How the mind ages

The way mental function changes is largely determined by three factors-mental

lifestyles, the impact of chronic disease and flexibility of the mind.
Experiments have shown that younger monkeys consistently outperform their older
colleagues on memory tests. Formerly, psychologists concluded that memory and
other mental functions in humans deteriorate over time because of changes in the
brain. Thus, mental decline after young adulthood appeared inevitable. The truth,
however, is not quite so simple.
Stanley Rapoport at the National Institute of Health in the United States measured
the flow of blood in the brains of old and young people as they completed different
tasks. Since blood flow reflects neural activity. Rapoport could compare which
networks of neurons were the same, the neural networks they used were
significantly different. The older subjects used different internal strategies to
accomplish comparable results at the same time,'Rapoport says. At the Georgia
Institute of Technology, psychologist Timothy Salthouse compared a group of fast
and accurate typists of college age with another group in their 60s. Both groups
typed 60 words a minute. The older typists, it turned out, achieved their speed with
cunning little strategies that made them more efficient than their younger
counterparts. They made fewer finger shifts, gaining a fraction of a second here
and there. They also read ahead in the test. The neural networks involved in typing
appear to have been reshaped to compensate for losses in motor skills or other age
changes.
In fact, there's evidence that deterioration in mental functions can actually be
reversed. Neuropsychologist Marion Diamond at the University of California has
shown that mental activity maks neurons sprout new dendrites* which establish
connections with other neurons. The dendrites shrink when the mind is idle. For
example,'when a rat is kept in isolation, the animal's brain shrinks, but if we put
that rat with other rats in a large cage and give them an assortment of toys, we can
show, after four days, significant differences in its brain.'says Diamond. After a
month in the enriched surroundings, the whole cerebral cortex has expanded, as
has its blood supply.'But even in the enriched surroundings, rats get bored unless
the toys are varied. Animals are just like we are. They need stimulation,'says
Diamond. A busy mental lifestyle keeps the human mind fit, says Warner Schaie of
Penn State University. ‘People who regularly participate in challenging tasks retain
their intellectual abilities better than mental couch potatoes.'
In his studies, Schaie detected a decline in mental function among individuals who
underwent lengthy stays in hospital for chronic illness. He postulated it might be
due to the mental passivity encouraged by hospital routine.
One of the most profoundly important mental functions is memory. Memory exists
in more than one form, what we call knowledge- facts- is what psychologists such
as Harry Bahrick of Ohio Wesleyan University call semantic memory. Events,
conversations and occurrences in time and space, on the other hand, make up
episodic memory. It's true that episodic memory begins to decline when most
people are in their 50s, but it's never perfect at any age.
Probing the longevity of knowledge, Bahrick tested 1,000 high school graduates to
see how well they remembered the school subject algebra. Some had completed the
course a month before, other 50 years earlier. Surprisingly, he found that a person's
grasp of algebra did not depend on how long ago he'd taken the course. The
determining factor was the duration of instruction. Those who had spent only a few
months learning algebra forgot most of it within two or three years while others
who had been instructed for longer remembered better. According to Bahrick,'the
long-term residue of knowledge remains stable over the decades, independent of
the age of the person and the memory.'
Perhaps even more important than the ability to remember is the ability to manage
memory- a mental function known as metamemory.'You could say metamemory is
a byproduct of going to school,'says psychologist Robert Kail of Purdue
University,'The question-and-answer process,especially exam taking, helps
children learn and teaches them how their memory functions.This may be one
reason why the better educated a person is, the more likely they are to perform well
in many aspects of life and in psychological assessments: A group of adult novice
chess players were compared with a group of child experts at the game. But when
asked to remember the patterns of chess pieces arranged on a board, the children
won.' Because they'd played a lot of chess, their knowledge of chess was better
organized than that of the adults, and their existing knowledge of chess served as a
framework for new memory,'explains Kail. Cognitive style, another factor in
maintaining mental function, is what Schaie calls the ability to adapt and roll with
life's punches.'He measured mental flexibility with questions and tests requiring
people to carry out in an offbeat way an everyday activity they had done millions
of times. One example was asking people to copy a paragraph substituting
uppercase letters for lowercase ones. These tests seem silly, but flexible-minded
people manage to complete them,'says Schaie. The rigid person responds with
tension instead and performs poorly. Those who score highly on tests of cognition
at an advanced age are those who tested high in mental flexibility at middle age'.
On a more optimistic note, one mental resource that only improves with time is
specialized knowledge. Crystallised intelligence about one's occupation apparently
does not decline at all until at least age 75. Vocabulary is another such specialized
form of knowledge. Research clearly shows that vocabulary develops with time.
