Providentia

When Coworkers Become Violent

Workplace violence can take a variety of different forms.   Aside from the high-profile and often graphic episodes of violence that you might hear about in the news, there are other types of workplace hostility that are much more common.  This can range from  bullying, including physical harassment, to actual physical assaults that can result in injuries or even death.   The consequences of experiencing or witnessing this kind of workplace violence can be significant.  Not only can employees be intimidated by the fear of more violence occurring, but continuing episodes of violence can lead to poor workplace morale, loss of productivity, and even have an impact on worker health.    

While most workplaces have policies in place to protect employees from potentially violent coworkers, this isn't always the case and, in the case of more subtle forms of harassment, may be difficult for some workers to prove.   There is also the problem of distinguishing between workplace violence and workplace aggression.   As a rule, workplace violence involves behaviours that either inflicted or attempted to inflict harm on another employee (including unwanted sexual contact or verbal threats of violence).  Workplace aggression, on the other hand, usually involves psychological harm rather than physical harm (eg., verbal abuse, intimidation, deliberate property damage, or humiliation).  

Available statistics on the prevalence of  actual workplace violence usually places it around one to five percent, a statistic that seems to hold up for Canada, the United States, and internationally.  When looking at workplace aggression  the prevalence rate is often hard to determine because workplace aggression is often defined in different ways.   As a result, most incidents go unreported.  For most employee surveys on how often workplace aggression occurs, the prevalence rate usually hovers around seven to ten percent.   

When looking at deliberate workplace harassment however (defined as any improper conduct directed at and/or offensive to another in the workplace and known to cause offense or harm), then things become very different however.  For example, the 2014 Public Service Employee Survey which specifically looks at workplace harassment experienced by Canadian public service workers, indicated that 19 percent of employees surveyed reported some form of harassment over a two-year period.   Of those, only two percent reported experiencing some form of physical violence with most other incidents involving verbal harassment, deliberate humiliation, unwelcome sexual comments or attention, 

Whatever form workplace aggression or even violence takes, identifying why it happens is often difficult.  Even when focusing on risk of violence in employees, what little research there is usually comes from the forensic literature and those factors that increase the risk of violence in general.  They usually include such problems as substance abuse, antisocial personality traits, prior history of violence (usually including a history of criminal charges), and antisocial attitudes.  But is it possible to identify potentially violent employees before the violence takes place?

To read more, check out my new Psychology Today blog post. 

The Resurrection of Matthew Clydesdale

Can electricity be used to raise the dead? 

The opening decades of the 19th century was an exciting era for scientists exploring the  things that could be done with electricity. Inspired by the groundbreaking work of  Benjamin Franklin, Alesandro Volta, and William Gilbert, inventors on both sides of the Atlantic began experimenting with Leyden jars, lightning rods, and crude batteries to see what could be learned about this mysterious new force.  But it was Luigi Galvani's discovery of bioelectromagnetics in 1791 which first suggested that electricity could be the key to the mystery of life itself.   Through a series of riveting demonstrations,  Galvani showed that electrical stimulation could cause twitching in the muscles of dead frogs.   Based on his findings, Galvani argued that electricity played a fundamental role in nerve and muscle functioning. 

The concept of biological electricity (rechristened galvanism in his honour) quickly gained prominence, largely helped along by some very public demonstrations by Galvani's nephew, Giovanni Aldini.  It was Aldini who first showed what galvanism could accomplish when he experimented on the body of an executed criminal, George Forster, in 1803.  According to one description of what happened:  "On the first application of the process to the face, the jaws of the deceased criminal began to quiver, and the adjoining muscles were horribly contorted, and one eye was actually opened. In the subsequent part of the process the right hand was raised and clenched, and the legs and thighs were set in motion."  Aldini's experiment inspired numerous other medical doctors to try their own luck applying electric current to dead bodies.  Since capital punishment continued to be used for a wide range of offenses, gaining access to dead bodies wasn't difficult (though the families of the condemned prisoners weren't too happy about it).   

Which brings us to a somewhat memorable episode in the history of science that occurred on November 4, 1818 in Glasgow, Scotland.   The anatomists ready to perform the experiment were Dr. Andrew Ure, senior lecturer at the newly-founded Andrew's Institution (now part of the University of Glasgow) and Professor James Jeffray who taught anatomy, botany, and midwifery at the University of Glasgow.   Both men were eager to try reproducing Aldini's experiment and, quite possibly, moving into completely new territory.    Instead of simply stimulating a few muscles, what if it were possible to bring a dead body back to life completely?  

Andrew Ure seemed particularly eager to give it a try.   As he later wrote about his experiments:  "This event, however little desirable with a murderer, and perhaps contrary to the law, would yet have been pardonable in one instance, as it would have been highly honourable and useful to science."    To make their experiment work, they had all the equipment they needed, including a state-of-the-art galvanic battery to provide the needed current.   All that remained was to obtain a body.

Which brings us to Matthew Clydesdale...

A weaver who had been born and raised in the town of Airdrie, the middle-aged Clydesdale had been convicted of murder on September 1, 1818.  There doesn't seem to be any question that he was guilty of killing a 70-year-old man in a drunken rage and he was condemned to death following a quick trial.   Given that the sentence called for his body to be anatomized after his death, that made him an ideal subject for the experiment being planned by the two doctors.  

The execution took place on October 3 and thousands of people turned out for the occasion.   As the first public execution to be held in Glasgow in ten years, the double execution of Clydesdale and a second man, Simon Ross ensured a good turnout.   Not much needs to be said about Ross who was sentenced to be hanged for the much less memorable charge of theft.  Also, unlike his more murderous colleague, no directive had been given to anatomize his body.   Given the massive turnout, soldiers had to guard a nearby footbridge to keep it from collapsing as members of the crowd pushed closer.  Even though the gallows had been erected in the public square in front of the new courthouse, people kept trying to get a better look at the proceedings.   This was well before the implementation of the "Marwood drop" so onlookers could look forward to the prospect of seeing a hanged prisoner strangling to death at the end of a rope.  They were probably disappointed since Clydesdale died quickly though Simon Ross did a lot of twitching before dying.  His body was then taken down to be buried the next day.  

As for Matthew  Clydesdale, his body was taken down after he was declared dead and carted to the University of Glasgow as quickly as possible.  Considering what Ure and Jeffray were planning, it was essential that they get the body before decomposition could set in.   The operating theatre where the experiment was to be held was filled to capacity given the number of people who had already heard about Aldini's experiments and hoping to see for themselves what would happen.   Andrew Ure was in fine form as he publicly tested his galvanic equipment while waiting for the body.  This basically meant making sure the battery was fully charged and the electrodes were ready to be applied.  Once the body was wheeled in, both anatomists went to work performing partial dissections to prepare for the experiment.  As the audience could see, the lack of any bleeding meant that Clydesdale was definitely dead.

By all accounts, the experiments went extremely well.  Current applied to Clydesdale's spinal cord and heel caused one of the knees to contract violently. When current was applied to the left phrenic nerve and the diaphragm, the body actually appeared to be breathing.  As Ure described:  "‘The success of it was truly wonderfull. Full, nay, laborious breathing instantly commenced. The chest heaved and fell; The belly was protruded and again collapsed, with the retiring and collapsing diaphragm’.

But when current was applied to the supraorbital branch of the frontal nerve, things really became unnerving.  Since the frontal nerve controls facial muscles, audience members were unsettled by the sight of Clydesdale making gruesome facial expressions.   As Ure later described:  "Rage, horror, despair, anguish, and ghastly smiles united their hideous expression in the murderer’s face’…At this period several spectators were forced to leave the arena from terror or sickness, and one Gentleman fainted."    To top this off, Ure and Jeffray also applied current to the body's forefinger and made it seem as if Clydesdale was deliberately pointing his finger at members of the audience.   Aside from these highlights, nothing else extraordinary took place.   Matthew Clydesdale's body was returned to storage and was dissected on the following day, again by Ure and Jeffray. 

Though nobody outside the medical community really took note of  the experiments, and Clydesdale subsequent dissection, a strange tale about what supposedly happened with the body came to light many years later.   In a book published in 1865 titled Reminiscences of Glasgow and West of Scotland,  local writer Peter Mackenzie would claim that he had been present to watch Ure and Jeffray's experiments and the later dissection.    He also claimed that the researchers had actually succeeded in reanimating Matthew Clydesdale but Jeffray, who was likely afraid of what would happen next, killed him again by cutting his throat with a scalpel.   While this seems to be a pure invention by Mackenzie (nobody else reported on this despite the experiment being covered by a local newspaper),  Mackenze was quick to point out that "this was the last case of dissection, under the sentence of the Lords of Judiciary, that took place in the University of Glasgow."   True or not, it  made for a good story.   

Ironically,during the 1980s,  anatomist Fred Pattison would rediscover Ure's notes on the original 1818 experiment and had the final word on what the two scientists had tried to achieve.  As Pattison pointed out, Ure and Jeffray had come tantalizingly close to the truth in their efforts to revive a dead body when he wrote:  “Although Ure concluded in his discussion that direct stimulation of the phrenic nerve was the most promising procedure for restoring life to a dead individual, he did suggest in a prophetic aside that two moistened brass knobs, connected to the battery and firmly placed on the skin over the phrenic nerve and the diaphragm, might also be effective. Unwittingly, he had come close to describing the electric defibrillator which, a century later, has saved so many lives."

