4 ms·

These studies are at the interface of genetics, sociology, and political action. They are underwhelming in all three domains. The genetics are based in puny sam

These studies are at the interface of genetics, sociology, and political action. They are underwhelming in all three domains. The genetics are based in puny sample sizes, and this has been true going back to the Yehuda study (2015, PMID: 26410355) and remains true of this broader followup (42 controls and only 18 in the germline exposure group). I do not understand designing experiments like this and taking the results seriously, unless we move on to sociology and political action; in which case the motivation is clear: “…may encourage policymakers and humanitarian agencies to provide targeted resources to vulnerable populations…” Hard to argue with that, but do we now use a handful of epigenetic markers generated using a cheek swab sample to decide who gets “healthcare access, special lodging, sanitation, and nutrition”? No, never. One could get a lot further a lot faster doing well controlled experiments in animal models. But even here the sociological context intrudes. Mike Meaney’s original work in the early 2000s is still open to questions.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
A lot of sociology research is activist in nature and not rigorous. Is the study similar?
- robwwilliams 2y ago
  Alas, even the rodent studies are not rigorous.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  Activist "science" is how you turn "hard to argue with" cases into "there's plenty to argue with" ones.
  - TwoPhonesOneKid 2y ago
    I would say it's even better: if flushes out the engineers who never bother to grasp what "science" actually referred to. you'd think empirical observation and iteration would be an easy to grasp concept, but there are individuals that people get tripped up by something unidentifiable. you can spot a mile away. You can see it here, too. Not sure what causes the mental block but it seems to form serious social impediments.
Digory 2y ago
These arguments sometimes reach juries, who are asked to award damages based on "physical harms," in a separate category from "mental anguish." The argument that "brains are rewired" or "generations of genetics are harmed" is popular in 'trauma informed' arguments for compensation or government help.
derefr 2y ago
> Hard to argue with that, but do we now use a handful of epigenetic markers generated using a cheek swab sample to decide who gets “healthcare access, special lodging, sanitation, and nutrition”? No, never. I don't think the activism/sociological angle here was supposed to be interpreted as being about targeted reconciliation toward existing victims of violence / their descendants. Even if those people are potentially "living life on hard mode" as a result of previous violence. (After all, finding and helping those people would require complex infrastructure and lots of money.) Rather, I think the thrust of the implicit activist argument would be closer to: 1. Experiencing violence turns out to be even worse for you than we thought — and in non-recoverable ways! (You can't therapy your way out of epigenetic changes.) 2. And so more should be done to prevent/ameliorate violence and its impact on people, before it can cause durable epigenetic changes; 3. ...and some "low-hanging fruit" in reducing this impact for minimal cost, would be to supply more resources for escaping/coping with violence (e.g. shelters; crisis lines; social workers; restraining orders that actually work) specifically to groups who are demographically most likely to become victims of violence. 4. And perhaps we can even use this correlation we've found to also measure the effectiveness of interventions like these — sampling the trends in epigenomic changes in these vulnerable populations over time (i.e. a repeated cross-sectional study), to know if marginal increases in certain types of resources actually have measurable impacts on "cushioning" these populations from violence, enough to prevent these epigenetic changes.
- jacobgkau 2y ago
  Your intentions are good, but you're just stating the same thing as what you quoted with more steps. Use this (faulty) explanation to make a statement about the impact of violence -> direct resources to one demographic or another based on that (faulty) explanation of why it's important. Your fourth point is entirely valid, if we were performing these measurements & experiments at a large enough scale to have a valid baseline in the first place (which GP was arguing is not the case).
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    > Your intentions are good, but you're just stating the same thing as what you quoted with more steps. Incorrect. The parent comment was talking about using epigenetic measurements of specific people to decide if they get resources. The child comment was not talking about doing that, instead saying that this research can be used to argue for more resources in general. The only mention of demographics in the child comment was about groups likely to experience violence. Those groups would have no markers. It would be purely about how we can most effectively reduce violence. The only measurements suggested in the child comment would be for statistical purposes.
ch4s3 2y ago
Yeah this study is pretty bad and I expect to unfortunately be hearing about it in corporate trainings in 10 years. *edit Anyone downvoting me should go read this study. The number of individuals exposed to the initial dose is in the single digits. There is no attempt to account for confounding variables. No mechanism is known that could account for the proposed effect. The preceding animal study they referenced has been HEAVILY criticized for methodological issues.
TwoPhonesOneKid 2y ago
> Hard to argue with that, but do we now use a handful of epigenetic markers generated using a cheek swab sample to decide who gets “healthcare access, special lodging, sanitation, and nutrition”? If you're speaking from an american perspective, this hand-wringing is unnecessary: we leave our own citizens exposed on the street. If we were capable of making decisions about who deserves xyz in the first place we wouldn't be living in such an obvious shithole to begin with. Maybe we should set our standards much lower if we aim for research to actually benefit humans.
casey2 2y ago
I've seen literal 7 year olds make the same mistakes when doing school projects on butterflies. Can professionals not do better than literal children?

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

A lot of sociology research is activist in nature and not rigorous. Is the study similar?

robwwilliams 2y ago
Alas, even the rodent studies are not rigorous.
TeMPOraL 2y ago
Activist "science" is how you turn "hard to argue with" cases into "there's plenty to argue with" ones.
- TwoPhonesOneKid 2y ago
  I would say it's even better: if flushes out the engineers who never bother to grasp what "science" actually referred to. you'd think empirical observation and iteration would be an easy to grasp concept, but there are individuals that people get tripped up by something unidentifiable. you can spot a mile away. You can see it here, too. Not sure what causes the mental block but it seems to form serious social impediments.

Digory 2y ago

These arguments sometimes reach juries, who are asked to award damages based on "physical harms," in a separate category from "mental anguish." The argument that "brains are rewired" or "generations of genetics are harmed" is popular in 'trauma informed' arguments for compensation or government help.

derefr 2y ago

> Hard to argue with that, but do we now use a handful of epigenetic markers generated using a cheek swab sample to decide who gets “healthcare access, special lodging, sanitation, and nutrition”? No, never. I don't think the activism/sociological angle here was supposed to be interpreted as being about targeted reconciliation toward existing victims of violence / their descendants. Even if those people are potentially "living life on hard mode" as a result of previous violence. (After all, finding and helping those people would require complex infrastructure and lots of money.) Rather, I think the thrust of the implicit activist argument would be closer to: 1. Experiencing violence turns out to be even worse for you than we thought — and in non-recoverable ways! (You can't therapy your way out of epigenetic changes.) 2. And so more should be done to prevent/ameliorate violence and its impact on people, before it can cause durable epigenetic changes; 3. ...and some "low-hanging fruit" in reducing this impact for minimal cost, would be to supply more resources for escaping/coping with violence (e.g. shelters; crisis lines; social workers; restraining orders that actually work) specifically to groups who are demographically most likely to become victims of violence. 4. And perhaps we can even use this correlation we've found to also measure the effectiveness of interventions like these — sampling the trends in epigenomic changes in these vulnerable populations over time (i.e. a repeated cross-sectional study), to know if marginal increases in certain types of resources actually have measurable impacts on "cushioning" these populations from violence, enough to prevent these epigenetic changes.

jacobgkau 2y ago
Your intentions are good, but you're just stating the same thing as what you quoted with more steps. Use this (faulty) explanation to make a statement about the impact of violence -> direct resources to one demographic or another based on that (faulty) explanation of why it's important. Your fourth point is entirely valid, if we were performing these measurements & experiments at a large enough scale to have a valid baseline in the first place (which GP was arguing is not the case).
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  > Your intentions are good, but you're just stating the same thing as what you quoted with more steps. Incorrect. The parent comment was talking about using epigenetic measurements of specific people to decide if they get resources. The child comment was not talking about doing that, instead saying that this research can be used to argue for more resources in general. The only mention of demographics in the child comment was about groups likely to experience violence. Those groups would have no markers. It would be purely about how we can most effectively reduce violence. The only measurements suggested in the child comment would be for statistical purposes.

ch4s3 2y ago

Yeah this study is pretty bad and I expect to unfortunately be hearing about it in corporate trainings in 10 years. *edit Anyone downvoting me should go read this study. The number of individuals exposed to the initial dose is in the single digits. There is no attempt to account for confounding variables. No mechanism is known that could account for the proposed effect. The preceding animal study they referenced has been HEAVILY criticized for methodological issues.

TwoPhonesOneKid 2y ago

> Hard to argue with that, but do we now use a handful of epigenetic markers generated using a cheek swab sample to decide who gets “healthcare access, special lodging, sanitation, and nutrition”? If you're speaking from an american perspective, this hand-wringing is unnecessary: we leave our own citizens exposed on the street. If we were capable of making decisions about who deserves xyz in the first place we wouldn't be living in such an obvious shithole to begin with. Maybe we should set our standards much lower if we aim for research to actually benefit humans.

casey2 2y ago

I've seen literal 7 year olds make the same mistakes when doing school projects on butterflies. Can professionals not do better than literal children?