Smell Delight or Disgust Lies in Genes

A floral odor was described by people with one version of a gene as aromatic, but by those with a different variation as sour. Chris Crockett reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who can smell the roses and those who can’t. Our ability to smell certain odors appears to be hardwired genetically.

Researchers conducted blind smell tests. They then compared the results with participants’ DNA. Detection of four odors—emanating from apples, blue cheese, malt and flowers—could be linked to DNA variations. The studies are in the journal Current Biology. [Sara R. Jaeger et al., A Mendelian trait for olfactory sensitivity affects odor experience and food selection and Jeremy F. McRae et al, Identification of regions associated with variation in sensitivity to food-related odors in the human genome]

A rose-related odor, due to the compound beta-ionone, was described by people with one version of a specific gene as “floral” and “aromatic”. But those with a different variation of the gene said things like “vinegar” and “sour.”

It seems our genes change how we experience the world. That’s important to know if you’re designing soap and want to add a dash of beta-ionone for a fresh floral scent—some consumers may find it disgusting.


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.


Remember that the next time someone finds your homemade apple pie revolting. The fault may lie not in your cooking but in their nose.

—Chris Crockett

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
 

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