In another strange coincidence, 1818 was also the year when Mary Shelley first came out with her book, Frankenstein, or A Modern Prometheus, about a scientist who succeeded in bringing an undead creature to life.   While Shelley's book never mentioned the use of electricity, she had certainly been present during one of Giovanni Aldini's public demonstrations and what she saw firsthand helped inspire her writing.   And so, along with providing new insights into the role that electricity could play in reviving dead bodies, experiments like the one carried out on Matthew Clydesdale's body also provided the world with one of its most famous stories about what happens when science goes wrong.

Such is life.

 

 

 

 

\

Are We Really Ready for Automated Driving?

Driver assist technologies have reached the tipping point and are poised to take control of most, if not all, aspects of the driving task. Proponents of automated driving (AD) are enthusiastic about its promise to transform mobility and realize impressive societal benefits. But a new paper published in the journal Safety Science carefully examines the potential of AD to realize safety benefits, to challenge widely-held assumptions and to delve more deeply into the barriers that are hitherto largely overlooked. As automated vehicle (AV) technologies advance and emerge within a ubiquitous cyber-physical world they raise additional issues that have not yet been adequately defined, let alone researched. Issues around automation, sociotechnical complexity and systems resilience are well known in the context of aviation and space. There are important lessons that could be drawn from these applications to help inform the development of automated driving. This paper argues that for the foreseeable future, regardless of the level of automation, a driver will continue to have a role. It seems clear that the benefits of automated driving, safety and otherwise, will accrue only if these technologies are designed in accordance with sound cybernetics principles, promote effective human-systems integration and gain the trust by operators and the public. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)

For the abstract

Guilty Verdict in Crucifix Murder Case

An   Oklahoma City jury has found 51-year-old Juanita Gomez guilty of first-degree murder in the death of her daughter.  

The murder came to light on August 7, 2016, when Francisco Merlo arrived at the Oklahoma City home that his girlfriend, Geneva Gomez, shared with her mother.  He found the body of his 33-year-old girlfriend sprawled on the floor with her arms in the shape of a cross and a crucifix on her chest.  Her face had been so badly battered that he had difficulty recognizing it.  When he questioned Geneva's mother, Juanita, about what happened, she reportedly only mumbled something about "devil" and "money" and that Geneva was "possessed."  She also tried to restrain Francisco in a headlock but he was able to free himself and call police.  

Following her arrest, 50-year-old Juanita Gomez told police that she believed her daughter was possessed because she was speaking in tongues in a demonic voice on the night before her death.   In her statement, she added that her daughter's eyes were rolled back in her head and that she had threatened to kill her.   In explaining the extensive bruising on Geneva's arms and hands, Juanita stated that they were caused by her resisting Juanita's attempts to exorcise the devil from her body.  S Police then charged her with murder. 

During the course of the trial, the jury heard evidence from arresting officers and Francisco Merlo as well as a court-appointed forensic psychologist.  The jury was presented with graphic videos of the victim's body as well as descriptions of her injuries, including having a crucifix stuffed down her throat.  Though Juanita Gomez had pleaded not guilty, her defense attorney decided against presenting an insanity defense when the psychologist found her fit to stand trial. 

The jury has recommended a life sentence without parole.  

For more information.

The Burning Epidemic

On October 2, 1978, Australian heiress Lynette Phillips set herself on fire in a park in Geneva, Switzerland near the Palais des Nations.  Daughter of a prominent mining executive, Phillips had been a member of PROUT, the Progressive Utililization Theory, an Asian-based sect that had been recently banned in India.   PROUT had been formed by followers of Indian activist MemPrabhat Ranjan Sarkar as an alternative to Marxist and capitalist philosophies.  Members of PROUT had been actively involved in protests in India and at Indian consulates in other countries aiming at overturning the ban. This included self-immolations by at least seven activists, something that apparently inspired Lynette Phillips.  

Though Phillips had originally intended to immolate herself in London's Parliament Square, police were able to arrest her before she could carry out her threat.  In a suicide note/political statement that she had previously prepared, she wrote:  "This action was taken to arouse the consciousness amongst all good-wishing people.  It grew from a burning desire, a need to do something.  May this action pave the way for the establishment of a new social order that is devoid of exploitation, misery, and injustice."  Following her arrest, Phillips had been deported from the U.K. and her parents, on learning of her plan, were frantically trying to arrange treatment for her when they received news of her death in Geneva.  In the aftermath of Lynette Phillips gruesome suicide, newspapers across the U.K. carried stories about the young heiress including speculation over what could have led her to kill herself.  But public attention would quickly turn to other stories.  

Until three days later when a second self-immolation took place.  This time, the victim was Pamela Evans Cooper, a 54-year-old London resident with no apparent connection to Lynette Phillips or PROUT.  Though friends and family reported that Cooper  had been seriously depressed, nobody had any idea of why she could commit suicide in such a graphic fashion.  According to a neighbour, the woman had been terrified of becoming an invalid due to her recurring depression and had been forced to retire from her job as a store director due to her health issues.   After leaving a note with the reception at the Windsor hotel where she had been staying, she then proceeded to the banks of the nearby Thames River when she then poured surgical alcohol on herself and set herself on fire. 

But this was just the beginning of the bizarre suicide epidemic that would grip the entire United Kingdom within the following weeks.  Dubbed the "human torch" suicides, at least seven other people killed themselves through self-immolation, often within days of each other.  The victims included a Yorkshire coal miner (and a father of six) who set fire to himself in a garden shed, a 55-year-old school caretaker's wife who set fire to herself in a suburb south of London, a 2o year-old Italian porter who had immolated himself in his parents' home, and 26-year-old Valerie Donoghue of Brighton who immolated herself in her own bathroom.   

Police and mental health professionals were left baffled over why so many people would choose to kill themselves in such a horrific way.  About the only common factor in all of the deaths that police could find was that family members or friends reported that all of the suicides had been notably depressed prior to their deaths.  While suicide clusters following a high profile death were hardly uncommon, they typically involved methods that were far less painful.  Psychiatrists trying to explain what was happening placed much of the blame on the often graphic newspaper and television coverage that previous self-immolations had received, beginning with Lynette Phillips.  And the deaths were hardly limited to the U.K. with three occurring in New Zealand, two in Australia, and one in India just weeks after the Phillips suicides.  While news agencies were cautioned about the dangers of overly graphic coverage of high-profile suicides, there seemed little else that police could do but watch for any new deaths and wait for the epidemic to subside.   

Taking notice of the copycat deaths  and their apparent link to media influence, two researchers, John R. Ashton of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Stuart Donnan of the University of Manchester, began studying the suicide cluster in detail.  Relying on death certificates and coroner's reports for the years 1978 and 1979, the researchers identified a total of 82 deaths suggesting that the number of self-immolations were far greater than what was reported in the media.  In their analysis, which was published in the journal Psychological Medicine in 1981, Ashton and Donnan concluded that:  “What we have called an epidemic is, we think, an example of the phenomenon of imitation…. There can be little doubt that the spread of this specific epidemic must have been mediated by news coverage; deaths occurring in this manner tend to be widely reported."  

By the end of 1979, the suicide cluster had largely run its course, at least as far as deaths in the U.K. were concerned.   Still, incidents in which members of various groups similar to PROUT at least threatened to immolate themselves persisted for a while longer.   Not surprisingly, Lynette Phillips had attained a larger-than-life status among them and her name was often invoked as a way to get police to pay attention to the threats.  

To this day, self-immolation continues to be a popular method of making a political protest with deaths being reported in many parts of the world, including Europe and Asia.   While some of these deaths showed evidence of starting new clusters, especially among people who identified with the people who committed suicide, most new cases seemed at least superficially intended as a political statement.    India retains the dubious distinction as being the country with the most self-immolation deaths.   Dubbed the "Chinnasamy effect" after a farmer who had immolated himself in 1965, it seems to have inspired a gruesome trend with over a thousand of these deaths each year.  Whether or not this trend with continue remains to be seen.

Sadly, copycat suicides continue to be a recurring danger whenever a high-profile suicide occurs, only the methods seem to change.   Examples such as the epidemic that occurred in 1978-1979 help highlight the challenge in reporting on the details of such suicides without inviting a deluge of new deaths as well. 

That X-ray Vision

When Wilhelm Roentgen presented his now-classic paper "On a New Kind of Rays" to the Wurzburg Physico-Medical Society in 1895,  few people outside the scientific community appreciated the medical revolution that his discovery would soon launch.   Although Roentgen would be showered with honours for his work on x-rays (including the first-ever Nobel prize in Physics in 1901), Thomas Edison was the one who first demonstrated the widescale benefits of x-ray technology.   In time, he and his staff would also demonstrate its dangers as well.

Always open to finding new ways to make life better (and to make a profit), Edison began work on a more practical method of harnessing x-rays immediately after Roentgen's initial announcement.   While the elaborate Crookes tube system that Roentgen used made for impressive laboratory demonstrations,  hospitals and medical clinics would need something more compact and energy-efficient.    Much like Marie Curie and her discovery of Radium, Roentgen refused to patent his discovery and placed it in the public domain since he wanted humanity "to benefit from practical applications of the same".    That meant that Edison was free to experiment with x-rays and to develop the first working fluroscope using tungstate of calcium as opposed to Roentgen's barium platinocyanide apparatus.  By 1896,  Thomas Edison announced that the Edison X-ray tube was ready for market.

With his usual showmanship, Thomas Edison conducted a public exhibition of his new invention at the 1896 Electrical Exhibition in New York's Grand Central Palace.   In a classic case of Murphy's law in action, Edison and his assistants personally installed the equipment for the initial showing only to find that some of the big inductance coils had been damaged in shipping.   To have the fluoroscope ready in time for the grand opening on Monday,  Edison and his staff worked all weekend to repair the equipment.    As one assistant would admit later, "We worked continuously all through that Saturday night and all day Sunday until evening, when we finished the job. I don't remember ever being conscious of more muscles in my life. I guess Edison was tired also, but he took it very philosophically."

