Strollerderby : genetics

Anorexia May Be Caused by Brain Chemistry

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:00:00 GMT

A study of 200 people—mostly females aged twelve to twenty-five—has radically changed the way doctors think about anorexia. While previous research on the disease has stressed cultural and familial causes of the disease, researchers have now determined that anorexia may be closely related to brain chemistry:

“They found that about 70% of the patients had suffered damage to their neurotransmitters, which help brain cells communicate with each other, had undergone subtle changes in the structure of their brains, or both.”

This finding helps to clarify a long confusion about the risk factors involved in developing anorexia, since all women are exposed to pop culture’s thin obsession, but only about four women in every thousand develop anorexia.

Researchers hope that it may be possible to treat the disease with drugs that work like antidepressants by altering brain chemistry—and to offer parents some peace of mind that their children’s eating disorders are not their fault. According to Susan Ringwood, who runs a leading charity for people suffering from eating disorders, “Parents always blame themselves when their child develops an eating disorder. But what we are learning more and more from research in this area is that some people are very vulnerable to anorexia and that is down to genetic factors and brain chemistry, and not them trying to look like celebrity models or suffering a major traumatic event early in their lives.”

Jezebel writer Hortense is certainly not the only anorexia sufferer who welcomes the news that anorexia can affect anyone, and does not necessarily say anything about one’s childhood or obsession with appearance.

Nevertheless, just as people who are prone to depression are more likely to actually become depressed when certain stress factors are present in their lives, parents and society still have a responsibility to encourage all children to have positive relationships with their bodies—a responsibility that society clearly continues to shirk.

Eventually, it may be possible to test children as young as eight to determine whether they have the anorexia-prone brain abnormality. Would you get your kids screened?

Photo: Jezebel

Designer Baby Born Without Cancer Gene

Brett Singer — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:00:00 GMT

Pop quiz: you have a history of cancer in your family. You want to have children. Science has progressed to the point where you can alter your unborn child's genetics so that they will be born without the particular gene that causes the particular type of cancer in your bloodline. What do you do?

This is no longer a hypothetical question. A baby girl was just born in Britain without the defective BRCA1 gene, which causes cancer in 50 to 85 percent of girls, according to London's Daily Mail. That gene is rampant in this particular London family, who wisely chose to remain anonymous. (No reality TV show for those two.)

When the unborn are mucked with, controversy follows. Various Pro-Life/Anti-Choice advocates, such as James Dowson of LifeLeague, are against the practice, calling it a "slippery slope…It is designer babies. Screening for cancer is an emotive issue - my own father and grandfather both had cancer, so I know - but it is a dangerous road to go down. Today it is cancer, next year it will be IQ, and the year after that blue eyes and blonde hair."

I don't like the term "designer baby". It sounds like something you create in a lab. But isn't that what doctors are doing? I realize that I'm not offering a good analysis of the science involved here. The Daily Mail article is decent, and there is lots of information online if you want to read up on it. I'm going to stick with the more parenting-related issues that come up with this story.

I'm somewhat ambivalent about the idea of genetic screening, and even more hesitant to agree with genetic manipulation. Although I'm not a scientist (I even graduated college without passing a single science class, for what that's worth) I feel strongly that doctors can't possibly know what the long-term effects are of adding and removing genes from anyone, in utero or fully-grown. Like most Jewish parents, my wife and I went through the genetic screening process when she was pregnant, but declined to know all of the information that they found. It's one thing to check and see if you are a carrier for a horrible and incurable disease such as Tay-Sachs. It's something else to find out what the chances are that your child will contract various types of cancers. We decided that we'd rather not know.

And therein lies the core of the issue – choice. If a technique is available and medically possible, it shouldn't be up to me or anyone else to decide whether or not it can be used.

My ambivalence comes from the idea of trying to create a baby with traits that you pick off of a menu of human characteristics – "I'll have the blue eyes with a hint of hazel, and a boy with a strong right leg so he can grow up to be an NFL punter like Jeff Feagles." (Hey, Jeff Feagles is one of the best punters in football. And punters can play longer than any other position in the game because they don't get hit much.) This may sound silly, but I've read enough comic books and seen enough movies to know that messing around with genetics rarely ends well. Eventually some lunatic – Hitler, perhaps – decides to create a Master Race of Super Soldiers and starts World War III. Hm, maybe it's not just a comic book thing.

As with abortion, this is a religious issue. Conservative British politician Ann Widdecombe said, "'A lot of embryos have genes in them that could lead to nothing but them turning into perfectly healthy humans. Once again this shows a worrying precedent that man wants to play God."

This is the argument that nobody ever makes when it comes to the death penalty. But that's a different story.

