> “The gene changes in the children could only be attributed to Holocaust exposure in the parents,” said Yehuda.
I don't know whether that quote is taken out of context, or is otherwise not representative of the people involved in this project, but that sentence makes me question the validity of the science involved.
Clearly there are lots of possible explanations. Perhaps the genes were present anyway, and would have been passed on regardless of the parents' traumatic experiences. Perhaps being raised by parents who have been through a traumatic experience affected the children.
Saying there is no other possible explanation doesn't sound very scientific.
Especially since they don't mention controlling for social influence. Nor do they mention sampling the descendants of other people exposed to the war who were not necessarily victims. Not to mention that their sample size was 32.
No offense (really!), but this kind of criticism makes me suspect that you don't know much about research and statistics.
Statistical power matters, not the sample size, per se. If you want to criticize the size of n, you have to tell us what makes you think they have insufficient statistical power (which will invariably involve estimating an effect size for us).
If you have very solid controls in place then a sample size of 32 is much more substantial IMHO than if you're dealing with real-world environmental factors where you have very little control.
What matters more to me is that, as far as we know, there is no known link between genes and psychology. That is, which genes and HOW they affect our psychology.
I personally believe (strongly) that exposure to parent's stories and trauma (which I believe no one in their right mind would consider that it stoped at the gates of Auchwitz) influenced children growing up around Holocaust victims.
There are definitely known links between psychology and genes; we know the epigenetics behind why if mothers are stressed when pregnant, their children will be more stressed for their entire lives. Far too many people still have the Jurassic Park view of DNA and believe in Central Dogma—but it has become clear that environment and all sorts of post-conception events effect genetics. Dr. Sapolsky, in this lecture series, explains, for just one example, how and why Lamarckian evolution sometimes occurs:
Epigenetics. It's the make-file for your genetic source code. Certain conditions can cause certain parts of your genetic code to be uncommented or commented-out. There are actually a number of different kinds of comments (histone modifications [1]) - each set of marks particular to a different compiler, in different contexts. And these comments/marks are copied with some fidelity to daughter-cells/children.
So the genes themselves are not being heritably altered, rather the recipe for which gene is where, when can be subtly changed. But again, the same mechanisms that permit the change in expression of those genes during a lifetime can be subsequently changed in the next just as easily.
While it could be entirely true there are a lot of problems here. Small sample size and lots of confounding factors for one. Also there are still things to figure out in terms of how best to study epigenetic effects, as seen here: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/01/22/ije.d...
Here's a thought that's been nagging at me for a while...
There is evidence [1] that PTSD is linked to increased incidence of physiological conditions like diabetes, cardiovascular disease, thyroid disease, rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune illnesses.
Given the number of people currently living whose recent ancestors experienced the trauma of war and oppression, I wonder if it could explain part of the growing incidence of these illnesses that we keep hearing is burdening the health systems of Western countries these days.
The reason it's on my mind is due to my own experience. For a few years I've been struggling to get sound diagnosis and treatment for a fatigue illnesses that I now understand has been caused by auto-immunity. Conventional medicine offered little help, but since I've undertaken a treatment to remove subconscious traumas, my health has steadily improved, to the point where "normal" health seems very much within reach.
The thing is, my illnesses can't really be explained by my own traumatic experiences alone. By which I mean, I've had a relatively comfortable, privileged life and I haven't had many experiences that others would consider highly traumatic, but from a young age I've always been highly sensitive and perceived traumas in situations that others would just take in their stride.
But when I reflect on the fact that my parents and grandparents could all be described as having been in a mildly traumatised state, it makes sense that this tendency in me was inherited.
Yes I get that I'm a sample size of one and it's hardly objective. But it feels an idea worthy of further consideration. I'm doing whatever lab tests I can do of inflammation, cardio markers, hormone levels etc, so I can do comparisons as I continue the trauma-release process. I'll also be interested to see how I fare in life on illnesses like arthritis, diabetes, heart disease and Alzheimer's, all of which are prevalent in my family.
I'd love to hear from anyone researching this kind of thing.
Given the number of people currently living whose recent ancestors experienced the trauma of war and oppression, I wonder if it could explain part of the growing incidence of these illnesses that we keep hearing is burdening the health systems of Western countries these days.
Trauma and war have been part of the human condition since inception. What do you think was different for our "recent ancestors"?
I think about this every time I'm at a zoo or monkey temple watching primates interact - fighting, sure, but not torturing or persecuting or enslaving or committing genocide - and wonder at what point in evolution did we start being so brutal and cruel to one another as to cause the kind of trauma that now seems so common.
I don't claim to be any kind of expert on history, so I don't know how far back we've had the scale and brutality of the wars of the last 100-or-so years. But I have an easy time believing that the more recent wars have done more to traumatise people who were in them, as well as those who weren't due to the widespread media coverage that's also happened relatively recently.
At the same time, I agree with your point; trauma is not new and we certainly see it in other animals (maltreated dogs for example).
