43 ms·
Babies who get more cuddles have their genetics changed for years, study shows
- ThomPete 9y ago"Gaps between epigenetic age and chronological age have been linked to health problems in the past, but again it's too soon to draw those kind of conclusions: the scientists readily admit they don't yet know how this will affect the kids later in life." And this is the crux of the matter. I don't doubt that children who are being cuddles more could have their genetics changed. Whether it actually has an effect on their prospects later in life I highly doubt.
- creep 9y agoMy mom cuddled me when I was a babe but I still have autism ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- ZeroGravitas 9y agoHistorically, mothers were blamed for causing their kids to have autism by being "cold" towards them. "Refrigerator mom's" was one name for them. With modern insight it seems more likely that moms somewhere on the autism spectrum themselves were being blamed because they seemed odd to neurotypical medics. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator_mother_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator_mother_theory
- creep 9y agoI have read about the refrigerator mom concept, but didn't make the link that these mothers could have potentially been autistic themselves. On this note, you are probably aware of the recent attention being paid to the diagnosis of women and girls with autism. Until recently the common conception was that males were more likely to have autism because most of the early research was done on autistic boys! And, in case you're curious to learn more and haven't heard, I've linked to an article from Scientific American (below) which reviews some newish research suggesting that females with autism have brains more closely resembling neurotypical males (and the interesting "protected sex" hypothesis, dealing with how testosterone influences the development of autism). My dad is likely autistic, so there's the link for me. I don't know him at all, but genetics are a whacky little code system and I've magically taken a liking to electronics and computers with the same degree of passion that he supposedly applies to his work with ham radio! I was raised in a highly artistic community, and although I have developed a decent creative ability and do art as a hobby, my career path is in maths and computer science. Interesting! https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/autism-it-s-different-in-girls/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/autism-it-s-diffe...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- kevin_thibedeau 9y agoChildren of distant mothers tend to develop anxiety and personality disorders. Witness the new king.
- vixen99 9y agoOn what basis? "Early-Experiences-Can-Alter-Gene-Expression-and-Affect-Long-Term-Development.pdf" http://developingchild.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Early-Experiences-Can-Alter-Gene-Expression-and-Affect-Long-Term-Development.pdf http://developingchild.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/0...
- ThomPete 9y agoWhat specifically are you referring to in that paper?
- dgut 9y ago> I don't doubt that children who are being cuddles more could have their genetics changed. Looks like actual experts in the field disagree with you. [1] Also, deny a child affection and you have a mentally ill adult. Sadly, there is now an entire generation of parents who have been advertised things like the "cry-out" method. [2] [1] http://developingchild.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Early-Experiences-Can-Alter-Gene-Expression-and-Affect-Long-Term-Development.pdf http://developingchild.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/0... [2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/192222.Solve_Your_Child_s_Sleep_Problems https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/192222.Solve_Your_Child_...
- ThomPete 9y agoFrance has done the cry out method for generations.
- dgut 9y agoJust because someone has done something for generations doesn't make it right. They also send children to kindergarten by the 3rd month, for economic reasons. Having traveled a bit in Northern Africa, I noticed baby sleep problems are virtually non-existent there. They do what humans have done for eons: co-sleeping and breastfeeding. They do it so naturally, mothers are never fully awake while they breastfeed during the night (wife had to sleep in a room full of women and children on several occasions). Biologically, this makes a lot more sense than giving the signal to the most immaturely born placental mammal that she can't rely on the mother's care.
- ThomPete 9y agoWait are we talking morals or are we talking genetic and statistics? Denmark sends their kids to nursery school early too and because many women work full time there it means most children aren't with their parent's for a long duration of the day (used ot be much earlier). What you think about it morally isn't interesting to me. Unless you can prove it's somehow making them worse of then my original position is intact.
- woodpanel 9y agoI was having similar doubts, but the article states: "In children, we think slower epigenetic ageing could reflect less favourable developmental progress"
- ThomPete 9y agoYeah but that's what I am doubting what even means to be honest. Premature kids behave very differently and many of them are void of contact in the beginning.
