The Holocaust epigenetics study was over-interpreted | Hacker News Reader

The Holocaust epigenetics study was over-interpreted

epgntxeinstein.tumblr.com

92 pointstokenadult37 comments

Whether it was "over-interpreted" or not -- some stressors methylate genes, and those mutations are passed on to descendants.

Does surviving the holocaust count as a stressor? Yes. Would going through that probably involve a bundle of stressors, of which some are likely to produce epigenetic mutations? Likely.

The author of this article is in the business of writing papers that are anti-trans-generational epigenetic inheritance. The author either doesn't believe it is possible, or doesn't believe to have seen evidence for it yet.

It's a useful counterpoint to the majority opinion, tho it's very much the opinion of someone peddling a particular line that happens to be the line their in the business of writing papers about.

The most interesting thing in this study was that the descendants of those who had experienced the holocaust seemed to have become more immune to the stressors their ancestors faced. That's a pretty clear case of the genome responding by becoming more fit, the occurrence of which has evolutionary advantage.

> Does surviving the holocaust count as a stressor? Yes. Would going through that probably involve a bundle of stressors, of which some are likely to produce epigenetic mutations? Likely.

So because the conclusion of the original study is probably sort-of-maybe okay-ish, we can excuse the shoddy research that was performed to get to that conclusion? I don't think that's how science works.

The final paragraph of the post reads

> Every week there are uninterpretable epigenetics studies published, the Holocaust study is merely one of many, these authors are merely following prevailing beliefs in over-interpreting their data. However, every such study damages the ‘brand’ of epigenetics a little more. If we want human disease epigenetics to be sustainable as a field of research, we have got to start to do substantially better in designing, executing, interpreting, reviewing and funding these studies.

Being afraid that bad research might damage the reputation of the entire field of epigenetics doesn't seem like something I'd worry about too much if I didn't believe in epigenetics as a valid object of scientific study.

While the study might not be well designed and interpreted, may I ask why you don't believe in epigenetics?

may I ask why you don't believe in epigenetics?

That's not a question based in science. It's not about beliefs, it's about evidence.

Speaking for myself, I've taken a strong interest in epigenetics due to my own health experiences and general curiosity. I find some of the hypotheses around epigenetics to be compelling, including that of generational inheritance of trauma, which is at issue here. But hard data is lacking, and I hope to see more rigorous studies that produce more solid evidence that can enable us to better understand the issue.

Someone who hasn't heavily researched epigenetics or any other topic is perfectly entitled to take the null hypothesis position and demand better evidence before adopting a different position.

Well, i used believing in a relaxed fashion. I'm working on a really huge epigenetics consortium, and I think there's a growing set of evidence for neo-Lamarckism.

Great, I'm genuinely interested! Please point us to some data!

Epigenetics sound more like another way of mutation to me.

The original article is using a sample group which is just much too small to make any reasonable statistical correlation, and in it's conclusion is making claims about causation without even being able to prove correlation.

I would suggest a change to your first sentence: "some stressors methylate genes, and those same genes may be methylated in descendants."

It is not a "mutation", at least not in the sense of a stable and heritable gene change. DNA methylation can be reversed, hence it is considered an epigenetic change, rather than a genetic change. The controversy over epigenetics seems to be about how long an epigenetic change can remain in a series of offspring, and how much of an impact an epigenetic change can have on the genetic material, the only long-term mechanism of heredity that we know of.

Caveat: IANABiologist

There are good reasons to not think trans-generational epigenetic inheritance is possible though. The main piece of evidence is the reprogramming that occurs after fertilization where epigenetic marks are erased and re-established.

You could maybe argue that that epigenetic machinery was transferred trans-generationally during cell division to help in re-establishing specific epigenetic marks, but that's not really an "informational" inheritance.

The only clear case is that of bad science.

