A federal panel advised the FDA last week that menthol cigarettes are more harmful to the public health than regular cigarettes. However, it did not recommend or endorse any actions the FDA should take to act on the advice.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=86lYG1V2-n4

According to the panel, menthol cigarettes drive-up cigarette smoking rates among youth and African-Americans because its minty taste attracts people to try cigarettes and makes it harder for them to quit. In addition, its mild anesthetic properties mask the harsh taste of cigarettes. That sensation might otherwise deter some from the habit before they get hooked. The report also cites evidence that consumers believe (incorrectly) that menthol provides some health protection or medicinal benefit.

“Removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace would benefit public health in the United States,” the panel’s report concludes.

The panel’s official name is the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee. Its report will likely trigger a lengthy test of the FDA’s ability to promulgate and enforce restrictions on cigarettes, nicotine and menthol. The FDA will review the report and other information before deciding what to do. It has no obligation to do anything.

Reaction to the report was mixed. Some saw it as a necessary first step toward an outright ban on menthol. Others were disappointed that the advisory group shied away from recommending steps the FDA might take to deal with the problem it identified.

As Pizaazz readers know, Lorillard Tobacco had a keen interest in the panel’s report. Fully 90% of the Greensboro, NC, company’s revenue is derived from its Newport brand, which is the market-leading menthol cigarette (35% the market). Lorillard’s stock jumped 10% the day the panel released its report, and it has remained high. 

“This is a huge victory for Lorillard,” Michael Siegel said. The tobacco expert and BU professor added that the panel’s decision not to recommend any specific action, “swept the issue under the rug by giving the FDA an out.”

Menthol cigarette sales account for about 27% of the highly profitable $80 billion US cigarette market. More than 19 million people smoke menthols in the US. A disproportionate number of these people are black, low income and young. Specifically, 80% of African-American smokers and nearly half of all smokers between the ages of 12-17 light-up menthols. By contrast, 22% of whites select menthols.

For his part, panel chairman Jonathan Samet, insisted his group actually did make a recommendation, citing the following statement from the report:  “Removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace would benefit public health in the United States.”

“To me that speaks quite clearly to what our recommendation is,” Samet said in an interview. “The statement about removal is what the public health recommendation is, and I think how one achieves that outcome depends on the strategies available to the FDA under the law. I’ll be watching with interest what the FDA does next.”

How this will shake out
Sadly, the FDA is unlikely to seek an all-out ban on menthol. The move would prompt years of expensive, distracting litigation for the agency. Oh, and according to UBS industry analyst Nik Modi, state and federal governments rake-in nearly $43 billion per year in cigarette excise taxes…a good chunk of this revenue could be lost if menthol smokers began purchasing their favorite smokes on the black market. Look for the FDA to initiate several years-worth of additional studies, and for fun, check out which members of congress get campaign contributions from Lorillard and other cigarette companies.

Younger, healthier patients would be more likely than older, sicker ones to get the best kidneys if a new proposal by UNOS, the US’ organ transplant network is accepted. The proposal would supersede an existing first-come, first-served policy. It is designed to match-up the life expectancies of patients with the expected functional life of donated organs.

According to the proposal by the United Network for Organ Sharing, recipients and donor organs will be graded. The top 20% of patients and kidneys—based on age and health—will be placed in separate pools such that patients with the longest life expectancies will receive the best kidneys. The other 80% will be assigned to a separate a pool from which UNOS will match recipients and donors such that the age difference between the two is no greater than 15 years. For example, a 60 year-old person could only receive a kidney from donors who are between the ages of 45 and 75.

“Right now, if you’re 77 years old and you’re offered an 18-year-old’s kidney, you get it,” Richard Formica, a member of the UNOS  panel that penned the new proposal said in an interview. “You’ll die with that kidney still functioning…a 30-year-old could have gotten that kidney and lived with it to see his kids graduate college.”

The new proposal would affect the 90,000 or so people that are currently on waiting lists for donor kidneys. In 2009, 10,442 kidney transplants were performed using organs from deceased individuals. An additional 6,387 procedures involved live donors who typically specify the recipient. Nearly 5,000 people die while waiting for a kidney transplant.

Many transplant surgeons and medical ethicists support the proposal. Arthur Caplan, a leading bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania reflected this sentiment as follows: “If it’s a choice between saving grandpa or granddaughter, I think you save granddaughter first.”

However, it’s less clear that kidney transplant patients, certain lobbying groups and lawmakers will embrace the proposal. Older patients are going to have a hard time getting a kidney if the proposal takes effect, for example. As University of Chicago ethicist Lainie Friedman Ross told the New York Times, “Under this policy, if you’re 65, you might as well give up before you even get on the wait list.”

In addition, the new proposal ignores gaping geographic disparities in organ donation rates Patients in Chicago and New York wait up to several years longer than those on the kidney waiting list in Florida because of this problem.

Currently, UNOS maintains a computer network that links all organ procurement organizations (OPOs) and transplant centers. Transplant professionals can access the network 24/7. Each day, UNOS handles about 350 events, including waiting list modifications and requests for organ placement assistance.

More than 70% of all medical devices that have been recalled by the FDA for safety concerns were not subjected to rigorous clinical testing before the agency approved them, according to a new study.

The study authors were Diana Zuckerman and Paul Brown from the National Research Center for Women and Families, a consumer group, and Steven Nissen, a cardiologist at Cleveland Clinic.

The authors reported that overall, the FDA recalled 113 medical devices between 2005 and 2009. Of these, 21 had been approved on the basis of rigorous clinical trial data. Eighty others had been approved under a less stringent, expedited approval process known as 510K, in which a device maker needs only to show that its new product is substantially similar to one already on the market. An additional 8 devices were exempt from FDA regulations, and 4 more were either counterfeit or classified as “other.”

Devices approved using the 510K approval process included mechanical ventilators, insulin infusion pumps, artificial hips and knees, and external cardiac defibrillators. The more rigorous process is typically reserved for life-supporting devices like implanted cardiac defibrillators. In the latter process, device makers must sponsor trials designed to prove their products are safe and effective.

Last summer, the FDA announced it was implementing some steps to “strengthen” the 510K process, but it deferred on a complete overhau pending the release of a report on the matter by the Institute of Medicine. The report is due later this year.
 In an interview, Zuckerman said her group’s findings suggest that the FDA’s actions to date on 510K aren’t adequate. Device manufacturers have managed to expand the concept of “similar” well beyond the FDA’s original intent when the 510K law went live in 1976, Zuckerman explained. “The law has gotten looser and looser over time.”

The FDA blew-off Zuckerman’s findings as old news. According to a statement by the agency, the data had been presented by Zuckerman last year at a public meeting sponsored by the IOM.

For its part, the Advanced Medical Technology Association, a device industry trade group, said the study was misleading. It wasn’t surprising that 510K-approved devices accounted for most of the recalls, the group said, because most FDA-approved devices have gone through the 510K process.

Stephen Ubl, the Association’s CEO added that the study was “fundamentally flawed” since it focused “on the total number of recalls and ignored the fact that there are over 50,000 devices on the market.”

Ubl added that the percentage of products recalled for serious health problems or deaths was substantially below 1%. He added that an overly strict regulatory process would hinder innovation and prompt device manufacturers to move product development to other countries where regulatory scrutiny isn’t as intense.

Zuckerman’s write-up appears in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Federal courts have ruled that it is a violation of the US Constitution’s Establishment Clause to teach creationism—including its modern-day derivative, intelligent design—in public schools. Nevertheless, a recent national survey has confirmed that the practice is widespread in our country.

In the survey, Penn State political scientists Eric Plutzer and Michael Berkman queried more than 900 public school biology teachers from around the country.

The researchers found that only 28% of respondents consistently adhered to the recommendations of the National Research Council in presenting scientific evidence for evolution and explaining that the concept is a fundamental, unifying theme of biology. An appalling 13% of respondents taught and solely advocated for creationism. These teachers were spread throughout the country; they were not particularly more likely to be found in the South or West, as many people believe.

The remaining group, referred to by the scientists as “the cautious 60%,” ducked the controversy by failing to endorse evolution or its non-science-based alternatives. Some in this group explained they taught evolution primarily because the subject matter appeared on state exams. They told students it wasn’t necessary to “believe” it. Others taught the concept as it applied to molecular biology and genetics, but not specifically to the evolution and differentiation of species.

More public school students take biology than any other science course, according to the authors. For nearly 25% of them, biology is the only science course they take in high school.

“Students are being cheated out of a rich science education,” Plutzer said in an interview. “We think the ‘cautious 60%’ represent a group of educators who, if they were better trained in science in general and in evolution in particular, would be more confident in their ability to explain controversial topics to their students, to parents, and to school board members.”

Randy Moore, a biology professor at the University of Minnesota, was less optimistic. “These courses aren’t reaching the creationists,” he said. “They already know what evolution is. They were biology majors, or former biology students. They just reject what we told them. This is the biggest failure in science education,” he added. There’s no other field where teachers reject the foundations of their science like they do in biology.”

The survey appeared in the January 28 issue of Science.

NOTES: The National Research Council is part of the National Academy of Sciences. In conjunction with the Institute of Medicine, the NAS published a book, Science, Evolution and Creationism, which gives a comprehensive, up-to-date picture of our current understanding of evolution and its importance in the science classroom.

In 2005, a federal judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, concluded that the teaching of intelligent design is unconstitutional because it is based on religious conviction, not science (Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District). The NAS and IOM maintain that only scientifically based explanations and evidence for the diversity of life should be included in public school science courses. ”Teaching creationist ideas in science class confuses students about what constitutes science and what does not,” the book’s authors said.

In developed nations, human life expectancy has increased steadily for over a century. One of the few negative consequences of this trend has been a marked increase in the prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease, an age-related untreatable condition that has driven enormous health spending on a national scale and wrecked the finances of millions of families in the US alone. Now, with the oldest Baby Boomers just reaching age 65, Alzheimer’s disease seems destined to become a true national health crisis.

Two of the most vexing problems with this nasty disease are determining who has it and diagnosing it early enough (so scientists can understand how it progresses and someday, intervene to either cure it or halt its progression).

With current technology, the only way to accurately diagnose Alzheimer’s disease is at autopsy. Special tests of the deceased’s brain reveal the sine qua non of Alzheimer’s disease: amyloid plaques.

But last week, 2 studies appearing in JAMA provided rays of hope in this otherwise dismal state of affairs. We review them both below:

Brain Scan Detects Plaques
In the first study, scientists injected a radioactive dye known as Flobetapir F 18 into the blood of elderly volunteers, and then used PET scans to image their brains.  Florbetapir F 18 had been designed by Christopher Clark and colleagues at Avid Radiopharmaceuticals to bind to amyloid proteins—which are the main constituents of amyloid plaques—and thus make them visible in vivo using the PET scan.

The PET scans correctly identified amyloid plaques in 97% of the volunteers that actually had them, as proven at autopsy. In addition, PET scans performed after the dye had been injected into young, healthy volunteers revealed no plaques.

Scientists believe the Florbetapir F 18 PET scans could be helpful as a means to exclude the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s. If no plaques are found in a patient with symptoms of dementia, physicians would be compelled to consider other causes of the symptom complex. The PET scans could also potentially be used to test drugs designed to remove amyloid from the brain.

A Blood Test for Alzheimer’s
The second study showed that blood levels of amyloid protein, as detected by a new blood test, were correlated with memory problems.

The study was directed by Kristine Yaffe at UCSF. Her group recruited 997 elderly volunteers and followed them with memory tests and amyloid blood tests for 9 years.

Yaffe’s group found that subjects with the highest blood levels of amyloid protein were less likely to experience declining mental abilities, a result that seems counterintuitive but is in fact consistent with what scientists had expected based on their knowledge of amyloid protein physiology as the disease progresses.

Interestingly, the inverse relation between blood amyloid protein levels and mental capacity was less apparent in subjects with higher educational levels at study onset. Yaffe’s group was careful not to suggest that people who remain mentally active could be spared from Alzheimer’s disease, but suggested that the finding demands further study.

Quick Take
Yaffe’s test is, unfortunately not accurate enough to be useful in clinical settings right now, and the PET scanning approach mentioned above is too expensive for routine clinical use. Nevertheless, these 2 studies represent progress in an area where it is badly needed. We’ll take what we can get and keep our fingers crossed that the science moves as fast as the epidemic.

Humans are the only living things that cry when they are overcome with emotion. Why do we do this?

A study by Noam Sobel and colleagues at the Weizmann Institute provide part of the answer, at least as it relates to women. The scientists showed that when men get a whiff of women’s tears, they experience a temporary, generalized loss of libido and a dip in testosterone. Really.

(And you thought that red, runny nose was the turn-off, didn’t you?)

Scientists have known for decades that the chemical composition of “emotional tears” differs from tears shed due to simple irritation. But now, it appears that some of the chemicals contained in the former are actually pheromones; biological substances that create behavioral changes in others who are exposed to them. Such chemicals were known to exist in urine in anogenital gland secretions (dont ask), but not in tears.

Sobel’s team began its study by posting ads on Israeli college campus bulletin boards in which they sought volunteers who cried easily. Seventy-one people responded. All but one were women. From that group, the scientists identified 6 who were, like, seriously profuse criers and who could return to their labs every other day.

The scientists then asked each one to select a movie that was guaranteed to make them break down, to watch it in private, and to collect their tears in a vial. For the controls, Sobel’s group trickled a saline solution down the same women’s cheeks and collected that.

Sobel’s group subsequently asked male volunteers to sniff the contents of the 2 vials and ran a battery of psychological and physiological tests to measure their responses.

The men could not distinguish the odorless, colorless liquids, but boy oh boy did their responses differ! In one study, men rated women in photos as less sexually attractive after sniffing “emotional tears” than after they sniffed the saline solution. In another study, men watched scenes from a sad movie after sniffing either the real stuff or saline. They were equally sad regardless of which mixture they sniffed, but the tear-sniffers had lower sexual arousal and lower testosterone levels.

To compare these behavioral results with physiological findings, the scientists had men watch a sexually provocative film (“9 ½ Weeks”, the European cut, if you must know) while undergoing a functional MRI scan. Sure enough, men who had sniffed the tears showed less activity in regions of the brain that normally light-up during sexual arousal.

In addition, salivary testosterone levels dropped 13% after men sniffed tears but they remained unchanged after the men sniffed saline. Skin temperature, heart rate and respiratory rate also diminished after men sniffed emotional tears.

“Chemical signaling is a form of language,” said Sobel. “Basically what we’ve found is the chemo-signaling word for ‘no’ — or at least ‘not now.’ ” “We have . . . identified an emotionally relevant function for tears.”

By the way, the death scene in the 1979 film “The Champ” was the most successful tear-inducing film. Other reliable tear-jerkers were “Terms of Endearment,” “Life Is Beautiful,” “My Sister’s Keeper,” “When a Man Loves a Woman” and the Israeli flick, “Broken Wings.”

In an interview with the Washington Post, Sobel said he doubted that chemical signals exist solely in the tears of women. He and his team simply were unable to find enough male criers to test that part of the story.

Maybe they should recruit John Boehner. In any case, Sobel’s write-up appears in Science.

Traditionally, people get blood tests when a doctor recommends them. This usually happens at the conclusion of an office visit. Nowadays however, people have begun deciding for themselves which lab tests to get and when to get them.

Folks have different reasons for making such independent decisions. Some want to keep track of cholesterol or hemoglobin A1C levels. Others want to assure their blood will screen negative for drugs prior to a job search, test for the presence of a disease like hepatitis C or AIDS, or obtain a chemistry panel that provides a broad picture of their overall health. The biggest reason for consumer-directed lab testing however, is an economic one. Uninsured people, and those with high-deductible insurance plans find it cheaper to do-it-themselves, since it avoids the cost of an office visit.

The savings can add up. A lipid profile (including cholesterol levels) obtained from an online lab testing company costs about $40. A hemoglobin A1C test usually runs a bit less. A visit to the doctor’s office typically costs $150 or more.

Although hundreds of tests can be obtained in this manner, the most commonly sought-after tests are lipid profiles, C-reactive protein (a new measure of cardiac risk), liver and kidney function tests, vitamin D levels, and hormone levels including estrogens and testosterone.

Consumers have plenty of ways to get lab tests done on their own. Many simple tests are available at drugstore clinics and health fairs, for example. Those interested in tracking their cholesterol levels over time can purchase either single-use devices for about $15 or reusable devices, usually for under $100.

The real growth in the do-it-yourself lab market however, involves online testing services such as HealthOne, Direct Laboratory Services, Health One, Personalabs and PrivateMD Labs.

According to one report, people spent nearly $20 million for lab tests through companies like these last year, and annual growth of 15-20% is expected in the next few years (although these projections may seriously underestimate demand if newer, lab-on-a-chip technology continues to develop. This technology promises to cut waiting times for lab test results from several days to less than 30 minutes, a feature that will surely capture the imagination of health consumers).

These Web-based companies permit consumers to order lab tests online. They contract with national laboratories like LabCorp to draw the blood and run the test. The firms usually have staff physicians that sign orders for tests without ever seeing patients. They also help consumers interpret the results, for example by emailing them with recommendations to see a doctor if their results fall outside normal ranges and by phoning anyone whose results suggest a serious abnormality.

A Word of Caution
All this is fine and good so long as consumers remember that lab results need to be evaluated in a larger clinical context. A mildly elevated cholesterol level means one thing in an otherwise healthy individual, and quite another in somebody who has multiple cardiac risk factors. As well, various factors influence test results and hence, the way these results should be interpreted. For example, an elevated C-reactive protein level can suggest increased cardiac risk, but it also can be caused by non-cardiac factors like a winter cold or some other minor infection. It’s always wise to consult a physician or another trained provider when it comes to interpreting lab results.

A living will is a legal document that enables you to specify your preferences about end-of-life care at a time when you are clear of mind and perfectly able to do so. The document usually covers things like whether you want breathing machines and tube feedings to be used to prolong your life if you have a terminal illness, whether you want providers to attempt resuscitation in the event you are terminally ill and stop breathing, and so on.

The living will avoids confusion because your family members and caregivers will know how you feel about such situations even if you can’t express your feelings at the time they actually happen.

The Case For Living Wills: The vast majority of health care providers, especially those who frequently care for patients with terminal illness, feel quite strongly that their patients should complete a living will, no matter how uncomfortable that process may be.

Numerous scientific studies support this position. For example, in an April 2010 study in the New England Journal of Medicine, scientists found that nearly 30% of all elderly Americans did in fact encounter situations near the end of their lives when these documents would have helped assure they received the care they wanted.

Shortly before that study was published, a  separate study showed that advance care planning improved “end-of-life care and patient and family satisfaction, and reduced stress, anxiety and depression in surviving relatives.”

And before that one appeared, a third one revealed that “end-of-life discussions between doctor and patient helped ensure that one got the care one wanted,” and therefore “protected patient autonomy.”

Recent Political History of the Living Will: These and other studies support the Obama administration’s longstanding efforts to pay physicians for time spent helping Medicare patients develop living wills and other forms of advance directives.

During the epic health reform debate of 2009-2010, House Democrats attempted to include provisions authorizing such payments in the evolving legislation. However, the effort fell prey to scurrilous attacks by Sarah Palin, House Minority leader John Boehner and others. Memorably, Palin said the provisions allowed the government to create “death panels,” of all things. For his part, Boehner claimed the provisions would “start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.”

The scare tactics worked. Democrats eventually jettisoned the provisions before the final law was passed. Worse yet, a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll revealed that a shocking 30% of elderly Americans believe the new health law empowered government panels to make end-of-life decisions for Medicare beneficiaries. To be clear, the new law contains no such provision, and living wills have absolutely nothing to do with “government-run health care” in any way.

Recently, the Obama administration made another brief attempt to pay physicians for time spent advising Medicare patients about living wills. The attempt involved invoking a new Medicare regulation that adds “voluntary advance care planning” to the packet of services covered as part of a beneficiary’s annual visit to the doctor.

Alas, the administration shelved the regulation just weeks after it went into effect  after deciding that “the opportunity for the public to comment on it was too limited.”

So, Should You Have a Living Will?: Ask your doctor. Almost certainly, he or she will say, “yes.” It’s the only way to assure you will get the kind of care you want if the time ever comes when you are severely ill, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to address the matter…that is exactly the time when your family and caregivers need to understand what you want.

It’s not necessarily an enjoyable thing to do, but consider the alternative.

Many people struggle to stay focused nowadays, amid a deluge of cluttered inboxes, electronic distractions, city noise and overloaded schedules. There’s no doubt this challenge is real and quite prevalent, but when some of us claim the challenge is caused by attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), that’s a bit much.

ADHD is not a metaphor for modern life, but—as Perri Klass pointed out in an excellent essay for the New York Times—a bona fide, if perhaps over-diagnosed, disorder with specific and increasingly well understood neurological and genetic underpinnings.

As is the case with most medical conditions, ADHD is associated with a broad spectrum of symptoms and disease severity. Typical manifestations in boys are hyperactivity and impulsiveness, whereas girls with the condition tend to be inattentive. Gender differences may explain why girls are diagnosed with ADHD less frequently than boys; it’s possible to be inattentive and unable to focus at school and yet still be well behaved. That’s not usually the case with boys.

Imaging studies of kids with ADHD consistently reveal lower-than-normal activity in the frontal lobes of the brain, areas that help govern sensory input and decide things to focus on. On the neurochemical side of things, it looks like defects in dopamine-mediated circuits that transmit information toward and away from the frontal lobes are involved.

Diminished transmission of neuronal impulses across these pathways probably explains why stimulants like Ritalin and Adderall work in kids that appear to be overstimulated to begin with.

And in a fatal blow to the myth that ADHD is precipitated by an overly multi-tasked society, scientists have shown that the condition has strong genetic underpinnings. In fact, if one identical twin has ADHD, the risk that his twin will have it as well is nearly 80%. Among fraternal twins (that is, twins who do not have the same genotype) the risk is 20-30%, which is equal to that for any siblings.

Further pursuing the genetic etiology of ADHD, Maximilian Muenke and colleagues at the National Human Genome Research Institute showed that a particular gene, LPHN3, was linked to the condition and predicted a positive response to treatment with stimulants.

“In the long run we will be able to develop personalized medicine for a child with ADHD,” Muenke told the Times. “This child will have a very specific treatment, whether this treatment is behavioral treatment alone or medication,” he added, specifying that the medication will eventually be selected based on specific characteristics of each patient.

Throughout recorded history, men and women—particularly the latter—have sought ways to enhance their appearance. Egyptians used eye shadow and painted their faces. So did the Greeks and Romans. Tattoos and body piercings have been used by people in many cultures for centuries. The goals of these efforts include finding a suitable mate, increasing self-confidence and signaling wealth or power.

But as women slowly gain equal footing in the workplace, it’s appropriate to ask whether such efforts have a positive impact on their careers. Recently, economists Bradley Ruffle and Ze’ev Shtudiner examined one aspect of this matter by designing a study to assess the impact of physical attractiveness on success during a job search.

Their study revealed that good looks help men who are looking to secure a job interview, but they have a negative impact on women who are after the same thing.

To reach these conclusions, the scientists distributed 5,000 résumés to 2,600 Israeli employers that had advertised job openings. They sent 2 nearly identical résumés to each employer; one contained a photograph of the job-seeker, and the other did not. In some cases, the photo showed an attractive person; in others, the photo showed a plain-looking person.

Judgments about the attractiveness of the people in the photos were made by men and women that were not affiliated with the investigators. The photos included pictures of people with apparently mixed ethnic backgrounds to remove any possible effects of racial bias.

The employers reached-out to request an interview from 14.5% of the job candidates, overall. Among the male candidates, 13.7% with plain-looking photos, and 19.9% with attractive photos  were contacted to set-up an interview. Only 9.2% of those whose resumes contained no photo were called-in.

The results were strikingly different for women, in whom 16.6% who didn’t send a photo were invited for an interview, as compared with 13.6% of those who had submitted a plain-looking photo and 12.8% of those who had submitted an attractive-looking photo.

Interestingly, none of these differences was noted when employment agencies were responsible for deciding who would be interviewed. The differences were present only when the applications were sent directly to the hiring company.

A post-study analysis revealed that in companies that did their own hiring, young, typically single women were responsible for screening those resumes. When questioned by the scientists, these company-based screeners indicated that when a man included a photo, it showed confidence and helped assure that the candidate was “presentable.” When a woman did the same, the screeners perceived it negatively; the woman was “attempting to market herself via her appearance.”

The economists concluded that company-based personnel responsible for hiring new staff appear to discriminate against attractive women and that “female jealousy” was the most likely explanation for this.

“Our results show that beauty distorts the hiring process,” the researchers wrote. “Suitably qualified attractive women and plain men and women may be eliminated early on from the selection process.”

The write-up appears on the Social Science Research Network.