Book provides the missing sense

Book provides the missing sense

Photo by Дмитрий Хрусталев-Григорьев on Unsplash

Originally published 15 May 2001

Diane Ack­er­man begins her A Nat­ur­al His­to­ry of the Sens­es with this bold asser­tion: “Noth­ing is more mem­o­rable than a smell.”

Well, thanks, Diane.

You see, I have no sense of smell. My afflic­tion is called anos­mia by sci­en­tists, but it is rare enough not to have a com­mon name. Ack­er­man sug­gests “smumb” as an appro­pri­ate moniker (“There goes Chet. He’s smumb.”). No thanks, I’ll stick with anosmia.

Some folks can’t smell because of an acci­den­tal bump to the head, or aller­gies or infec­tion. I was born this way. Nary a scent has excit­ed my brain since the day I was born, at least none I remem­ber. A doc­tor once sug­gest­ed that I might have suf­fered a trau­ma to the frontal lobe of my brain at birth, but he was just guess­ing. To tell the truth, I haven’t a clue why my nose does­n’t work.

I’m miss­ing what Ack­er­man calls “all of the heady suc­cu­lence of life.” Many a time I’ve downed a dark mug of hot water, hav­ing for­got­ten to put in the instant cof­fee. I can’t tell mashed car­rots from mashed pota­toes. The only taste sen­sa­tions I have are those that reside on the tongue — sweet, sour, salty, bitter.

We learned in school that taste buds for each taste sen­sa­tion were locat­ed in dif­fer­ent places on the tongue: Sweet and salty at the front, sour at the sides, bit­ter at the back. But this is wrong, accord­ing to taste researchers David Smith and Robert Mar­golskee, writ­ing in the March issue of Sci­en­tif­ic American.

Appar­ent­ly, our taste buds — tiny onion-shaped recep­tors embed­ded in the tongue — are mul­ti­pur­pose. Each bud can deliv­er mul­ti­ple sen­sa­tions to the brain. The buds are com­plex chem­i­cal proces­sors capa­ble of sort­ing out an assort­ment of mol­e­c­u­lar stimuli.

For exam­ple, the salty plea­sure I derive from anchovies or feta cheese begins with sodi­um chlo­ride mol­e­cules, NaCl, approach­ing a taste cell. The atoms in the mol­e­cules dis­as­so­ci­ate, and sodi­um ions enter the cell through spe­cial chan­nels on its sur­face. The accu­mu­la­tion of sodi­um ions in the cell enables cal­ci­um ions to enter, too. This prompts the release of chem­i­cal sig­nals called neu­ro­trans­mit­ters that trig­ger adja­cent nerve cells. A mes­sage zips to the brain. Yum, I’ll have more anchovies, please.

The sense of smell is rather dif­fer­ent. The 100 mil­lion olfac­to­ry recep­tors in the nose are bare nerve end­ings; no fan­cy buds to do com­plex bio­chem­istry. As the chemist, P. W. Atkins, said:., “In essence, the brain is exposed in the nose.” Smell is raw and prim­i­tive, a link to our pre-mam­malian past.

The trig­ger­ing mech­a­nism for smell is lock-and-key. Mol­e­cules of a cer­tain shape fit nooks and cran­nies on nerve-cell pro­teins, caus­ing the nerve to send mes­sages down the line — musk, vio­let, pine, bacon. Each day our lungs pump hun­dreds of cubic feet of air across the olfac­to­ry sites in our noses, and dozens of dif­fer­ent scents, alone or in com­bi­na­tion, are detected.

All sen­sa­tion is chem­i­cal. Mol­e­cules are the mes­sen­gers that con­nect the world “out there” to the imag­i­nary worlds we build in our heads. What a mir­a­cle it is, when you think about it. Our won­der­ful­ly rich inte­ri­or lives, our dreams, mem­o­ries, loves and lusts are medi­at­ed by chem­istry. The “heady suc­cu­lence of life” is molecules.

And I’m appar­ent­ly miss­ing a lot of it. Some­where along the bio­chem­i­cal path­ways that link the nerve end­ings in my nose to my brain, there’s a hitch.

Sev­er­al com­pa­nies now offer arti­fi­cial noses, hand­held elec­tron­ic devices that respond with elec­tron­ic or opti­cal sig­nals when cer­tain olfac­to­ry stim­u­lants are detect­ed. An elec­tron­ic nose might keep me from drink­ing hot water rather than cof­fee, or, more impor­tant­ly, remind me that the gas stove in on with­out a light, but it will nev­er do much for my inner life. For that I have to rely on art.

There’s a gor­geous­ly sen­su­ous nov­el by Patrick Suskind called Per­fume that is about as close as I have ever got­ten to imag­in­ing smell. It is about a man born with­out a per­son­al scent but with an unnat­u­ral­ly acute sense of smell, who appren­tices him­self to a per­fumer in 18th-cen­tu­ry France and mas­ters the craft of dis­till­ing aromas.

Orange, lime, clove, musk, jas­mine, berg­amot, attar of ros­es, amber­gris, civet, san­dal­wood: Of these and a thou­sand oth­er scents, our hero mix­es aro­mas “capa­ble of cre­at­ing a whole world, a mag­i­cal, rich world, and in an instant you for­got all the loath­some­ness around you and felt so rich, so at ease, so free, so fine…”

His quest for the ulti­mate scent that will give him irre­sistible pow­er over oth­ers leads him at last to mur­der — and to an unspeak­ably hor­ri­ble end. Suskind’s tal­ent is to por­tray the out­er and inner worlds of smell in words so vivid that it almost lets me feel those lock-and-key mol­e­cules tick­ling my nose.

Share this Musing: