We detect the smell of rotten fish before the smell of roses. Really was this a surprise?

The IgNobel prize, for the last twenty or so years has been a parody of the Nobel prize, awarding odd, silly and irreverent research.  Research, as the IgNobel website decrees, "that makes people laugh and then think."  While this years winners have yet to be announced, I feel the scientific article "The fish is bad: Negative food odors elicit faster and more accurate reactions than other odors", might be a great candidate.  

Because initially it does indeed make you laugh.

Why do the differences in the way we smell things really matter?  Doesn't research like this seem to be a bit of a waste of time and resource?

No it's not a waste of time. becuase it begins to make use think.

While, the conclusions of the research that our olfactory sense (sense of smell) will react to noxious odors faster than pleasant smells is not entirely surprising.  I mean how many times have you found yourself near a pile of dog crap, yet find yourself admiring your boyfriend/girlfriend's cologne/perfume instead?  Highly unlikely.  

However, these data indeed  indicate the existence of a physiological olfactory response that reacts quicker to stressful or dangerous stimuli.  While we may enjoy the smell of roses, our sensitivity to noxious fumes and stimuli is likely far more important evolutionarily speaking for our survival.  Bad smells often equate to bad consequences.

Not surprising conclusions, but still important.  All knowledge is important.


You can also read about this article on physorg.com.