- gwern 9y agoBzzt. Nope. Epigenetics is heritable as are child-rearing practices and this is a cross-sectional design, not longitudinal. (Not even within-family comparisons!) For all they know, those epigenetic differences were present from birth, as is often the case. Yet another epigenetics study whose overhyped causal claims are dead on arrival.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- plidner 9y agoHandily dismissed by a hypothesis conceived in a moment with zero effort. Between the cell's nucleus, where complex enzymes transcribe to RNA in a chemical process, resulting in gene expression, that concludes with the construction of proteins, your claim is that high stress at early developmental moments, not only has no long term effect, but no effect at all? It sounds like you've conducted a study. Is your sample size N=1 where 1 equals you?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- saurik 9y agoThis person is not claiming to know a cause: this person is claiming that there is another hypothesis that you can conceive "in a moment with zero effort" that this study design was incpaable of isolating. There are multiple reasons that could have happened: one is that the scientists didn't think of it (which to me would undermine their credibility as it is really obvious as a possibility), a second is that this study was much cheaper and they weren't sure there would be a correlation at all (so now there is enough evidence to warrant a better study), and a third is that they didn't care about "why" and were only interested in "that". To the scientist's credit, the article quotes them as saying that they don't know the cause, which is great, and they say "too early" so they might intend to keep going. To their discredit, they gave enough of an explanation based on stuff they weren't sure of to the reporter to guide it to the point where the headline is just guesswork, not real science. On the other hand, you certainly... and apparently the scientists :/... are simply assuming your explanation and then using a study that is incapable of discerning the the difference between these two hypotheses to dismiss the idea, which is clearly not OK. [I am sorry if someone saw a draft of this comment or if it appeared under the wrong parent for a moment: I was having issues replying on my iPhone today :/.]
- nabla9 9y agoI'm confused by this article. I have understood that epigenetics refers to heritable changes in gene function without changes in the genome. Change in gene expression even if it last the rest of the life of an individual not epigenetic change. But even university press release says otherwise. What I'm missing?
- Dylan16807 9y agoHeritable does not imply that inheritance happens. It's the same mechanism, DNA methylation, that can pass down generations.
- patall 9y agoYou are missing nothing, its just that modern molecular biology has somewhat changed in what it regards as epigentics. Now, we usually refer to any somewhat lasting changes (a few cell cycles, sometimes just for a cell phase) to DNA as epigentic. This change in meaning has happend (as far as I understand it) because some of the somewhat traditional epigentic marks (like DNA methylation) have been found to play an even bigger role in relatively short time processes. Now almost all base modifications of DNA (and the bound nucleosomes) are regarded as epigenetic (in the sense of temporal genetic changes) even though the appearing changes are not really short term inheritance reasoned anymore but mere functional changes. And now, the whole story is becoming even more confusing because those base modifications also happend in RNA (transcribed DNA) which lead to the term epitranscriptomics, which to be honstest, has nothing to do anymore with inheritance, it is just about how a RNA molecule interacts with other cell processes.
- JustSomeNobody 9y agoWhether it does or not, cuddle your children.
- draugadrotten 9y agoWouldn't be surprised if it changes the genetics of the cuddling parents too, it's just that the researchers didn't think of it yet. All those hormones that are released are going to have an impact.
- woodpanel 9y agoA layman's question: If DNA methylation happens while cuddling, would this always be a good thing for the baby (e.g. one of the parents has a genetic disease)?
- sxv 9y agoIf by "good" you mean improved genetic fitness (likelihood of reproduction), then there is not going to be enough data to support such a claim, since this would require tracking and comparing the reproductive outcomes of hundreds of individuals both cuddled and not.
- Jumziey 9y ago94... Of course you'll find something interesting (I literally only read the first two sentences)
- louithethrid 9y agoPouring your life into your career cripples ones offspring via epigenetics- there is a story, that should meet violent resistance on HN.