Retired teachers and journalists consistently score higher on tests of vocabulary
and general information than college students.
Ensuring our future food supply
Climate change and new diseases threaten the limited varieties of seeds we depend
on for food. Luckily, we still have many of the seeds used in the past-but we must
take steps to save them.
Six miles outside the town of Decorah, Iowa in the USA, an 890-acre stretch of
rolling fields and woods called Heritage Farm is letting its crops go to seed.
Everything about Heritage Farm is in stark contrast to the surrounding acres of
intensively farmed fields of corn and soybean that are typical of modern
agriculture. Heritage Farm is devoted to collecting rather than growing seeds. It is
home to the Seed Savers Exchange, one of the largest non-government-owned seed
banks in the United States.
In 1975 Diane Ott Whealy was given the seedlings of two plant varieties that her
great grandfather had brought to America from Bavaria in 1870: Grandpa Ott’s
morning glory and his German Pink tomato. Wanting to preserve similar traditional
varieties, known as heirloom plants, Diane and her husband, Kent, decided to
establish a place where the seeds of the past could be kept and traded. The
exchange now has more than 13,000 members, and the many thousands of
heirloom varieties they have donated are kept in its walk-in coolers, freezers, and
root cellars the seeds of many thousands of heirloom varieties and, as you walk
around an old red barn that is covered in Grandpa Ott’s beautiful morning glory
blossoms, you come across the different vegetables, herbs, and flowers they have
planted there.
"Each year our members list their seeds in this,"Diane Ott Whealy says, handing
over a copy of the Seed Savers Exchange 2010 Yearbook. It is as thick as a big-city
telephone directory, with page after page of exotic beans, garlic, potatoes, peppers,
apples, pears, and plums-each with its own name and personal history .For
example, there’s an Estonian Yellow Cherry tomato, which was brought to the seed
bank by “an elderly Russian lady” who lived in Tallinn, and a Persian Star garlic
from “a bazaar in Samarkand.”There’s also a bean donated by archaeologists
searching for pygmy elephant fossils in New Mexico.
Heirloom vegetables have become fashionable in the United States and Europe
over the past decade, prized by a food movement that emphasizes eating locally
and preserving the flavor and uniqueness of heirloom varieties. Found mostly in
farmers' markets and boutique groceries, heirloom varieties have been squeezed
out of supermarkets in favor of modern single-variety fruits and vegetables bred to
ship well and have a uniform appearance, not to enhance flavor. But the movement
to preserve heirloom varieties goes way beyond the current interest in North
America and Europe in tasty, locally grown food. It’s also a campaign to protect
the world’s future food supply. Most people in the well-fed world give little
thought to where their food comes from or how it’s grown. They wander through
well-stocked supermarkets without realizing that there may be problem ahead.
We’ve been hearing for some time about the loss of flora and fauna in our
rainforests. Very little,by contrast,is being said or done about the parallel decline in
the diversity of the foods we eat.
Food variety extinction is happening all over the world - and it's happening fast. In
the United States an estimated 90 percent of historic fruit and vegetable varieties
are no longer grown. Of the 7,000 different apple varieties that were grown in the
1800s, fewer than a hundred remain. In the Philippines thousands of varieties of
rice once thrived; now only about a hundred are grown there. In China 90 percent
of the wheat varieties cultivated just a hundred years ago have disappeared.
Experts estimate that in total we have lost more than 50 percent of the world's food
varieties over the past century.
Why is this a problem? Because if disease or future climate change affects one of
the handful of plants, we've come to depend on to feed our growing planet, we
might desperately need one of those varieties we've let become extinct. The loss of
the world's cereal diversity is a particular cause for concern. A fungus called Ug99,
which was first identified in Uganda in 1999, is spreading across the world's wheat
crops. From Uganda it moved to Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Yemen. By 2007 it
had jumped the Persian Gulf into Iran. Scientists predict that the fungus will soon
make its way into India and Pakistan, then spread to Russia and China, and
eventually the USA.
Roughly 90 percent of the world's wheat has no defense against this particular
fungus. If it reached the USA, an estimated one billion dollars' worth of crops
would be at risk. Scientists believe that in Asia and Africa alone, the portion
currently in danger could leave one billion people without their primary food
source. A famine with significant humanitarian consequences could follow,
according to Rick Ward of Cornell University.
The population of the world is expected to reach nine billion by 2045. Some
experts say we’ll need to double our food production to keep up with this growth.
Given the added challenge of climate change and disease, it is becoming ever more
urgent to find ways to increase food yield. The world has become increasingly
dependent upon a technology-driven, one-size-fits-all approach to food supply. Yet
the best hope for securing our food's future may depend on our ability to preserve
the locally cultivated foods of the past.
The fluoridation controversy
The long-standing debate about whether to fluoridate our drinking water continues
Fluoridation is the addition of fluorine to public water supplies with the aim of
reducing tooth decay. The fluorine, when mixed with water, becomes fluoride and
the desired concentration of fluoride in public water is approximately one part per
million, depending on the regional temperature and hence the amount of water
people are likely to drink. Many studies, such as those by McClure in 1970 through
to Burt in 1983, have shown that when children drink fluoridated water, their
average rate of tooth decay seems greatly reduced. A typical figure claimed is 50
percent reduction. This apparently enormous benefit for children's teeth is the
major argument in favor of fluoridation.
Three main grounds for opposition to fluoridation have been expressed. First,
opponents claim the benefits are exaggerated or not established. Second, there are
claims of health risks to pans of the population, for example, allergic reactions. It is
also accepted that high levels of fluoride can cause discoloration of otherwise
healthy teeth. Proponents do not consider this to be a problem in such small
concentrations, whereas opponents disagree - especially because some people
drink more water and obtain much more than the standard 1 milligram of fluoride
per day. Third, fluoridation is thought to be an infringement on individual rights
because it is compulsory medication of all members of a community.
An understanding of the fluoridation issue has important implications. If,
according to the experts, fluoridation is unquestionably a beneficial and non-
hazardous measure, then the wisdom of allowing the public to vote on, and reject it
must be questioned.
Almost all studies that have been done have assumed that the scientific aspects of
the controversy are unproblematic, and they have excluded science from
sociological examination. The traditional view is that science is a special kind of
knowledge, which is established through scientific methods and objectively
applied by members of a scientific community. However, in recent years there has
been a major challenge to this picture by a sociology of science that shows how
scientific knowledge is socially negotiated, and inevitably linked to the values of
the relevant parties, both scientists and nonscientists. These challengers do not see
scientific knowledge as exempt from social inquiry.
Kuhn (1970) argued that scientific knowledge does not always develop as an
orderly process, but is characterized by periodic revolutions. in which the methods
of study and the assessment criteria change in a fragmented way. According to
Kuhn, the shift from one scientific way of thinking to another is not made solely on
the basis of clear rules of formal scientific practice, but can include social factors,
though Kuhn has never developed a full analysis of what these might be. Collins
(1975) took this concept further when he asserted that the outcome of experiments
was not something whose meaning could be immediately comprehended, but rather
something for interpretation, discussion between scientists, and reinterpretation in
the light of other experiments.
One interpretation of this analysis of science is that traditional distinctions between
facts and theories, and between scientific knowledge and values, can no longer be
justified. Because social processes are involved at all stages of the creation,
evaluation, and establishing of scientific knowledge, social values may also be
involved.
In the same way as many scientists who study fluoridation have overlooked social
values, sociologists have also downplayed an important part of the debate by
ignoring the number of eminent scientists who have questioned aspects of
fluoridation. An example is the study by Sutton in 1960, which analyzed the classic
North American studies of the effect of fluoridation on tooth decay, and found that
each showed significant methodological shortcomings. Sutton's detailed study
throws doubt as to the extent of reductions in tooth decay from fluoridation. Yet
Sutton's book is not cited in a single analysis of the fluoridation issue by any
sociologist. In a situation of some scientific uncertainty, differences in values are
highlighted. A supporter of fluoridation might argue. The evidence for the benefits
of fluoridation is quite substantial, while the evidence for harm is limited and
dubious. I think the likely benefits outweigh the possible dangers; hence I support
fluoridation because it is the cheapest and easiest way to make sure every child
reaps the benefits. An opponent might argue, 'Though the evidence for the benefits
of fluoridation is substantial, there is some doubt about it. Since fluoridation is not
necessary for good teeth, we should forego the benefits if there is some slight
chance of harm. Some scientists claim that a small percentage of the population
could be harmed by fluoride. Therefore I oppose fluoridation of water supplies and
favor the voluntary use of fluoride tablets by those who want to take them.'
Both arguments consider the scientific evidence concerning fluoridation, but differ
in their assessments of the social benefits and costs. This difference is not between
rationality and irrationality but is a legitimate difference in values, for example, the
positive value placed on good teeth, the negative value placed on possible health
risks, and the social benefits or costs of compulsory or voluntary intake of
fluorides.
From the sociological point of view, opposition to fluoridation is not necessarily
irrational. Rather, claims to rationality and to scientific authority are better seen as
part of a strategy to promote fluoridation than as incontrovertible statements of
fact. Second, social values are likely to be bound up in any decision about
fluoridation, so this is not an issue on which declarations by scientific experts
ought to be considered the final word.