Despite the last-minute problems, the first public demonstration of the new Edison fluoroscope to the American people was an overwhelming success.  Thousands of spectators lined up for a chance to see their own bones and one ecstatic patient even arranged for a medical x-ray on the operating table the day of Edison's exhibition.   When one attendant dared to complain publicly that the fluoroscent screen was just a sheet of ground glass, Edison responded by hauling him on stage where he was forced to place his wrist in the fluoroscope to see his bones for himself.   Edison's demonstration received enthusiastic media reviews including an article in the May 1896 issue of Century Magazine. 

That same article also demonstrated a darker side to Edison's new technology, however.   One of his assistants, glassmaker Clarence Madison Dally, suffered adverse effects from radiation exposure.   As Edison noted in the article:

When the X-ray came up, I made the first fluoroscope, using tungstate of calcium. I also found that this tungstate could be put into a vacuum chamber of glass and fused to the inner walls of the chamber; and if the X-ray electrodes were let into the glass chamber and a proper vacuum was attained, you could get a fluorescent lamp of several candle-power. I started in to make a number of these lamps, but I soon found that the X-ray had affected poisonously my assistant, Mr. Dally, so that his hair came out and his flesh commenced to ulcerate. I then concluded it would not do, and that it would not be a very popular kind of light; so I dropped it

Unfortunately for Clarence Dally, the consequences of his radiation exposure didn't improve with time.  By 1900, the radiation damage to his hands and face was bad enough for him to request more time off from work.   The strange burns to his left hand also failed to heal properly.  Since there were no previous cases of radiation exposure on record, the medical treatment that he received was largely experimental.   Edison kept Dally on the payroll since the long hours spent working on the new fluroscope appeared directly responsible for his health problems.  Despite radical skin grafts and the amputation of his left hand in 1902 to halt carcinoma, Dally's condition worsened.  His death from mediastinal carcinoma in 1904 gave him the dubious honour of being the first American to die of radiation poisoning. 

Shaken by Clarence Dally's death, Thomas Edison stopped all work on his fluoroscope.   While other workers suffered from radiation effects (including Edison himself whose vision was affected),  Dally was the only fatality.   As Edison would later announce:

"Don't talk to me about X-rays," he said. "I am afraid of them. I stopped experimenting with them two years ago, when I came near to losing my eyesight and Dally, my assistant practically lost the use of both of his arms. I am afraid of radium and polonium too, and I don't want to monkey with them."

Despite Edison's public warnings about the dangers of indiscriminate x-ray use,  the fluoroscope's value in medicine and industry quickly overcame any misgivings.   The Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) was founded in 1915 to provide proper safeguards and prevent further tragedies.  Still, that didn't stop more enterprising companies from searching for  new ways to profit from fluroscope technology. 

After Boston doctor Jacob Lowe first patented his fluoroscope for x-raying feet in 1919 for diagnosing patients' foot injuries, x-ray shoe-fitting machines quickly became a standard feature in many shoe stores on both sides of the Atlantic.   The RSNA quickly protested the use of x-rays in shoe stores arguing that it "lowers the profession of radiology" but the "Foot-O-Scope" (patented as the Pedoscope in the U.K.) became enormously popular.  The two largest manufacturers of shoe-fitting fluroscopes, the X-Ray Shoe Fitter Corporation of Milwaukee, Wisconsin and the Pedoscope Company in Great Britain sold thousands of units across the U.S., Canada and the U.K.  

Just about every prominent shoe store had a unit and customers were often invited to use the viewfinder to watch their toes wiggle while the fluorscope was operating.  Length of x-ray exposure varied according to a timer on the machine (typically twenty seconds but the timer allowed up to forty-five seconds).    The x-ray intensity ranged according to the size of the foot and the only protection that customers and staff received was a thin aluminum filter.   Not only were there no warnings about possible health issues relating to x-ray exposure but the devices were often marketed to parents as a way of ensuring proper foot care for their children (one advertising slogan was "They'll need their feet all through life").    The X-Ray Shoe Fitter Corporation had an aggressive advertising campaign stressing the ease and safety of their machines, including a Seal of Commendation from Parents' Magazine to highlight the benefits of x-ray technology in foot care.   X-rays became downright glamourous during that early era so it was probably not surprising that Superman's creators endowed him with "X-ray vision" (along with every other power they could imagine). 

More than twenty years would pass before medical researchers began taking a closer look at the potential hazards of shoe-fitting fluoroscopes.  By the end of World War II and the beginning of the Atomic Age,  cases of radiation exposure seen in survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki were reported in the medical literature and new concerns were raised about indiscriminate use of x-rays in non-medical settings.  In one widely-cited 1950 article, researchers Leon Lewis and Paul E. Caplan concluded that "the shoe-fitting fluroscope is not an instrument with obvious hazardous potentialities.  It has long been used and no direct clinical evidence of harm has yet been established" and x-ray machines continued to be a common sight in shoe stores.  Still,  with growing anecdotal evidence of shoe-store assistants developing skin problems from overexposure to x-rays, U.S. agencies began imposing stricter guidelines concerning safe exposure levels.  Companies selling fluroscopes took the new regulations in stride and even boasted about their compliance in advertisements which suggested (incorrectly) that their machines were government approved.   

While no obvious cases like Clarence Dally ever emerged over misuse of shoe-fitting fluroscopes (despite some incidents of basal cell foot carcinoma linked to x-ray use),  the backlash had definitely set in by the 1960s.  More than thirty-three states had banned the device by 1970 and other states insisted that only a qualified physician could operate x-ray machines for shoe-fitting.   Having medical doctors run machines that had been previously seen as harmless was enough to discourage most parents from allowing their use on their children (or themselves).    Companies selling the machines fought back vigorously, both in the U.S. and the U.K. with advertising campaigns intended to overcome suspected health risks but the tide had definitely turned.   By the end of the 1970s, shoe-fitting fluoroscopes were gone from virtually every store (one was reported in Virginia as late as 1981).  

As medical fads go, the x-ray craze was relatively benign despite more than a century passing since Wilhelm Roentgen's initial discovery (not counting Clarence Dally's tragic death).  Although fluoroscopes are used by radiologists, in dental offices, and in industrial settings, modern safeguards help prevent health problems despite ongoing controversy over safe exposure levels.   More unconventional x-ray applications such as the shoe-fitting fluoroscope have long since been phased out.  Still, full-body x-ray scanners remain a common feature in airports and security checkpoints arond the world despite limited research on safe exposure levels.   Whether the rationale for their use will prove to be as  mythical as the "benefits" of the shoe-fitting fluoroscope will be for future generations to discover.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is There a Bridget Jones Effect?

“Come on, let's get you a drink. How's your love life, anyway?   Oh God. Why can't married people understand that this is no longer a polite question to ask? We wouldn't rush up to them and roar, "How's your marriage going? Still have sex?”   Helen Fielding, Bridget Jones' Diary

In an era in which the choice to put off marriage or even forgo it altogether is becoming more popular,  more adults than ever are single and content to stay that way for a large part of their lives.  According to the latest World Marriage Data, for example, the proportion of people who are married has dropped sharply over the past four decades in many Western countries, including the United States and Canada.  This is especially true for adults aged 18 to 25 who can be considered "emerging adults."   

While marriage for this age group was far more common back in 1970, more young adults are choosing to put off marriage while they pursue other life goals.  These can include finishing school, devoting themselves to a career, and "playing the field" with numerous romantic relationships rather than committing themselves to one person exclusively.    Still, while the pressure to marry at an early age is not as great as it once was (at least in Western countries), surveys of emerging adults, both male and female, indicate that most of them express the hope of being in a committed relationship eventually.  

Ironically enough, single adults often find themselves having to justify their choice to be single, not just to friends or family, but even to total strangers they might happen to meet.   There is also a certain stigma attached to singles, especially as they grow older.   Surveys suggest that singles are often viewed as being lonelier and less mature than their married counterparts.  They can also be considered less warm and caring as well.   Despite research showing that well-adjusted singles are often healthier, more socially active, and more involved in the community than married couples, the stereotype of the "desperate, lonely, single" still persists.  

While being single confers many advantages, including providing greater control over financial and activities, less financial pressure, and more freedom to pursue recreational or vocational interests, the desire to be in a committed relationship remains strong.   Women under the age of 35 typically reported facing active discrimination, especially if they are sexually active, something that single men are often able to avoid (aside from speculation about their sexual orientation).   Still, for both men and women, the fear of being single is often very real.  When this fear is especially strong, it can lead to people lowering their relationship standards by "settling" for partners who might not be suitable for them.   When they do form relationships, they can often be more emotionally dependent and "clingy" and, as a result, may be extremely reluctant to have that relationship end.  

And the stigma surrounding single people seems deeply rooted in our society.   Along with cultural and family expectations, stereotypes about desperate, lonely singles are frequently found in movies and television shows.   According to the cultivation theory first developed by media researcher George Gebner, all forms of mass media, especially television, provide a "“common symbolic environment” that can shape the way people view the world.   For heavy TV viewers in particular, the way the world is presented in movies and television can often be interpreted as reflecting real life.  Granted, we have a wide variety of different viewing options these days, including network and cable television, media streaming on the Internet, etc.  which can affect viewing audiences in different ways depending on the kind of shows they prefer.  

