Close
today i learned (til)

The Sound of Calm

April 26, 2022

This meme made the rounds on the internet, claiming that a song can significantly reduce anxiety.

The song was even named one of Time Magazine’s 50 top inventions of 2011, quoting,

“Could this be the sleeping pill of the future? British ambient band Marconi Union has drummed up the world’s most relaxing song: “Weightless” is 8 min. 10 sec. of aural bliss, proved to reduce anxiety by 65% and slow heart rates by 35% as the listener’s body rhythm syncs with the song’s. Indeed, “Weightless” is so successful at inducing somnolence that scientists caution drivers not to listen to it while behind the wheel.”

What is cortisol?

Cortisol is a hormone released when your evolutionary stress response is triggered. 

A release of cortisol means there will be more glucose in the bloodstream as well as substances that repair tissues, in case of a threat. Cortisol also suppresses the digestive and reproductive systems so that those do not impede you when you are facing an “enemy.”

Can music really affect blood pressure and cortisol levels?

One study from Deutsches Arzteblatt International found that listening to classical music actually did reduce blood pressure and cortisol levels in all participants, so music specifically engineered to calm people down from a state of anxiety could very well achieve its claims.

Another study analyzed the song Weightless specifically, finding that “‘Weightless’ by Marconi was able to induce greater relaxation levels in participants than a massage (increase of 6%). ‘Weightless’ also induced an 11% increase in relaxation over all other relaxing music tracks.” (British Academy of Sound Therapy).

The song has even apparently been used to calm patients before surgery, in a study published in the journal Regional Anaesthesia & Pain Medicine journal that showed that the song was just as effective as a anxiety-relieving drug.

It might be worth it to give the song a listen the next time you feel anxious and stressed!

What is Sound Therapy?

The band Marconi Union worked with sound therapists to formulate as calm of a sound as possible, but what is a sound therapist?

Sound therapy is another trend that is takes inspiration from ancient rituals, with dubious scientific backing. Therapists guide patients with individual tones or music, along with controlled breathing, to elicit an energetic or calmed emotional response. “Common sound therapy instruments include Tibetan sound bowls, crystal bowls, gongs, tuning forks, chimes, and voice. Sounds can also be pre-recorded, like white noise, ambient music, or guided instructions. ” (Prevention.com)

Sound therapy has been compared to a massage, where instead of a practitioner’s hands, the vibration of the sounds produce the sensations. 

A research study titled, “Sound Therapy Induced Relaxation: Down Regulating Stress Processes and Pathologies,” outlines a proposition that nitric oxide produced in the body when undergoing sound therapy is responsible for the physiological effects in the body, providing a potential scientific basis for how sound therapy could be effective.

Even a quick YouTube search shows that videos claiming to be sounds appropriate for sound therapy have millions of views.

While it seems unlikely that sound therapy could be a significant treatment for mental illness, in combination with other therapy it may be a viable option, due to its non-invasive and accessible nature.

References

 

 

0Likes
About Author

Aparna is a 3rd year computer science major, focused on media and modeling & simulation. In her free time, she likes to doodle, read fantasy & mystery novels, and waste time on TikTok.

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
How We Can Detect Forest Fires from Space
today i learned (til)
Tech is in Bloom for Spring!
today i learned (til)
Taste of Science: Spicy Science
today i learned (til)
Are All-Nighters in College Actually Beneficial?

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.