I don’t write enough on science topics. So here is a short and simple one, which I want to refer to in future. A genetic study was conducted at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom this year. Data from the UK Biobank (a genetics database) were used. The study was designed to either confirm or falsify the idea that higher levels of testosterone would make men more successful. It was already known that victors have higher testosterone levels than losers in sports, of course measured at sports events. It was also known that higher levels in testosterone correlate with economic success and wealth in men, but with a worse health in women. The study at the university of Bristol checked whether these people with higher testosterone levels are the same people, who are genetically prone to produce more testosterone. The alternative would be that the also already known correlation between stress and sinking testosterone level would explain the other correlations. The result of the study is that there is absolutely no correlation between the production of testosterone and success in any way! Those people with success as well as high levels in testosterone have high levels of testosterone because they experience fewer stress than people, who suffer from chronic stress because they have to fight through (especially of socio-economic) disadvantages in life and are hence less successful. So the result is what common sense would have told anyway. But now this should be put clear finally.

I also read that in another study, conducted in Sweden this year, was a reason found why the two sexes, male and female, separated from each other. Males were already known as widely superfluous. The existence of females is explained with them giving birth to the next generation. So the question was narrowed down to why there are males. The Swedish study suggests that males can be pawn sacrifices for getting rid of harmful genetic mutations. This also is in accordance with common sense as already proven by the fact that biologists learn this since roughly hundred years when they seriously attend university. Why did Swedish researchers need until this year to find the same theory? This really is the only question, which I still have on this topic.