upworthy
Popular

Vaccine skeptics are my people. Here's how to reach at least some of us.

Vaccine skeptics are my people. Here's how to reach at least some of us.

Let me start by saying I will absolutely be getting the COVID-19 vaccine. No question. I'm pretty excited about it.

I can't say that I always would have felt that way.

When I started my family 20 years ago, I dove into the natural birth/parenting/health world pretty quickly. I gave birth to one of my kids at home (with a doctor who did homebirths) and had another at a birth center with a midwife. I treated my kids' earaches with garlic-steeped olive oil and their conjunctivitis with breastmilk. We keep elderberry syrup on hand for colds and flus and use ginger and turmeric tea as an anti-inflammatory. My husband has successfully used hibiscus tea to lower his blood pressure and acupuncture for prostatitis.

That's not to say we ever shunned Western medicine. We use antibiotics for strep throat, Tylenol if a fever gets really bad, etc. There's a huge spectrum of approaches to health and wellness, and tossing any of them out completely is pretty silly.

There's a lot of good stuff in the natural health world, including a lot that is backed up by traditional science. (See the links above.) There's also a lot of unsupported-by-science woo and misinformation, and that's only gotten worse in the age of social media.

As for vaccines, I started out unsure of what to think about them. I had concerns about injecting my children with what I understood to be toxic ingredients in vaccines, such as thimerosal (a mercury-containing compound that was removed from vaccines in 2001) and aluminum. We had a family doctor who wasn't anti-vaccine but had some hesitancy about certain ones, so we took each vaccine on an individual basis with his input.

We did immunize our kids, but we did it on a different schedule based on perceived risk. For example, we didn't do the Hep B vaccine at birth because the risk of our newborn baby being exposed to Hep B was incredibly tiny, so we figured that one could wait. We felt that our kids were healthy enough to get natural chickenpox immunity through infection, so we skipped that vaccine altogether. (Since we homeschooled, we were able to expose our kids purposefully in our own home and keep them isolated while the infection process ran its course. Totally understand if you cringe at that. I probably would now too.)

If I could go back and do it again I'd likely make some different choices, but at the time we made informed decisions based on the information we had. I'm not sure where I would have ended up if I'd had the big, nutty world of social media at my fingertips.

I was a vaccine skeptic, not a full-on anti-vaxxer, but it's a slippery road from one to the other. In reality, I think there are a lot of people like me out there, and I'm concerned that they're being swayed more and more toward conspiracy theories. Healthy skepticism and scrutiny over what we put into our bodies is, well, healthy. People have questions and concerns, and that's a good thing. How those questions and concerns get addressed is key.

One thing not to do: Don't dismiss all vaccine skepticism as uninformed ignorance. There is some of that out there for sure, but there are also a lot of people who have solid reasons for their concerns, even if they aren't concerns for everyone. Most vaccine skeptics aren't ignorant conspiracy theorists just as not all people who work for pharmaceutical companies are greedy profiteers. If the people with the best scientific information roll their eyes at people for their questions, they will be lured down the rabbit hole of misinformation by those who welcome their skepticism.

There are two truths we need to internalize it comes to understanding people's vaccine decision-making. 1) No one except people who study this stuff for a living has the time to wade through ALL of the information, so humility goes a long way. 2) Even though we all think we're informed, we base our decisions far more on who we trust—and don't trust—than on any specific information we have.

That trust part is huge. It's The Big Key. Any conversation with a vaccine skeptic has to address trust first and foremost. If so simple to say, "Just trust the science!" but the people who say that don't understand how many scientists and doctors there are in the anti-vaccine world who share studies and analyses and whatnot that makes the science seem pretty fuzzy. Which scientists are we supposed to trust? Which doctors? Which studies?

The biggest source of distrust for most vaccine skeptics is "Big Pharma" and the gargantuan profits pharmaceutical companies make. It's a mistake to dismiss that concern out of hand. We've all seen the price gouging of medications—are we supposed to believe these pharmaceutical companies have our best interest at heart? We've all seen medications get recalled because they found out they did some kind of harm—is this the science we're supposed to put our faith in?

When people are starting from that place of distrust, it's a pretty short distance to the conspiracy theory rabbit hole. Once people go down that hole, it's virtually impossible to bring them back, so we have to find the off ramp before people get there.

One step toward the off-ramp, which should come early in the discussion, is to help people establish just how rotten they think humanity really is. I know that sounds odd, but that one thing forms the foundation for everything that comes next. If you're talking to a vaccine skeptic, ask them these questions: Do you think most people generally do the right thing? Do you think most people go into their careers for the right reasons? Do you think most people want the world to be a place where everyone is happy and healthy?

If they seem unsure, ask them to think about all of the people they know personally. Nearly everyone will answer yes to these questions when they think about the hundreds of people they know.

The reason that's important is because our brains tend to generalize and dehumanize processes and industries that involve a lot of people. And the less we actually know about how a process or industry works, the more monolithic we make our generalizations. I see people do this all the time with "the media." As if "the media" is one thing and not a bunch of competing companies that each have their own mission and culture and commitment to certain standards of reporting. Such monolithic ideas remove the individual, dedicated editors and journalists who really try to do their jobs to the best of their ability—the people who actually make up "the media."

We do the same things with "politicians" when we assume all elected officials are corrupt and power-hungry. We do the same thing with "corporate America" when we assume that all corporations are 100% motivated by greed. Monoliths take humans out of the equation and replace them with a nefarious blob of malintent that isn't truly reflective of reality.

When you make "the vaccine industry" a monolith, it seems like this big, powerful machine that exists only to line the pockets of the people who run it. And yes, pharmaceutical companies make buttloads of money, because they can. Yay, capitalism. But break it down. The people in those companies who are responsible for profit-mongering are specific people in the marketing and financial executive departments—it's not the entire company. It's certainly not the individual researchers who spend their days studying virology and epidemiology and immunology. It's not the scientists who dedicate months and years to figuring out how to treat a disease or save humanity from an infectious pathogen. It's not the vaccine development teams or the teams running the trials or the teams analyzing the data. Generally speaking, those people don't have anything to do with the money-making side of the pharmaceutical business in any meaningful way.

That doesn't mean every individual person is trustworthy, of course. Most of us would agree that there are some bad apples everywhere, but that's why we have professional organizations and review boards and standards, so that we minimize the likelihood of a bad apple ruining the bunch. And if you believe that most people do their best work for the right reasons, you have to believe that the vast majority of scientists around the globe who work on vaccines do everything in their power to make sure whatever they're developing is as safe and effective as possible.

Breaking down these big industries into how they actually function and understanding that the scientists making the vaccine are not synonymous with the company selling it can go a long way toward building trust in the science, without actually having to go as far as trusting the companies themselves.

Explaining that people pushing anti-vaccine information are also making money can also help. If people believe Big Pharma is bad, then everyone against Big Pharma seems good, even though there are a lot of quackos and grifters out there who profit big time off of people's skepticism and fear. Being anti-corporate-profiteering doesn't automatically make someone trustworthy.

And though it may sometimes feel like too many people are too far down the rabbit hole to make a difference, helpful explanations of the science from scientists actually does help. For instance, this Twitter thread explains how the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine works in layman's terms. And the questions and answers that follow the main thread are helpful as well for minimizing fear.

Acknowledging that people's questions and concerns are legitimate (even if you know their conclusions are not), is a good first step. Setting a baseline foundation for trust is the second. When you actually delve into those questions and concerns, do so in a way that doesn't just throw data or statistics at them, but actually addresses the underlying fear and distrust that can lead to conspiratorial thinking.

Not everyone will be convinced, but we have to be as diligent as those pushing misinformation and keep putting out facts with calm confidence. So many of us are actually swayable by good information, especially when it comes from people we feel like we can trust.

Can you grow vegetables in a cardboard box?

In the era of supermarkets and wholesale clubs, growing your own food isn't a necessity for most Americans. But that doesn't mean it's not a good idea to try.

