Naked mole-rat queens rule their colonies with a potent odor 11%

By Libby Riddle29%

8/3/2026, 8:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Nature, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 15.7% saturation with 65 hits. Analysis detected 356 faulty-reasoning hits from 414 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 22.3% and a BS Rank of 11% (24,058 of 26,881 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 89.50% of the article peer group.

Imagine a superhero whose power is releasing an odor so potent their enemies stop fighting. 
For naked mole-rats, such power lies with the queen. 
A potent compound allows naked mole-rat queens to control their colonies, researchers report July 15 in Nature. 
Individuals exposed to the odor will not fight or mate until the queen and her scent are gone. 
Naked mole-rats live in cooperative societies where a single female reproduces while others forage and care for offspring. 
The queen maintains her status by repressing the sexual activity of everyone else. 
When she dies, high-ranking members become sexually active and will fight viciously to crown a new queen. 
After discovering that naked mole-rats recognize other colonies by their smell, neuroscientist Gary Lewin wondered if odors mattered within the colony, too. 
Using a technique invented for collecting odor samples from outdoor toilets, he and his collaborators isolated a compound unique to queens called isopropyl myristate. 
While odorless to humans, it activates a naked mole-rat’s olfactory cortex  the region of the brain responsible for smell. 
To test the compound’s potency, the team removed the queen and treated the colony daily with isopropyl myristate. 
“In the entire three months, there was no fighting. 
Everybody was cool with each other  and there was no sex,” says Lewin, of the Max Delbrück Center in Berlin. 
But as soon as the researchers stopped treatment, fighting quickly followed. 
“Within a week we had the first death. 
And a few weeks later, we saw mating events and a new queen emerged.” 
In another experiment, the researchers isolated pairs of nonbreeding males and females and exposed some of them to the compound. 
After four weeks, five of the six pairs left to their own devices were pregnant. 
But there were no pregnancies or mating among pairs exposed to isopropyl myristate. 
Blood work showed the compound regulates fertility hormones, lowering progesterone and raising prolactin to suppress pregnancy. 
Without the odor, females become sexually active. 
Monitoring queens throughout the estrous cycle revealed that the queen produces isopropyl myristate only when she’s pregnant or preparing for pregnancy. 
If she stops, the other mole-rats know the queen’s not doing her job, so they kill her, Lewin says. 
This level of coordination is extremely rare among mammals, he says. 
“We think of that as something uniquely human, but it’s actually something that mole-rats have been doing for millions of years before we even appeared on the scene.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.9%Libby Riddle: 3.4%Science News: 2.4%Confirmation Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 2.3%Science News: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 1.7%Science News: 2.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.5%Libby Riddle: 3.0%Science News: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic6.5%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.7%Science News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 1.8%Science News: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.2%Libby Riddle: 3.2%Science News: 3.3%Framing Effect9.2%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.5%Science News: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.3%Science News: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.2%Science News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 4.1%Science News: 3.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Libby Riddle: 0.8%Science News: 1.2%Pessimism Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 2.4%Science News: 3.2%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.7%Science News: 0.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Libby Riddle: 0.5%Science News: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error3.1%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Libby Riddle: 0.1%Science News: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.2%Science News: 0.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.9%Libby Riddle: 0.8%Science News: 0.8%Recency Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.1%Science News: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.2%Science News: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.1%Libby Riddle: 3.2%Science News: 3.5%Appeal to Authority4.1%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 1.1%Science News: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 4.6%Libby Riddle: 0.7%Science News: 0.8%Slippery Slope4.6%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.6%Libby Riddle: 3.1%Science News: 3.6%Hasty Generalization3.6%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.6%Libby Riddle: 1.3%Science News: 1.9%Appeal to Emotion3.6%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 15.7%Libby Riddle: 3.2%Science News: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.7%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.8%Science News: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 6.8%Libby Riddle: 0.7%Science News: 0.3%Appeal to Nature6.8%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.4%Science News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.1%Libby Riddle: 1.2%Science News: 1.0%Anecdotal5.1%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.2%Science News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.8%Libby Riddle: 1.2%Science News: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.8%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.3%Science News: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.2%Science News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.2%Libby Riddle: 0.5%Science News: 0.6%Unattributed Quote2.2%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.5%Science News: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.6%Libby Riddle: 2.0%Science News: 2.1%Biased Writer Voice3.6%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.2%Science News: 0.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

414 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker24%attributed speech313writer words
Selected voice

Gary Lewin

78%flagged-word coverage
101 attributed words100% of attributed speech64% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.8 ptsWriter: 4.8%Gary Lewin: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-2.9 ptsWriter: 2.9%Gary Lewin: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.