Editor's Selections: City Crowds, Helpful Chimps and Mean Baboons, Sexual Satisfaction, and Large Babies

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


I just flew in from Boston, and boy are my arms tired. No? Not even a small smile? Okay, in all seriousness, I've been traveling so my selections for this week cover the work done by bloggers last week as well:

  • Overcrowding. Pollution. Safety. There are real concerns about life in urban centers, which are sometimes heralded as reasons to not choose to live in densely populated areas. However, Tim DeChant's most recent discussion at Per Square Mile on population density suggests that there may be real benefits that could have contributed to the development of complex societies.

  • At The Primate Diaries, Eric Michael Johnson shares recent research demonstrating that chimps display prosocial behaviors, and will lend a helping hand (or share rewards). For a long time, scientists have maintained that humans are uniquely altruistic, however, it seems we are not alone in this regard.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


  • The author of This Is Serious Monkey Business highlights the intensity of female-female competition among baboons. Among humans, this sort of behavior would likely be termed jealousy and dismissed, but there are some definite parallels here that stem from more than the author's catchy title.

  • We tend to get so wound up over sex: Are we doing it enough? Am I really satisfying my partner? Am I hot enough? Is she faking it? What would people think if they knew I liked X? I can't be attracted to Y because I'm committed. And the list goes on. eHarmony Labs has a post up that explores how openness and equality in the bedroom can increase satisfaction across the board.

  • Among Gambian women, there may be a connection between birth size and twins: Elizabeth Preston at Inkfish discusses a longitudinal study that finds women who have twins tend to have bigger singletons as well. The reason may be traced back to hormones called insulin-like growth factors. Preston concludes with a nice reminder of the importance of context, reminding readers that these findings may not apply across the board.

I'll be back next week with more from the social sciences. And a PSA announcement before I go: There's a new carnival in town! The Roman Archaeology Carnival's inaugural edition is up at Powered By Osteons, so head on over and take a look.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe