sex and the productivity of scientific geniuses. Brian Trumbore called my attention to Satoshi’s work, cited in an article “Secret of Genius is Sexual Chemistry” by Mark Henderson on the Web site timesonline.co.uk.
Kanazawa is not the first to note that outstanding scientists tend to make their seminal contributions when they’re young. For example, Albert Einstein is quoted as writing “A person who has not made his great contribution before the age of 30 will never do so.” Kanazawa, a psychologist at New Zealand’s University of Canterbury, examined the biographies of some 280 scientific luminaries, a predominantly male group. He found that 65 percent of the scientists had made their biggest discoveries before their mid-thirties.
Kanazawa also looked at the lives of criminals and, disturbingly, draws a connection between their unlawful careers and the more laudable careers of the scientists. He finds that both criminals and scientific geniuses are most prolific in their youth, with the criminals tending to become more savory characters as they age. Testosterone is, in his opinion, the driving force in both cases. Henderson quotes Kanazawa as putting it quite bluntly, “They do whatever they do to get laid.” Of course, I was shocked to read such a coarse view of scientific productivity linked to criminal behavior, much less to sex. On the other hand, I have to admit that in the last few years there has been a spate of books or articles about the romantic liaisons of Einstein himself.
Kanazawa proposes that marriage is a cause of reduced scientific productivity and of reduced criminal activity. In his view, after a few years of marriage the male is more oriented to looking out for his family, while his testosterone level is falling as well. Male criminals tend to switch to more socially acceptable careers after marriage. Kanazawa credits higher testosterone levels in the young as spurring risk-taking and creativity.
I couldn’t help thinking about my own scientific career. I got married at the tender age of 23, less than a year out of graduate school. If Kanazawa is correct, doesn’t that mean that I had already foreclosed any chance of doing work that would merit the Nobel Prize? In fact, I don’t really recall ever reaching a peak of scientific productivity. I just plodded along doing work that, in my opinion, was reasonably good but certainly never approached superstar status.
Frankly, I’m a bit dubious that the main motivation of young scientific geniuses is “to get laid.” Criminals – perhaps. However, the drive to experience close encounters with the opposite sex is a powerful one in the animal kingdom. We’ve all seen examples of the battles among dominant males and aspiring young males for the right to mate with the compliant females. Those multipronged elk or those huge gorillas are often seen battling in nature programs on TV. But what about the dung beetle and the sex life of the underachiever? In the July 2003 issue of the Smithsonian magazine, there’s an article by Richard Conniff titled “Close Encounters of the Sneaky Kind”.
Conniff’s article deals with the fact that while all the attention is focused on those dominant males fighting it out to get the gal(s), there’s more going on than meets the eye. He discusses the case of a dung beetle species in Panama that really goes ape over monkey “flop”. For those unfamiliar with the term flop, it’s just another word for scat, which we discussed at length not too long ago. At any rate, when the howler monkey drops his flop, this big male dung beetle is all over it in less than a minute. This big guy, with a very prominent horn, of use for head butting and overall sexual attractiveness, stands watch over the flop.
Under the flop, there’s the big guy’s intended, a female who is supposed to be preparing meals for the big guy’s offspring that result after the two get together. What the big guy doesn’t know is that, while he’s guarding the flop, his spouse is having an affair down there in the tunnel. And it’s not with another impressive macho male beetle, but with a runty type who barely even has a hint of a horn. A fellow named Douglas Emlen, currently a biologist at the University of Montana, exposed the doings of these runty “sneakers”. Some years ago, Emlen was graduate student working at a Smithsonian facility in Panama when he decided to look at what goes down in those dung beetle tunnels.
By constructing an enclosure similar to an ant farm with its glass window, he could observe the behavior of these sneaker beetles. What he found was that Sneaky uses one of two approaches. If he catches the big guy looking the other way, Sneaky just darts into the tunnel unobserved. The alternative is simply to start digging a tunnel far enough away from the big guy to escape any suspicion that hanky panky is under way. Sneaky then makes an underground turn towards the main tunnel and consummates the affair with the big guy’s wife. Actually, the big guy seems to have a number of wives.
Emlen found that Sneaky is a truly sexy guy and, after bidding adieu to the big guy’s wife, he tunnels into perhaps a half dozen other nearby underground lairs harboring females willing to cheat on the big guy. But the big guy isn’t totally oblivious to what might be going on underneath him. Every so often he peers in to make sure that all is well. If he catches a sneaker, he throws him out and then quickly mates with the offending female to try to displace the sneaker’s sperm.
It turns out that this type of behavior is not unusual and occurs in species ranging from insects to those antler-bearing animals. Some lesser males even mimic the acts of entertainers such as Dame Edna or Harvey Firestein, currently appearing in the Broadway hit “Hairspray”. We’re talking cross-dressing here. Biologist Mart Gross of the University of Toronto studies such behavior in fish such as the bluegill sunfish. Some of the unconventional males actually adopt the striping and darker eyes typical of the female sunfish. They even go so far as to somehow achieve higher levels of a female hormone.
These female impersonators swim around the habitat of the macho male sunfish and are often invited into the nesting area by the macho. Once in the nest, the sneaky male dips down and turns on his side, pretending to be releasing eggs for the macho to fertilize. Actually, what the cross-dresser is doing is releasing his own sperm on the eggs of the true female sunfish. Cross- dressing of some sort is common in other species as well.
I’m wondering if all this sneaky behavior doesn’t account for the fact that, after eons of evolution, most populations of various animal species are not composed not only of big macho types but also of meeker, smaller ones. One would think that if the big guy always gets the female, after many generations there would be few little guys around. It’s been my observation that, in our own species, there are more relatively ordinary guys than there are big handsome hulks. Who are the real winners in the game of romance? As Conniff concludes, the best protection the little guys have is the fact that the big guys tend to dismiss the them as being harmless and not worth their attention. Hey, the meek shall inherit the earth?
Allen F. Bortrum
|