A household garden can be a great way to reduce your grocery bill and increase your intake of nutrient-dense foods. It can also be a good source of exercise and a hobby that gets you outside in the sunshine and fresh air more often. However, not everyone has a yard where they can grow a garden or much outdoor space at all where they live. You can plant things in containers, but that requires some upfront investment in planters.

container garden, growing plants in containers, growing vegetables, homegrown, producePotted plants and herbs can thrive in a container garden.Photo credit: Canva

Or does it? Gardener James Prigioni set out to see if an Amazon shipping box would hold up as a planter for potatoes. He took a basic single-walled Amazon box, lined it with dried leaves to help with moisture retention, added four to five inches of soil (his own homegrown soil he makes), added three dark red seed potatoes, covered them with more soil, added a fertilizer, then watered them.

He also planted a second, smaller Amazon box with two white seed potatoes, following the same steps.

Two weeks later, he had potato plants growing out of the soil. Ten days after that, the boxes were filled with lush plants.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Prigioni explained how to "hill" potato plants when they grow tall enough, which helps encourage more tuber growth and protect the growing potatoes from sunlight. Hilling also helps support the plants as they grow taller so they don't flop over. He also added some mulch to help keep the plants cooler as the summer grew hotter.

After hilling, Prigioni only needed to keep up with watering. Both varieties of potatoes flowered, which let him know the tubers were forming. The red potato leaves developed some pest issues, but not bad enough to need intervention, while the white potato plants were unaffected. "It goes to show how variety selection can make a big difference in the garden," he explained.

The visible plants have to start dying before you harvest potatoes, and Prigioni checked in with the boxes themselves when they got to that point.

vegetable garden, growing potatoes, grow potatoes in a cardboard box, Amazon box, farmingFreshly harvested potatoes are so satisfying.Photo credit: Canva

"I am pleasantly surprised with how well the boxes held up," he said, especially for being single-walled boxes. The smaller box was completely intact, while the larger box had begun to split in one corner but not enough to affect the plants' growth. "This thing was completely free to grow in, so you can't beat that," he pointed out.

Prigioni predicted that the red potatoes grown in the larger box would be more productive. As he cut open the box and pulled potatoes from the larger box, they just kept coming, ultimately yielding several dozen potatoes of various sizes. The smaller box did have a smaller yield, but still impressive just from two potatoes planted in an Amazon box.

People often think they don't have room to grow their own food, which is why Prigioni put these potato boxes on his patio. "A lot of people have an area like this," he said.

"I will never look at cardboard boxes the same," Prigioni added. "There are so many uses for them in the garden and it's just a great free resource we have around, especially if you're ordering stuff from Amazon all the time."

cardboard box, container garden, amazon box, growing vegetables, gardeningDo you see a box or do you see a planter?Photo credit: Canva

People loved watching Prigioni's experiment and shared their own joy—and success—in growing potatoes in a similar fashion:

"I have been growing potatoes in every box I can find for several years now. I have had excellent success. I honestly think potatoes prefer cardboard. And yes, most of my boxes were from Amazon."

"I live in an upstairs apartment with a little deck and I have a container garden with containers on every single stair leading to the deck. I grow potatoes in a laundry basket. It's amazing how much food I can get from this type of garden!! Grateful."

"I literally got up and grabbed the empty boxes by our front door, the potatoes that have started to sprout, and soil i had inside and started my planting at 1am. Lol. I will take them outside today and finish. Thank you James!"

"I grew potatoes and tomatoes on my tiny balcony in Germany (in buckets and cardboard boxes). Now I have a big garden here in America. I so love to grow my own food."

"I grew sweet potatoes in cardboard boxes. It’s so much fun."

Next time you're stuck with an Amazon box that you don't have a use for, consider whether you could use it as a planter for potatoes or some other edible harvest. Gardening doesn't have to be fancy to be effective.

You can find more of gardening experiments on The Gardening Channel with James Prigioni.

The mood ring is a cautionary tale.

Every child in elementary school is familiar with the mood ring. With its inscrutable, color-changing stone and cryptic ability to "read" the wearer's emotions, the mood ring has stood as an enigmatic symbol of self-expression since the 1970s.

Yet, ask the average American about what they know about the mood ring, and they might shrug and say that they're a fun piece of jewelry that shifts with the user's emotions. Or, a more astute person might propose that there is some element of body heat technology at play. However, almost no one knows how it all began or the story behind the fight for custody of the mood ring.


Hand, mood ring, emotions, history. Where did the mood ring come from? Photo by No Revisions on Unsplash


Origins

The idea originated with an American jeweler named Marvin Wenick, who first conceived of the idea after coming across a magazine article in 1974 about the liquid crystal elements found in thermometers. Fascinated, he quickly developed a compound that changed color between two distinct ranges: black to green and blue to green, within a temperature range of 89.6°F to 100.4°F.

By 1975, he had found a way to use this "magic" compound in necklace pendants and rings. A natural salesman, he claimed that the shifting colors indicated the "warmth of the wearer's character." However, Wenick never patented his invention, resulting in one of the most dramatic oversights in fashion history.


Star Trek, disappointed, missed opportunity, dangIf only Wenick had patented the mood ring...Giphy

Potential customers weren't the only ones who took notice of Wernick's invention. Soon, two New York inventors, Joshua Reynolds and Maris Ambats, began producing their version of the temperature-sensitive jewelry, based on Wenick's "magical compound."

There was a distinction: Reynolds and Ambats told customers that they had created a "real biofeedback tool" that allowed the wearer to learn information about their bodies, positioning their rings as devices to help people meditate and control anxiety. (Which seems eerily similar to a few of today's developments...)

Now inextricably linked with the self-exploration and individualism of the 1970s, sometimes referred to as the "Me Decade," Reynolds and Ambats' "mood rings" became a major fad in the United States.


How mood rings work

Mood rings contain a thermochromic element, which is a crystal encased in quartz or glass that changes its color based on the wearer's body temperature. These specialized crystals are designed to react to changes in temperature, which alter their molecular structure and, consequently, the wavelengths of light (colors) they reflect. Psychologically, the idea is that one's emotional state influences body temperature, so when it changes, its meaning will be reflected in the ring. Today, the spectrum of color has expanded far beyond Wenick's simple black, green, and blue system.

When the mood ring rests at a neutral body temperature (typically around 98.6°F), the crystals will reflect a pretty blue-green hue. According to HowStuffWorks.com, the following colors are associated with these emotions, although they can vary from one mood ring to another.


Crystal, mood ring, science, colors, spinningCrystals encased in quartz or glass change color according to body temperature. Giphy


  • Black: Significant levels of stress, tension, or anxiety. There is a deep well of emotional turmoil here, bubbling just under the surface. (This could also indicate that the crystals have been compromised.)
  • White: A lack of emotional clarity. This color can signify that the wearer is uncertain about how to express or process their current feelings, and is often associated with feelings of frustration, confusion, or a lack of emotional clarity.
  • Amber or Gold: "The appearance of an amber or gold-colored mood ring often signifies a blend of emotions, potentially encompassing a mix of feelings such as surprise, nervousness, or even a touch of upset. This color can be a reflection of the wearer's internal turmoil as they navigate a complex emotional landscape."
  • Pink: "The appearance of a pink mood ring is often linked to the initial stages of arousal, interest, or a sense of emotional uncertainty. This color can suggest that the wearer is experiencing a heightened state of emotional vulnerability or a newfound sense of attraction or curiosity."
  • Red: "The presence of a red mood ring is typically associated with high-energy emotions, such as passion, anger, or even fear. This intense color can be a reflection of the wearer's heightened state of arousal, whether it be in the context of romantic love, intense frustration, or a surge of adrenaline."
  • Blue: "The presence of a blue mood ring is often interpreted as a sign of happiness, joy, and a generally positive emotional state. This color can suggest that the wearer is feeling upbeat, sociable, and in a state of emotional equilibrium."
  • Purple: "A purple mood ring is frequently associated with a sense of clarity, purpose, and spiritual insight. This color can signify that the wearer is in touch with their higher self, tapping into their intuition and creativity to navigate their emotional landscape with a renewed sense of direction and understanding."

Debunked

So, some unfortunate bad news. Mood rings are not scientifically factual. Why? Let's debunk.

First off, mood rings measure temperature, not emotion. While emotions can influence body temperature, the ring's color shifts are more likely to be affected by other factors, such as environmental temperature, physical activity, health conditions, and caffeine intake. Also, the color guide (above) is fun but completely arbitrary. There have never been any scientific studies on whether the corresponding colors have anything to do with their associated internal emotions.


Bill Nye, science Unfortunately, mood rings are not backed by the power of science. Giphy


The end of the story

Back to the "one of the most dramatic oversights in fashion history." The mood ring is a cautionary tale. When mood rings hit the market in 1975, the public went wild, with Joshua Reynolds and Maris Ambats selling an astonishing 40 million rings in just three months. They had the ingenious idea to start selling the rings at a premium, with silver-banded versions priced at $45 and gold-banded versions costing $250 ($1,400 today). By the end of the year, their total sales had reached $15 million.

Yes, the original creator, Marvin Wenick, was mad, but Reynolds and Ambats were even more upset in the end. They also had failed to patent the mood ring, the very fatal error that had allowed them to steal the creation in the first place. By the onset of 1976, just as sales were peaking, the market became oversaturated with cheap knock-offs and demanded plummeted, leaving companies with stockhouses full of unsold inventory. What goes around comes back around. Perhaps they should have consulted their mood ring first?

via Rob Dance (used with permission).

CEO Rob Dance holds a list of things he's "sick" of hearing from his employees.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted workplaces worldwide, there has been a greater push for improved work-life balance and many companies are taking notice. The exciting thing is that when companies become more flexible, their employees become happier and more productive. It’s a win-win for all involved.

Rob Dance, the CEO of ROCK, a technology consulting company in the UK, recently went viral for posting about his approach to work-life balance on Instagram. What, at first, appeared to be a CEO reprimanding his employees revealed a boss who knows how to get the best out of his team by treating them like adults.

The post was of Dance holding a whiteboard that reads:

Things I’m sick of hearing from my employees:

- Can I leave early today

- I’ll be late in the morning

- My child is sick, can I rush off

- I’ve got a doctor’s appointment tomorrow, is that okay

- I’m going to be late back from lunch, I’ve got some things to sort.

I don’t care.

I hired you for a job and I fully TRUST you to get it done.

I don’t need you to account for every single hour.

Times have changed, and the workplace is different these days.

People are sick of being treated like children.

All that should matter is that everyone is happy, and that the work gets done.


He also shared his advice for companies on how to treat their employees. “Treat your staff like adults. That’s it, that’s the big secret,” he wrote. “Give them autonomy. Respect that they have lives outside of work. Don’t gaslight them into being grateful for not being fired every day.” Because in the end, the only thing that matters is if they get the job done. “Output should always trump hours,” he concluded.

Upworthy contacted Dance, who explained why managers still hesitate to treat their employees like adults.

“Many bosses don't trust their employees and keep extremely close tabs on them because of past experiences and a desire for control. They might believe that micromanaging ensures productivity and prevents issues,” he told Upworthy. “Additionally, the pressure to meet business targets can drive bosses to monitor employees obsessively, thinking it will lead to better outcomes. This approach, however, only undermines trust and destroys morale in the workplace. It creates a toxic environment where employees feel undervalued and stressed, leading to higher turnover rates and decreased overall performance. Instead of fostering a culture of accountability and growth, this behavior only promotes fear and resentment.”


Dance says that technology has helped drive demand for improved work-life balance.

“Mobile technology definitely started to blur the lines between one’s professional and personal life, making it tough to switch off from work,” he told Upworthy. “As a millennial leader, I've always valued work-life harmony for my staff, helping them to achieve both flexibility and finding purpose in their work.”

The ROCK CEO also has advice for employees who’d like to gain their employer’s trust.

“Always deliver quality work and aim to meet or exceed expectations. Keep communication lines open by regularly updating your manager on your progress, challenges, and successes,” he told Upworthy. “Take the initiative to go beyond basic requirements, showing your willingness to contribute more. Act with integrity by always being honest and ethical. Seek honest feedback and make tangible improvements based on it, demonstrating your commitment to growth. Finally, a big one is building positive relationships with everyone you work with, as strong connections are what help to build real trust.”