And I certainly believe the phenomenon I'm talking about could go back well beyond the past 100-ish years; that would make sense in my case, as none of my parents or grandparents were directly involved in the wars.
But I just wonder if the scale and brutality of the more recent wars, along with the media exposure, have made the problem more intense and widespread.
While violence has always been a part of the human condition, the scale of destruction wrought by modern war is novel. Violence in pre-Neolithic (pre-agricultural times, which characterizes the vast majority of our time as a species on this earth) was much more interpersonal. Think, two guys fighting over one girl, kind of personal. Organized group on group violence was a rarity. It's only with the creation of complex societies that we see the kinds of wars where whole ethnicities are targeted and uprooted. It's entirely possible that people experience more 'trauma' due to the differing nature of violence these days.
I feel in a very similar situation. Throughout my life, I've always had abdominal pain under stressing situations, and in specific scenarios of high stress, there's a specific spot that hurts. The funny thing is that one of my grandma, one of my aunts and a cousin suffer from pain in the exact same spot (just below the belly button).
After an accident in which I broke my cheekbone, the pain increased to become chronic, and it's been 8 years since. I haven't found a solution yet, and western medicine has been of no help.
I've read a few psychology books (Code to Joy, The Divided Mind) and it makes sense to me that traumas can actually cause pain. But neither of them could actually explain similar pain throughout families. Actually, Code to Joy (that helps you clear out the effects of traumas through a body-mind algorithm) has helped me reduce pain in many situations, but the overall pain is still there.
I haven't found anyone either doing research in this topic, unfortunately.
The basis for the approach I've pursued came from a book called The Biology of Belief [1], by former Stanford stem-cell researcher Bruce Lipton. The book is about epigenetics, and the way environmental factors - particularly the influence of subconscious beliefs on the perception of your environment, can influence physiological health. I found it compelling and I seem to have benefited by pursuing the ideas, but it's not for everyone; despite his scientific background his primary audience these days is the New Age market, and I know his way of articulating his ideas is too woo-woo for many. But he is entertaining.
The method I've used for trauma clearing is called NET [2] which came out of the chiropractic world, but I've since learned how to do it myself so I no longer need to spend money on chiropractors, most of whom I now regard as quacks.
The closest version of the technique I now use is a method called Self Clearing, demonstrated in this video [3] by an Australian guy called Dane Thomas.
I'm well aware that all this stuff will seem like quackery to many; as a former devotee of Dawkins and Hitchens, it sure did to me, but my ongoing health struggles necessitated a willingness to try anything, and of the many things I tried, this has been the one that's delivered results.
There's a bunch of illnesses that are physically debillitating but that don't seem to have physical explanations. They often respond well to psychological talking therapy treatments.
So the problem is letting people know that they may well cure their health condition with a talking therapy without making it sound like you're dismissing them as malingerers. And there's also a need to stop them stigmatising mental health problems ("no! My illness is real! It's not in my head")
Heh, I remember years ago reading about a medical researcher whose research suggested the cause of chronic fatigue syndrome was primarily emotional. This so enraged CFS sufferers that some of them issued death threats against her - which is a excellent way to prove you have no emotional issues :)
But I understand the feeling and have had that kind of frustration and anger myself (without the death threats of course!) before I found the technique that turned out to be effective.
There's a vast difference between "it's all in your mind, pull yourself together and get on with it", and "good news, it's all in your mind, and if you follow this very specific program to clear your mind, you can achieve perfect health".
But few know what that program is yet, or even know that it exists, but that's something I'd like to do what I can to change.
Remember that placebo is a well known phenomena, so far without any reasonable explanation. It is there and obviously, hope, no matter its source, helps.
I still find value in much of what they espouse(d). But there's also a lot of dogma and belligerence in their words, which I used to enjoy but I now find a turnoff.
Skepticism is important (especially to religious believers), but it doesn't give you a clue about the right path in life. Anger, the strongest asset of Dawkins et al., will not help you or me in any way. Ever.
Yep, I found that their anti-religion was a religion of its own, and one that seemed to license its followers to be far more angry and mean than most of the followers of the religions they criticized.
I would recommend reading Code to Joy, by George Pratt and Peter Lambrou. It is an excellent book, that lets you understand how the mind works (basically, the relationship between conscious and unconscious mind), and how traumas affect our daily life. It also describes how to clear them out, and it has worked for me.
The book has references on how that theory began with Roger Callahan at the end of the 1980's. Tapping the healer within is one of these books, which I would recommend if you're interested in the subject, but not as a guide to clear away your fears of your unconscious mind.
I have to say, my father doesn't have the happiest mood. Have to admit both his parents did not went to camps but were kept hidden, so I don't really know the metric used in that study.
I did not live any of thing, but the slight idea of having people with my genetic heritage being treated like that frightens and depresses me deeply.
A more charitable reading would be that the poster is affected by the realization that people of their genetic heritage were recently treated that way, not that they are claiming it is especially bad somehow because of the people it happened to.
What's easy is to make pronouncements about other people and the way they handle emotions, when you have literally no way of actually making those statements without imposing staggering amounts of your own bias.