To read more, check out my new Psychology Today blog post.  

 

Can Problem Gambling Be Transmitted Across Generations?

The risk for developing a gambling problem is greater among offspring who have a problem gambling parent, yet little research has directly examined the mechanisms by which this transmission of problem gambling occurs. For this reason, a new study published in the journal Addictive Behaviors sought to examine the degree to which children's expectancies and motives relating to gambling explain, at least in part, the intergenerational transmission of problem gambling. Study participants (N = 524; 56.5% male) were recruited from educational institutions, and retrospectively reported on parental problem gambling. Problem gambling was measured using the Problem Gambling Severity Index and a range of positive and negative expectancies and gambling motives were explored as potential mediators of the relationship between parent-and-participant problem gambling. Results showed that the relationship between parent-and-participant problem gambling was significant, and remained so after controlling for sociodemographic factors and administration method. Significant mediators of this relationship included self-enhancement expectancies (feeling in control), money expectancies (financial gain), over-involvement (preoccupation with gambling) and emotional impact expectancies (guilt, shame, and loss), as well as enhancement motives (gambling to increase positive feelings) and coping motives (gambling to reduce or avoid negative emotions). All mediators remained significant when entered into the same model. These findings highlight that gambling expectancies and motives present unique pathways to the development of problem gambling in the offspring of problem gambling parents, and suggest that gambling cognitions may be potential candidates for targeted interventions for the offspring of problem gamblers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)

For the abstract

Can Anti-Diabetes Drugs Reverse Memory Loss in Alzheimer's Disease?

A new research study looking at the effects of a drug originally developed to treat Type 2 diabetes has yielded promising results into the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.  The study, which was recently published in the journal Brain Research, was carried out by a team of researchers led by Christian Holscher of Lancaster University in the U.K.   

Since diabetes mellitis is a potential risk factor for Alzheimer's disease, the researchers tested the new drug, a GLP-1/GIP/glucagon receptor agonist, in mice.   The mice carry human transgenes linked to an inherited for of Alzheimer's disease.   As a result, they develop behavioural and cognitive features resembling human Alzheimer's disease making them widely used in dementia research.   The GLP-1/GIP/glucagon receptor agonist acts in three different ways to protect brains from the degenerative effects of Alzheimer's disease and previous studies have already shown positive benefits in treating mouse dementia.

Results showed that that drug "significantly reversed memory loss" in mice and enabled them to complete complex memory tasks more effectively than control mice.  Total amount of amyloid plaque, a common feature in Alzheimer's disease, has also been found to be significantly reduced.   Other effects include significantly reduced nerve cell loss and enhanced levels of a brain growth factor that protects nerve cells.

In a recent media interview, Professor Holscher stated that: "These very promising outcomes demonstrate the efficacy of these novel multiple receptor drugs that originally were developed to treat type 2 diabetes but have shown consistent neuro- protective effects in several studies.  Clinical studies with an older version of this drug type already showed very promising results in people with Alzheimer’s disease or with mood disorders. Here we show that a novel triple receptor drug shows promise as a potential treatment for Alzheimer’s but further dose-response tests and direct comparisons with other drugs have to be conducted in order to evaluate if this new drugs is superior to previous ones."   

While much more research is needed before human trials can be considered, these results may represent a radical new approach in the treatment of a disease that already affects millions of people around the world.  With the incidence of Alzheimer's disease and related conditions expected to rise dramatically over the next few decades, the need for better treatment options is becoming desperate.

 

For more information 

 

 

The Body Snatcher

In the summer of 1989, construction workers doing renovations in the basement of an old campus building made a gruesome discovery:   layer upon layer of bones, including complete skeletons that were unmistakably human.   According to the forensic anthropologists assigned to investigate the remains, there were more than 10,000 bones though even the experts couldn't tell how many there were in all.   They also unearthed piles of human clothing, buttons, and medical instruments though there was nothing else to indicate the names and identities of the deceased.

While all the bones were eventually unearthed to be taken to Georgia State University for research, there was no real mystery about where they all came from. The building that was being renovated was once the home to the Augusta Medical College and the bones themselves were the remains of hundreds of dissections carried out by medical students during the 19th century.  That many of the dissected bodies had been obtained illegally by "resurrection men" digging up freshly dead corpses from local cemeteries has no secret, but newspaper stories covering the discovery did focus on one almost-forgotten figure from history:  the former slave who had been the most prolific body snatcher of his time.

Little is known about Grandison Harris' early life before being purchased by the Augusta Medical College in 1852. By all accounts, he had been chosen by the medical college because of they needed a strong slave for the type of work they had in mind.  Though his official job title was "janitor,"  his true job was much more sinister.  During the 19th century, laws banning the use of human corpses for dissection were widespread (it was typically considered "desecration") and medical schools were faced with the problem of getting enough bodies to train students in surgery.   While some places allowed the bodies of executed criminals to be used instead, this was hardly widespread and the body shortage remained acute on both sides of the Atlantic.

