Are Humans Prepared to Detect, Fear, and Avoid Snakes? The Mismatch Between Laboratory and Ecological Evidence.

Since Seligman (1971) statement that the vast majority of phobias are about objects essential to the survival of a species, a multitude of laboratory studies followed, supporting the finding that humans learn to fear and detect snakes (and other animals) faster than other stimuli. Most of these studies used schematic drawings, images, or pictures of snakes, and only a small amount of fieldwork in naturalistic environments was done. We address fear preparedness theories and automatic fast detection data from mainstream laboratory data and compare it with ethobehavioral information relative to snakes, predator-prey interaction, and snakes' defensive kinematics strikes in order to analyze their potential matching. From this analysis, four main findings arose, namely that (1) snakebites occur when people are very close to the snake and are unaware or unable to escape the bite; (2) human visual detection and escape response is slow compared to the speed of snake strikes; (3) in natural environments, snake experts are often unable to see snakes existing nearby; (4) animate objects in general capture more attention over other stimuli and dangerous, but recent objects in evolutionary terms are also able to be detected fast. The issues mentioned above pose several challenges to evolutionary psychology-based theories expecting to find special-purpose neural modules. The older selective habituation hypothesis (Schleidt, 1961) that prey animals start with a rather general predator image from which specific harmless cues are removed by habituation might deserve reconsideration.

Loop-mediated isothermal PCR (LAMP) for the diagnosis of falciparum malaria.

A recently described loop-mediated isothermal polymerase chain reaction (LAMP) for molecular detection of Plasmodium falciparum was compared with microscopy, PfHRP2-based rapid diagnostic test (RDT), and nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as the "gold standard" in 115 Bangladeshi in-patients with fever. DNA extraction for LAMP was conducted by conventional methods or simple heating of the sample; test results were either assessed visually or by gel electrophoresis. Conventional DNA extraction followed by gel electrophoresis had the highest agreement with the reference method (81.7%, kappa = 0.64), with a sensitivity (95% CI) of 76.1% (68.3-83.9%), comparable to RDT and microscopy, but a specificity of 89.6% (84.0-95.2%) compared with 100% for RDT and microscopy. DNA extraction by heat treatment deteriorated specificity to unacceptable levels. LAMP enables molecular diagnosis of falciparum malaria in settings with limited technical resources but will need further optimization. The results are in contrast with a higher accuracy reported in an earlier study comparing LAMP with a non-validated PCR method.