Most people are familiar with genetics and its implications. However, inherited genetics are not the only way that bodies express genes. Throughout a person's life, they experience various hardships; these hardships leave lasting marks in the form of so-called epigenetic alterations. For example, people who experience famine have genetic alterations that permanently slow down their metabolisms. Not all examples have to be quite so extreme, though. The attached article covers how those that experience significant fear at some point in their life are quite literally "marked for life." They will permanently have negative reactions to similar events or sensations to what caused that fear. It's important to note that most epigenetic changes are not passed on to children, but as with most things, there are exceptions. In these fear experiments, they found that heightened senses of fear to whatever stressed previous subjects was directly passed to children (despite those children never experiencing those situations). In that same way, various hardships that parents experience often directly affect their offspring in a similar (though often lessened) sense. For example, very stressed mothers often pass a heightened sense of stress to their children, or addicts sometimes pass an altered gene causing weaker self-control. So, in other words, a parent's behavior (reckless or otherwise) has the potential to harm, hinder, or help their children in some way.
Questions:
Questions:
- Does the idea that you could pass your own bad habits and behaviors down to your children add some extra layer of responsibility?
- Epigenetic and genetics often spark the famous "nature vs nurture" debate. In your opinion which (if either) makes the larger difference?
The article you chose showed some interesting findings. The idea that stress and fear are determined by inheritance from parent or surroundings can be associated with our study of disaster in class. The first thing I thought of was Esch having a lot of fear throughout her internal turmoil of the pregnancy and the stress of the storm, which could possibly have an effect on her future baby. The concept of epigenetics is fascinating. Even though it is not a change to the DNA sequence, it can still be passed down through the generations, making the idea that parents and their children having similar personalities more biologically based. Knowing that we could be passing down one’s own bad habits to our future generations is somewhat concerning and could lead to humans considering what they are doing with more skepticism. In regard to nature vs. nurture, I believe that nature plays a little more of a role due to DNA and genes having an effect on who someone becomes; however, nurture is still a huge component. Biology can make a template for the person’s features and potential personality, but one’s surroundings and experiences can have a tremendous effect on who they end up becoming.
ReplyDeleteI think that this adds another layer to nature vs. nurture debate that is common amongst psychologist. Behavior is changed and effected by our DNA, and personality traits like anxiety have long been seen as passed through "nurture," but this article challenges this. I think that one of the reasons why this is so hard to test is because the effects of these genetic changes are covered under the umbrella of nurture. This reminds me of the studies that show how the environment a mother is raised in effects the child. I could see findings like this show up more in more in legal proceedings, where people need to find exactly how much injury or harm was done in a case or a suit. If change done to a person can also change future generations, the harm is far worse.
ReplyDeleteThis article was a great find because it discussed some interesting facts that I have never thought about before. I agree with Rylan’s point that this idea adds another layer to the nature vs. nurture debate. The article stated that some epigenetic changes fear can produce might be so impactful it can be passed down through generations, which is kind of shocking. I do believe in the idea that we can pass down our bad habits and behaviors to our children. I have seen friends develop a drinking problem because one of their parents had a problem earlier on in life, but was able to get help so they could be there for their children.
ReplyDeleteIn cases like the article points out, in which experiencing traumatic events, like the Holocaust, can make one’s descendants more susceptible to stress, the responsibility lies not with the victim of the trauma but with the society who allowed for this genetic situation. Thus, when thinking in terms of natural disaster in conjunction with epigenetics, people should usher relief efforts and take proper precautions to alleviate how traumatic these events are. As Margaret mentions, Esch’s stressful experience with the hurricane and with her pregnancy could lead to her child being more susceptible to stress, but I also wonder how epigenetics could have contributed to Esch’s stressed reaction—her father lived during the Civil Rights Era, and maybe that affected his genetic expression. Moreover, in regards to the nature vs. nurture debate, both nature—because of the genes’ role—and nurture—because of how society/disaster can induce these stresses—play a role in epigenetics.
ReplyDeleteThis article is very interesting! I don't believe the point of the article was that you could pass down bad habits or behaviors though. It was more about the fact that people who have experienced a traumatic event can pass down fear through the generations that follow them. This makes sense in context of the class if we connect that fear to people who have experienced disasters, like Hurricane Katrina, or possibly to stress in the immediate generations of black Americans who were born from enslaved Africans. I would like to see an article make that connection and explore the ways that anxiety and PTSD are an embodied sort of way that oppression can remain within certain communities even after some level of injustice has been abolished.
ReplyDeleteI believe both nature and nurture make a lot of difference, but I tend to believe that nurture is more important in forming people's lifestyles, perspectives, and thought processes. I find this article so fascinating because it is 100% part of nature and genetic predisposition regardless of whether you grew up in a safe environment.
This is really a fascinating read. It makes me wonder if this is one of the ways that evolution occurs. I could be wrong, but as far as I know (which is not super far), experts don't know exactly how evolution occurs, and this sounds like one of the ways. To use your example, if a mother goes through a famine, her children might be better equipped to handle a famine. I do think this idea adds an extra layer of responsibility to having children, but I also don't really think there's anything you can do about it. You don't really get to choose what happens to you, and this sounds like it mostly creates positive changes. As for nature versus nurture, I really have no idea. Epigenetics seems to suggest that it's nurture, but not even how your parents raised you. It's the way your grandparents raised your parents, which is a kind of crazy thought.
ReplyDelete