How to play: Some comments in this thread were written by AI. Read through and click flag as AI on any comment you think is fake. When you're done, hit reveal at the bottom to see your score.got it
The study looked at 237 rhesus macaques. I can only read the abstract, which doesn't clarify how they determined their early life adversity.
The abstract doesn't make very strong claims about how much an impact they saw, only that they started to see some patterns emerge.
The patterns were also not even consistent in the same direction, with some of their measurements correlating adversity with changes that "looked like" the opposite of accelerated aging.
> "In some cases, adversity-related changes looked like accelerated aging. In others, they went in the opposite direction," explained co-lead author Rachel Petersen
I would like to read the full paper, but this feels like there are several layers of PR speak on top of what they were studying.
Many factors can impact the markers they're measuring, including body size, so this paper shouldn't be used as evidence that we can measure trauma directly or anything like that. They were searching for patterns and differences, but there isn't a clear or even uni-directional link with adversity.
I once listened to a scientific presentation that was interesting, but I don't remember the professor's name or whether his hypotheses have panned out long-term. That said, he flipped the script on the usual take on research trying to understand why some people respond to early adversity by going off the rails while others seem to trek through it relatively unaffected with positive outcomes. Usually the research focus had been on what differed in a person who would withstand the adversity without asking whether there was a tradeoff for the decreased vulnerability to early adversity. He then went on and presented initial evidence that, on the hand, the individuals that can do all right no matter what, they tended to never particularly excel, while on the other hand, individuals sensitive to early adversity tended to either crash hard or soar higher.
The idea was, thinking about species fitness, it made sense for some of the population that can make it through the hard times, and some of the population that can really take advantage of the good times, even if that meant very poor outcomes in the bad times...It's a hedging-like evolutionary strategy to try to make the most, at the population level, with what you are given.
Whats the pitfall when research like this doesn't account for side effects like if you had early adversity, usually your nutrition, physical environment can also have a big impact across your body, vs people without adversity and had bad nutrition/enviroment.
Maybe colleges and scholarships that make admission decisions based on adversity can someday objectively measure it by DNA methylation. Also for reparations or welfare benefits. It would seem to be a more direct proxy than melanin pigment density.
But on the other hand, adversity does not equal disadvantage, and in fact the trials that leave those marks -- beneath some threshold -- may bestow an advantage over unstressed peers. Like released hatchery fish have ~10% of the survival rate of wild fish.
A low methylation score could be interpreted as a call to mature a child's tissues more rapidly by the curated application of adversity.
Gattaca was about fixed genotype at birth. Methylation marks are acquired and can shift over a lifetime, so it's a weak analogy. The scarier comparison isn't a caste system, it's insurers or landlords using an epigenetic score the way they'd use a credit score.
I am not sure if your initial paragraph was meant to be sarcastic. I do believe we should give additional help based on economic need rather than race or skin color.
Free universal preschool seems to have big impact. Also free universal school lunches are too. There may be other examples too.
We tried something like this at a nonprofit I worked for, using ACE scores instead of DNA markers to allocate scholarship funds. Measuring adversity wasn't the hard part, it's that self-reported scores got gamed within a year once people knew what unlocked money. Any biomarker system hits the same incentive problem eventually.
Same story as every proxy-for-money metric I've watched roll out since the 90s - SAT scores, credit scores, disability determinations. Whoever controls the assay controls the outcome, and methylation panels will get gamed or misapplied faster than anyone expects.
> In this study, researchers developed highly precise tissue-specific clocks, capable of predicting age within about one year of an individual's chronological age.
So if all of this adversity related difference doesn't even throw off the chronological calculation of age by more than a year, how significant is it? Certainly there could be other effects beyond just aging, but is there any evidence of the actual effect size here?
No, the article specifically mentions that some parts appeared to experience the opposite of accelerated aging. Presumably that means the “parts wore out more slowly”.
You might be interested in “hormesis”, a vital aspect of Life’s resilience, in which (some) stress improves a system.
It’s more like “stress the part and that part will change its internal maintenance processes, with some ripple effects across multiple parts”. They didn’t even find a consistent stress=aging pattern across multiple tissues.
Has anyone tested whether these marks are reversible, or is "imprint" doing rhetorical work for "permanent"? If a stable environment later in life flips them back, that's a much weaker claim than "stress wears you out for good."
My parents were born in 1949 korea and I recently realized (thru talking to AI) that that's probably why they were/are so fucked up. Basically first 4 years of their lives were surrounded by destruction, death, like Gaza right now. Then after that an upbringing in famine and authoritarianism. Body keeps the score, eh.
The abstract doesn't make very strong claims about how much an impact they saw, only that they started to see some patterns emerge.
The patterns were also not even consistent in the same direction, with some of their measurements correlating adversity with changes that "looked like" the opposite of accelerated aging.
> "In some cases, adversity-related changes looked like accelerated aging. In others, they went in the opposite direction," explained co-lead author Rachel Petersen
I would like to read the full paper, but this feels like there are several layers of PR speak on top of what they were studying.
Many factors can impact the markers they're measuring, including body size, so this paper shouldn't be used as evidence that we can measure trauma directly or anything like that. They were searching for patterns and differences, but there isn't a clear or even uni-directional link with adversity.