All of which led to the demand for people who specialized in securing bodies for medical schools in a variety of ways.   Many of these bodies were obtained either by robbing cemeteries or claiming the corpses of people without families.   Usually treated as a misdemeanor by courts recognizing that resurrection men served a necessary purpose, the ghoulish Burke and Hare case that emerged in 1828, not to mention the "Burkers" of London who followed their example, led to a change in UK laws that eventually eliminated the need for body snatching altogether.

In Georgia, unfortunately, the laws against body snatching remained in place.  And so, for nearly three decades, Grandison Harris plied his trade as a full-time grave robber.  While many other resurrection men worked in teams due to the effort in digging up corpses, the powerfully built Harris managed just fine on his own.  What made his job even easier was his privileged position with the medical school and his position as a "janitor" which helped allay suspicions.   His nightly routine was straightforward enough:  driving his horse cart to the cemetery of his choosing, he would slip in, pick out the grave he wanted, dig it up, smash the coffin lid with an axe, and toss the body into a sack to go on his cart.   By carefully refilling the grave, he also removed any traces to show it had been disturbed.  

It probably also helped that Harris preferred not to steal from the more prominent cemeteries that could afford proper security to prevent body thefts.   Instead, Harris focused on the cemeteries that catered to African American families as well as the local "Potter's field" where paupers and unidentified corpses were buried.  Not that this was unique to Georgia in any way, mind you.  Back in the 19th century, cemeteries were as segregated as neighbourhoods were with "Negro burying grounds" being set aside even in Potter's fields in most U.S. cities.  This made them prime targets for resurrection men looking for bodies to sell and, despite complaints from families of the deceased, the stealing would continue for decades.  

In his own quiet way, Grandison Harris became a legend among the staff and students at the medical college.  According to one story, a medical student had snuck up to Harris' horse cart while he was getting a drink in a local tavern (as he usually did after a hard night's work).  The student then removed a body from one of the sacks in the cart and took the corpse's place.  When Harris returned to the cart, the student began moaning in a ghostly voice: "Grandison, I'm cold.  Get me a drink!"  Harris, who likely had lots of experience dealing with student pranks, reportedly told the voice to "get your own drink."  

But resurrection men like Grandison Harris rarely had an easy job securing bodies.   Well-publicized cases of body-snatching (usually involving the bodies of white people) often led to family members taking the law into their own hands to protect the bodies of their recently buried relatives.   This included hiring security to watch the graves or, in some cases, setting up a spring-gun trap in the coffin.   Newspaper stories about the thousands of bodies "mutilated every year on dissecting tables in medical colleges in the United States" were also used to sell "burglar-proof grave vaults" to the well-to do.  As for poorer families that couldn't afford extra security, all they could do was to leave trace markers such as specially-placed stones on the graves to tell if they had been disturbed in any way.   

All of this also led to widespread public resentment against medical schools, including the 1788 Doctor's riot in New York City that left many rioters and militiamen dead.   But there was nothing equivalent occurring in Georgia since Grandison Harris was canny enough to avoid exposure for decades.  Considering what he was able to accomplish for them, the college administrators certainly appreciated Harris' work.  In 1858, just a few years after his body-snatching began, they purchased Harris' wife and son from a South Carolina plantation for $1,250 (hardly a small sum in those days) and brought them to Augusta to join him.  

Ironically enough, Grandison Harris became a prominent figure in the local African American community (likely because the had no idea he was the one stealing the bodies of their loved ones).  Not only did his time at the medical college allow him to become an authority on human dissection  and anatomy, but he lectured medical students on these subjects as well.   Still, considering the discrimination and class barriers that were common at the time, it's hardly surprising that he was never officially acknowledged for his work.  

 Also, with the changing times and the greater availability of corpses due to changes in legislation, he eventually lost much of the legal protection the medical college provided.  Finally, in 1882, he was arrested for body-snatching and ordered to  pay a fine of $1000 and spend twelve months working on a chain gang (no word is given on whether the fine was paid).  Despite this setback, he continued to work for the college though he was only paid about $15 a month according to records.   He eventually retired in 1905 on a pension of $10 a month and died in 1911 having lived well into his nineties.   He is buried in Cedar Grove Cemetery, not far from many of the graves he had stolen bodies from over the years.

Aside from the inevitable mention whenever new stories of human remains linked to the college come to light, Grandison Harris has also become enshrined in local legends surrounding resurrection men and body-snatching.   In 2013, a debut novel by author Matthew Guinn was released to popular acclaim, including being a finalist for the Edgar Award for best mystery novel.   Titled, "The Resurrectionist", the novel is largely based on the story of Grandison Harris who is represented in the book by a tormented slave named "Nemo" (no man).   Just something to keep the Grandison Harris legend alive for another generation.