Does anyone have access to this paper [1]. The reporting around this paper, and the conclusions reached both by the authors and the media sound ridiculous considering the tiny sample group studied: 32 holocaust surviving parents, 22 children of those parents, and 8 parents / 9 children for control. Variations in such tiny sample groups have to be truly dramatic to be meaningful in any way, and even with dramatic variations you can't possibly make such bold statements as: "This is the first demonstration of transmission of pre-conception parental trauma to child associated with epigenetic changes in both generations."
Now I am not saying that the underlying concept isn't possible. But I feel like this paper isn't properly questioned by the media or the scientific community, because to do so will some how be perceived as antisemitism. It feels wrong to me, I feel like the author is using the horrific events of the Holocaust to promote her scientific career, and that's wrong.
It has long been discussed within the Jewish community that lots of children of survivors can be really screwed up - not just their parents.
This sounds like an attempt to examine this to find something other than anecdotal evidence and to see if there is something more going on.
However, so much time has passed, that getting good sample sizes is difficult (i.e. you need parent DNA from living parents as well as child DNA and there are now very few survivors left alive). The DNA science necessary for the study came along too late for there to be a good sample size still available.
The research could have considerable application if it is found to hold true - there are many, many situations where we could be setting up future generations in need of help (e.g. Iraq, Syria to name just 2). If there is a genetic change component, gene therapy applications could be part of a better planned approach to address issues suffered in 20, 30 or more, years time.
> It has long been discussed within the Jewish community that lots of children of survivors can be really screwed up - not just their parents.
Does the Jewish community have any awareness of whether children of survivors who are raised by someone other than the survivors tend to be? In other words, can we (even anecdotally) begin to tease apart inheritance versus environment?
I understand that entirely, but in order to prove biological causation you would have to study much larger groups, and setup your control groups in such a way as to control for the attitudes of affected parents passing there genetic expression to their children through environmental, rather than biological methods. To create an accurate scientifically meaningful study you would want to study 4 groups:
1. Children of affected parents raised by their parents.
2. Children of affected parents raised by someone else, an unaffected relative, for instance.
3. Children of unaffected parents raised by their parents.
4. Children of unaffected parents raised by affected parents.
If you see elevated reaction to stress in groups 1 and 2, but not 3 and 4, then there is a clear biological causation here. However, if you observe elevated reaction to stress in groups 1 and 4, but not 2 and 3, then there could be something environmental going on. Basically, in order to properly help people, we need to first properly identify the problem. For instance, if the problem is biological, then a biological solution in a form of a drug might be effective. However, if the problem is environmental, then psychological help for the prospective parents might be highly effective.
I understand that victims of the Holocaust are very old by now and it's very hard to come up with proper sample groups. However, unfortunately, there are many other horrible instances of inhumane things going on in the world, and many instances of people surviving through those situations. The Rwandan holocaust victims and the survivors of the ethnic cleansing in the balkan states are just two examples, and there are many others, as you have pointed out.
This story seems to implicitly assume that damage to ancestors must mean damage to offspring, when in fact some of the epigenetic results suggest the opposite can also be true. That is, stress to ancestors can trigger changes which benefit offspring.
A multigenerational study in Sweden found that when men experienced famine at a key young age, their grandchildren lived significantly longer, even after controlling for other factors. (OTOH, I believe the result was reversed for grandmothers.) Some coverage of that research:
This is obviously super-interesting if true, but difficult to reason through without being able to see the paper or data. Does anyone have access to the full text? I don't belong to this field, but need to see the effect size [1] of methylation [2] to contextualize what's going on here.
From the article's summary of the study, it does not preclude the possibility that the tag was switched on in the children after birth. One would expect that experiencing trauma to the degree of the parents in the study would cause them to raise their children a substantially different environment than they would have otherwise. Since we already know that environment can influence the expression of genes, I don't see why this isn't advanced as, at least, an equally viable theory on why their children expressed similar genes.
I feel like I've mentioned it here before.. but in any case there's a pretty solid chance I inherited Essential Benign Tremors[0] from my grandfather, who survived the Holocaust in Germany (actually was drafted by the US and came back).
Yes and no. Life experiences do not affect one's genes, but the way those genes are expressed. Though, I don't know if (and doubt) that distinction was known in his day.
Genetic memory. If true, it would make evolution a more efficient process - the genes themselves change in the face of stress - than random mutation alone.
> their children, who are known to have increased likelihood of stress disorders
They started here because laymen had already noticed a pattern. Has anything similar been noticed in descendants of Palestinians? Does New York even have enough potential subjects for them to do the same study?
I don't know whether that quote is taken out of context, or is otherwise not representative of the people involved in this project, but that sentence makes me question the validity of the science involved.
Clearly there are lots of possible explanations. Perhaps the genes were present anyway, and would have been passed on regardless of the parents' traumatic experiences. Perhaps being raised by parents who have been through a traumatic experience affected the children.
Saying there is no other possible explanation doesn't sound very scientific.