In April 2025, Dance shared some additional wisdom that highlights the power of leaders prioritizing culture. He took a photo of himself holding a whiteboard with some more wisdom that all CEOs should take to heart: "An employee who leaves for the salary might return for the culture, but if they leave because of the culture, no salary will ever bring them back."

It makes you wonder, if the money was right, which previous jobs would you go back to, and which ones would you reject?


rob dance, work-life balance, ROCK UK, bosess, pto, time off, employee complaintsCEO Rob Dance holds up a whipe board with his culture philosophy. www.linkedin.com


This article originally appeared last year.

A vegan and a man with a sausage and big piece of chicken.

There are few groups more openly reviled by many people in the developed world than vegans. One study found that out of societal groups, they were the second most reviled group, right after drug addicts. Vegans are often the target of derision, whether they are referred to as soy boys, vegaNazis, or people who “eat rabbit food.” But why do people have such a hard time with people just because they don’t eat the same things they do?

It seems somewhat petty and judgmental that people would be easily offended by someone because they don’t eat meat. Still, according to a new study by Food Quality and Preference, there’s something much deeper at stake. “The consumption of meat and meat substitutes is a highly charged social phenomenon,” Roosa-Maaria Malila, an author of the study, said in a statement. “According to our research, consumers who prefer plant-based alternatives are perceived as socially different—and not in a good way.”

spaghetti, vegans, vegetarians, woman eating, young woman, glass of waterA woman enjoying a plate of pasta.via Canva/Photos

Why do people hate vegans?

The team of researchers got to the bottom of why vegans are the target of so much hate after having 3,600 participants judge three shopping lists. All lists included pasta, bread, apple juice, carrots, and bananas, but the selection varied depending on whether animal- or plant-based protein products were included or excluded. One had meat products, another had a mix of meat and plant-based items, and the other list had only meat substitutes.

The researchers found that the shoppers who purchased meat substitutes, who were most likely vegan or vegetarian, aroused feelings of fear, envy, contempt, and anger. "In our research, we found that people even wanted to act aggressively towards vegetarians or exclude them from social circles,” Malila says. However, at the same time, vegans were admired and appreciated. They are seen as moral, environmentally friendly, and conscious.


What is the "meat paradox"?

Social psychologist Hank Rothgerber refers to this unique situation where people simultaneously envy vegans and also find them contemptible as the meat paradox. The “meat paradox” is the experience of cognitive dissonance, or the psychological tension caused by holding conflicting beliefs at the same time, or taking actions that directly contradict one’s values. Rothgerber believes that meat eaters are in the uncomfortable position of knowing that it’s wrong to hurt animals while also consuming them at the same time. This leads people to have feelings of contempt for vegans.

Rothgerber says that to cope with their conflicting emotions, some meat eaters feel the need to lash out at vegans.

“It’s human nature to lash out at anyone we perceive as a threat. And vegans threaten something we hold very dear: our moral sense of self,” Emily Moran Barwick writes for BiteSizeVegan. “We like to think of ourselves as good and decent people. We also believe that good and decent people don’t harm animals.”

strang man, strong vegan, vegetarian man, fruits, vegetables, dietary needsA muscular man with some baskets of vegetables.via Canva/Photos

According to Malila, people’s need to fit in also pushes them against adopting a vegan lifestyle or being supportive of their meat-free friends. "Food is quite a strong part of our social identity,” she says. “If and when vegetarian food evokes negative feelings, not many people want to risk being associated with it. Belonging to a group is an evolutionary motive. We need acceptance from our fellow human beings."

Ultimately, the research shows that veganophobia (fear of vegans) isn’t really about the vegans themselves, but misdirected anger that people are projecting onto them. Maybe it’s time for those who have contempt for vegans to stop judging what’s on their plate and think hard about what’s on their own.

Should you let a dog lick your face?

With nearly half of the households in American having at least one dog, there's a lot people need to know about them. Our furry friends come in wide variety of breeds, each with their own unique traits and needs. "Man's best friend" can be a guardian, a helpful worker, a loyal friend, and a snuggly companion, but there's one thing almost all dogs have in common: Licking.

Some dogs lick way more than others, but it's rare to find a dog who never licks anyone or anything. Many dogs communicate and show affection by licking, which is sweet—if a little gross—depending on how slobbery they are. There's a common saying that dogs' mouths are cleaner than humans', which is a bit hard to believe when you see what some dogs put in their mouths, but it is true? What does science say about dog tongues and saliva? Is a dog licking our face something we should worry about?

dogs, dog mouths clean, dog tongues, dog licking, should you let a dog lick your facePooch smooches are sweet if they're not too slobbery.Photo credit: Canva

It turns out, the answer to whether a dog's mouth is cleaner than ours isn't super straightforward.

An 8th grader named Abby tackled this question in a science experiment that won her a Young Naturalists Award from the American Museum of Natural History in 2011. Her family had gotten a dog and her mom kept telling her not to let the dog lick her face because dog mouths are full of bacteria. Instead of arguing, Abby decided to find out herself if this was true.

"I hypothesized that human tongues would be cleaner than dog tongues," she wrote. "I thought this because humans brush their teeth at least once a day. I hypothesized that dogs' tongues would be dirty because they were always licking dirty things like garbage."

After diving into the research about bacteria that live in and on humans and dogs, Abby decided she had a testable hypothesis. But this wasn't any old middle school science experiment. She applied for and got a grant to the State Hygienic Lab at the University of Iowa, where she was assigned a mentor to work with her.

You can read the nitty gritty details of her experiment here, but here was her conclusion:

dogs, dog mouths clean, dog tongues, dog licking, should you let a dog lick your faceMany dogs will lick you if you give them the chance. Photo credit: Canva

"I concluded that dog and human mouth flora are very different. (Flora means the bacteria found in a mouth or anywhere else.) The bacteria found in human mouths are more similar to another human's oral bacteria than the bacteria found in a dog's mouth.

I also concluded that dogs' mouths are cleaner than humans' in some ways, and dirtier in other ways. Humans have more bacteria in their mouths than dogs do, based on the total number of bacteria. Most of the humans had a 'moderate' number of bacteria, and most of the dogs had 'few' bacteria. A possible explanation of this might be that dogs pant a lot, and maybe while panting, bacteria falls off their tongues along with their saliva. But dogs had more types of bacteria. The average number of different bacterial colonies in a dog's mouth was about 5.7. The average number of different bacterial colonies in a human's mouth was about 4.1. I think this is so because dogs sniff and lick a variety of things, like carpets, floors, chairs, grass, etc., so they pick up bacteria from many places."

But what about the licking of our faces? That's a bit of a subjective call, but Abby's results gave her some peace of mind:

"In conclusion, will I let my dog continue to lick me? The answer to the question is yes!" she wrote. "I will feel guiltless about letting my dog lick me because I found out that human and dog oral bacteria are different, so my dog's oral bacteria present no harm to me."

lick, licking, face, dogs, dogpuppy love kiss GIF by Pickler & BenGiphy

What do the experts say?

According to Colin Harvey, professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Veterinary Medicine and executive secretary at the American Veterinary Dental College, comparing dogs' mouths to humans' mouth is "like comparing apples to oranges." As Abby found, the microbes in a dog's mouth are very different than those in a human's.

The American Kennel Club elaborates:

"Most of the bacteria in your dog’s mouth aren’t zoonotic, which means you probably won’t get a disease from a big old doggy kiss. There are exceptions to this. Dogs that eat a raw diet are at an increased risk of contracting salmonella, which can be spread to humans. You also probably shouldn’t share kisses with a dog that regularly raids the litter box.

In other words, kissing your dog is less risky than kissing another human, but that doesn’t mean that your dog’s mouth is necessarily cleaner than a human’s—they just have a mostly incompatible set of germs."

dogs, dog mouths, dog kisses, dog teeth cleaningKeep your dog's mouth clean with regular teeth brushing.Photo credit: Canva

Keeping your dog's mouth healthy through regular teeth cleaning and dental check-ups can also help prevent issues that could potentially come from dog licks.

So there you have it. If your dog doesn't eat a raw diet and doesn't go snacking in the cat box (or some other equally fecal-bacteria-ridden place), their kisses are probably not going to hurt you. Guilt-free pooch smooches for the win!