I wonder what an similar survey of the genetics of Palestinians living under occupation for five decades would show - and whether the epigenetic effect not only makes people more "fit" for dealing with trauma, but perhaps desensitised when it comes to inflicting trauma on others.

As bad as the Israeli occupation is, it's not even in the same order of magnitude in terms of per-human suffering.

How did you measure the suffering ? If you just guesstimate the magnitude of the suffering I try a guesstimation too: In my opinion 4.5 years of intense suffering are in the same order of magnitude with 45 years of not so intense suffering. Unless some suffering is way more important than other suffering. I don't know.

Depends on scale, 3x or 100x both fail the 4.5 to 45 test.

PS: The reality is it's mostly propaganda right now, if things where as bad as generally portrayed you would see a lot of immigration. (ex: syrian refugees)

What evidence are you basing your reality on? Have you been there? Is there some on-the-ground reporting you trust that presents that view? Or are you only extrapolating from the relative lack of refugees? If so, there are lots of potential confounding variables, the most obvious being the relative tightness of borders in different areas.

You might also count the % or # of non-combatant population that was intentionally killed.

I also think that if palestinians were really suffering, they would agree to the terms offered to them. Repeatedly. The fact that they keep refusing to live in peace shows that things aren't all that bad.

Here is one fact - they are one of the most obese people on the planet: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=238_1406451164.

> The fact that they keep refusing to live in peace shows that things aren't all that bad.

I think history shows it doesn't work like that. You can't oppress people into "wanting to live in peace", quite the reverse.

Not really. That's called losing a war. In most cases, when a war is lost, one side agrees to the terms they would probably deem unfavorable before the war had started. That's why we say they 'lost' the war.

I think there are few if any post-WWII wars that works like your idealized model of war. Most of them have been very assymetric from the start, such that one state's population hardly has it's 'conditions' touched at all while another's way of life is completely destroyed -- but that doesn't mean the more powerful actor always 'wins'.

For instance, did the US 'lose' the Vietnam war, because the Vietnamese somehow made conditions in the U.S so horrible that the U.S. had to "agree to terms they would deem unfavorable before the war"? It just doesn't make sense to even try to frame it that way.

How about the U.S. in Iraq or Afghanistan, did one side 'win' because they made life so miserable for the other side that they were willing to accept conditions they would have seen as 'unfavorable' at the beginning? The question doesn't even make sense, it's got nothing to do with what happened. And indeed, it could be argued that the worse U.S. forces made the lives of Iraqis, the more resistance to U.S. forces there was, it got the U.S. no closer to 'victory' to immiserate Iraqis.

Let alone wars against 'internal enemies', which if you insist on framing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as a war, it clearly is. Did hostilities between the UK government and the IRA cease because one side made the other so miserable they had to agree to terms they would have considered 'unfavorable' before? Again, it doesn't even make sense to frame it that way. If anything, the reverse, the Irish were no longer nearly as discriminated against or as subject to military occupation as they had been earlier in the conflict, and this in fact was pertinent in cessation of hostilities.

The war I am referring to is Israel's War of Independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War - which the arabs lost.

Subsequent conflicts are simply an extension of the same one - one side's unwillingness to accept Israel's existence.

The territories in question are occupied because they were lost in the war of 1967. Had there not been that war (effectively started by the arab states), Israel would not have taken over the Egyptian / Jordanian lands (which never had a Palestinian state there).

And meanwhile, what is it you actually want the actual people living in the occupied territories, 2, 3, 4 generations on, to actually DO? They should acquiesce to living without civil or human rights indefinitely, because some nation-states of the purported same ethnicity as them (which have never treated the Palestinians well either) lost a war 50 years ago? (it's debatable who 'started' that war, but it doesn't really matter)

People living under that kind of repression have always resisted, throughout history. Always will. You probably would too.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the OP really, or HN.

Ok - that's a fair point.

Given that palestinians don't really have a functioning democracy, it's hard to say what the actual people 'can do'.

However - we can look at opinion polls for ideas. Right now majority of palestinians support waging a war with Israel:

"“A majority of 74 percent favors Hamas way of resisting occupation. … Furthermore, 56 percent favor the transfer of Hamas’ armed approach to the West Bank and 40 percent oppose that,” the center noted."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/25/new-poll-shows-wh...

As long as that is the case, Israel will respond in kind. Look at what happened after Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza.

So when we talk about 'living under opression' we have to be mindful of the alternative which they continue to refuse.

For example here are details of the latest offer that was refused: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.645676

I fully accept that it's not an ideal solution for majority of Palestinians who would prefer Israel to disappear altogether.

PS I agree that this has nothing to do with OP or HN - but any discussion of Jews (or Holocaust) turns to 'but what about the Palestinians'. C'est la vie.

> However, the Prime Minister's Office said the document was a U.S. proposal that Israel had never accepted. "At no point did Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agree to withdraw to 1967 lines, divide Jerusalem or recognize the Palestinian right of return. That was and remains his position," Netanyahu's office told Yedioth Ahronoth. read more: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.645676

We're getting into the nitty-gritty of he said-she said, leaks, etc. Maybe after a secret proposal is rejected, Israelis can not admit having proposed those things (since in the next round of negotiations, that will be the starting position that must be improved on).

The point is that there are proposals put on the table regularly. They probably do not include all things Palestinians want (Jerusalem, right of return) - but they never will. So all they have is sitting with nothing in relative squalor while waiting for a city upon a hill.

Parent comment asked me what I would do in their shoes - I'd say 'Ok, fuck this, I'll take what I can and build a life out of it - because otherwise my grandchildren will live in the same conditions'.

oh, I didn't realize they tend to fat. I guess they've earned whatever terms Israel wants them to accept.

No, they lost a war. That's the reason someone accepts terms they don't like.

Them being fat just shows that there's clearly enough food to get fat off of.

That snide comment seems unnecessary.

After seeing this sort of research, I sometimes think that we are drowning in an excess amount of scientific information regarding more humane things. I think that such approach will not let us understand ourselves better.

We need to broaden our epistemological horizons. The other day I was reading the wikipedia article on physical attractiveness; it is mostly a litany of controlled studies isolating various physical variables. This is rapidly becoming the only way we know how to think.

> [... The scientific method] is rapidly becoming the only way we know how to think.

And for better or worse, it's not a way to think, it's a way to know and prove.

Can fashion, politics, philosophy, or religion help scientists decide what to prove or what to know? Or is that also within the purview of science?

Science is a method for getting to know the universe. Fashion and politics are unrelated. Philosophy, religion and science are the most common ways to acquire knowledge. In religion, the source is the myth. In philosophy, the source is the thought. When philosophy needed a method to get to know for better the nature, it begat science. Science produces raw data. Philosophy, or any other method of thinking for that matter, are to interpret what science collects. But paraphrasingly-quoting Socrates via Plato, in Alchibiades II 144a and 146-147, without the knowledge of the good from the bad, information otherwise is useless, and maybe pericolous.

And, it's not established that Mathematics be a science, so, shall we dismiss it[1]?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics#Definitions_of_mat...

"I really don’t like criticising colleagues, a tendency I’m guessing we all share in science."

This. This is everything that's wrong about modern science.

I think there is plenty else that is wrong. For example:

* Corporate influence via funding studies (and not publishing the failures), as well as hiring away top researchers (e.g. Hinton by Google)

* The tenure system is vanishing, with more and more staff turning into non-tenured "associates", and fewer and fewer young hopefuls finding a successful career in science.

* Promotions are based on dubious publication metrics.

I am still fascinated by the possibility of genetic memory, but also heartened by the existence of skeptics. Looking forward to the debate, assuming it's a healthy one.

Politics is much more efficient than hard science at getting you research grants, so the researchers adapt their proposals and ultimately their results to the market.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com