What do you think? Is this just another issue of personal choice and women's reproductive freedom? Or is it more dangerous? And even if it is more dangerous, does anyone have the right to tell someone not to do it?

Source: Daily Mail

They Say: Smoking While Pregnant Makes Kids Aggressive

Mother Sues OB Who Said She "Deserved Pain"—And Gave It to Her

Most Tasteless Tree Ornament Ever

Tell Obama to Overturn the Global Gag Rule Sooner Rather Than Later

Woman Arrested For Breast Feeding At A Bar

Look-Alike Meter's Busting Family Fights

JeanneSager — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:33:00 GMT

Like most families (at least those with a photographer about), we have a house that's littered with pictures. That includes one of my favorites - my husband, circa the early eighties with a mop of brown hair.

So why, you might ask, does my mother continue to ask him if he was really blonde as a child? Ah, that would be my daughter - the towhead who I think looks a heckuva lot like I did when I was three.

Want to end that age-old argument over who they REALLY look like? The folks at MyHeritage.com have come up with the answer - the mash-up . . . sort of.

The Look-alike Meter lets you upload a mix of family pics (her with bad eighties glasses, him with bad eighties glasses, her with "the Rachel," him with a Vanilla Ice fade) plus one of that sweet little dumpling or one of the entire family. It took awhile - even on my usually speedy cable connection - but if you have a good picture of all three of you, with faces straight and facing forward, you can shave some time.

Using facial recognition software (so makes me feel like I've jumped into a "Law and Order: SVU" episode), the Look-alike Meter then makes its picks. It's cute, but rather unscientific (yeah, I was disappointed too). Without someone sitting there working with the photos, you can't expect a lot. After all, my daughter apparently looks more like me by a whopping five percent (so the blue eyes, blonde hair and my grandmother's forehead mean bupkus!).

But I don't have to tell my mother the five percent part, right?

Hey Mom, she looks like me!!

Image: My Heritage

Freaking and Shrieking: Christmas Morning Video

Kids Digital Cameras Come Loaded with Computer Virus

New Babies Wrapped in Holiday Stockings

Kid and Kangaroo Best of Friends

Palin Mocks Autism Research

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:30:00 GMT

No one should be too surprised at this point to hear that one of McCain’s top advisers referred to Sarah Palin as a “whackjob.” Or that Alaska’s largest newspaper enthusiastically endorsed Barack Obama for president. But it remains fun (in that stomach-churning way) to take a peak at some of the myriad reasons why Palin is widely disliked and distrusted even among her own people.

Take fruit flies, for instance. In Palin’s recent speech on special needs children, one of her more awkward blunders pertained to earmarks:

"Where does a lot of that earmark money end up, anyway? [...] You've heard about, um, these -- some of these pet projects they really don't make a whole lot of sense, and sometimes these dollars they go to projects having little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not!"

As the Huffington Post points out, fruit flies have been essential to autism research, showing that a protein called neurexin plays a huge role in proper brain functioning. Considering that this speech was supposed to be about helping special needs families, it’s truly baffling why Palin would have chosen to bash research that is widely known to be integral to understanding and treating autism.

Furthermore, fruit flies are the basic research tool of modern genetics, as anyone who has taken a biology class knows. To sneer at such research displays either extreme stupidity or a dangerous lack of concern for the opinions of the vast majority of her would-be constituents.

Photo: wizbangblog.com

Palin: Women Who Don't Support Other Women Go to Hell

Palin Speaks Out on Special Needs Trusts

Dudes for Palin: Vote for the Hot Chick!

RNC Mailer Could Give Your Kids Nightmares

Anti-Palin Ad Targets Parents

Critical Health Information or Designer Babies? Where Will New Genetic Testing Lead?

Shannon LC Cate — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:00:00 GMT

As prenatal DNA tests become better and more widely available many worry that their benefits are outweighed by their dangers. A lengthy article in the Washington Post takes up this discussion in some depth. It seems that while new and better testing at the level of DNA is a great tool to help women carrying pregnancies in risky circumstances (advanced maternal age, previous history of genetically abnormal pregnancies or births, unclear ultrasound results, etc.) some ethicists still fear the tests could be misused. Says the Post:

"Some worry that the technique could be used to hunt for the rapidly growing list of genetic markers that merely signal an increased risk for cancer, diabetes, mental illness, obesity, addiction and other conditions later in life. Someday, similar tests could perhaps even vet fetuses for traits associated with beauty, personality or intelligence."

And in a broader look at concerns I expressed here recently, disabled rights groups worry that insurance companies may start refusing to cover treatment for conditions discovered through this testing, pressuring women to terminate pregnancies they might otherwise desire to continue:

"We want disabled children to be welcomed into the world. My fear is we're moving in the opposite direction," said Andrew Imparato, president of the American Association of People With Disabilities. "If we decide to use prenatal testing to eliminate gene-based disabilities, that's what the Nazis were trying to do, in their own crude way. I think we're saying that certain types of lives aren't worth living."

The old anxiety about "designer" babies comes up again in the article. I am of two minds about it. On the one hand, I think this fear is overblown--most parents will probably not be interested in screening for eye color or other meaningless traits. But on the other hand, the grey area the article mentions--genetic markers for a "tendency" to traits like obesity, certain cancers or other health problems or socially undesirable features may make it to the routine list someday. And at this point the technology is a dull enough instrument that many gene "markers" leave much unknown about what exactly their effects are in a real, live person. As a lesbian, I personally worry about parents terminating fetuses with genetic markers for same-sex orientation--that holy grail so many gay rights acitvists hope for but that I hope fervantly against.

As with any tool, it is imperitive that people be properly educated and trained to use it. The answer is not to refuse such new technologies, but to step up the education people receive about how to understand what it tells us.

More bioethics from this writer:

In Which I Find Myself in Rare Agreement with Sarah Palin (sort of)

Redefining Death to Preserve Life

Addicted to Food Because of Genes?

Kelly Mills — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 14:31:00 GMT

I've read about a quadrillion studies on obesity research, and it's rare that one actually makes me reconsider my behavior. This latest one, on a gene variant and the pleasure derived from food, actually did give me pause though. It also might make you think twice about how to feed your kids. Here's what I mean.

It might seem logical that people who are overweight or obese get more pleasure from food than skinny folks, and that's why they overeat. But the study says the opposite might be true. Researchers gave chocolate milkshakes (mmm) to 77 young women. Some were lean, some were obese, and some had a gene variant that makes them respond less to dopamine (a chemical important to the pleasure response.) Here's what they found: Obese women had less of a pleasure response to the milkshakes; this was even more so for women with the gene variant; and women with the gene variant had gained more weight a year later. In the words of one resarcher: "'If you look at the brain response when people are about to get the milkshake, obese individuals show greater activation of the reward circuitry, not less. So, ironically, they expect more reward but seem to experience less.'" Which kinda makes sense---if anticipate something will be better than it is, you might keep eating it in an effort to get satisfaction.

The researcher suggests that eating a small amount regularly of something high in fat and sugar might not be the way to go, because it could make it hard to stop eating. Perhaps cutting the food out entirely would actually do more for reducing cravings and overeating. And this applies to kids because, well, it may be easiest to build in good habits when you are young. Sigh. I'm a cupcake addict, and my kid likes her daily dessert, but this study might make me re-evaluate the frequency of our treats. Um, maybe. No promises.

Does anyone let their kids eat candy on halloween anymore?

Keep kids from getting fat - get a dog.

It's hard out there for a mom who says 'no'

They Say: Practice Really Does Make Perfect

Amy S.F. Lutz — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:32:00 GMT

Of all the gazillion activities my kids can choose from, I've never encouraged them to take piano, or guitar, or musical theater. With two tone-deaf parents, I thought, what's the point?

But apparently, there's only one thing preventing my kids from becoming the next Itzhak Perlman, and it's not a lack of talent. It's lack of practice.

Researchers who study experts across many fields have repeatedly concluded that what separates those experts from their peers is the amount of "deliberate practice" they undertake. K. Anders Ericsson, a cognitive psychologist from the University of Florida, estimates that it takes about 10,000 hours of such concentrated effort to become an expert.

I'm guessing the researchers are talking about cognitive specialties, such as chess, brain surgery, music and the like. Because I just don't believe that, even with 100,000 hours of practice, I could ever run a mile in 4.13 seconds - which is the current world record in the women's mile, held by Russian Svetlana Masterkova.

And Now - The Gay Brain

Brett Singer — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:10:00 GMT

First it was the gay gene (and it wasn't Bugle Boy! Apologies to Bill Maher whom I stole that joke from.) Now the powers that be have decided that there is a gay brain. Scientists studied the sizes of the left and right brains of 90 people, and found that, "Gay men and heterosexual women had halves of a similar size, while the right side was bigger in lesbian women and heterosexual men." So gay men have brain halves like straight women, and gay women have brain halves like straight men. Got that? This will be on the test.

This isn't the first attempt to "prove" that gayness is born, not made. There was the gay gene (see above), and then the theory that what happens in the womb could affect male sexuality. According to the BBC, "this is the first time…that scientists have used brain scanners" to attempt to determine the cognitive differences between gay people and us breeders.

In theory, this is a good discovery, since it helps put to rest the idea espoused by certain lunatics that homosexuality can be "cured." But it could help the loonies' cause too, couldn't it? Imagine if someone proposes a test be given to children at birth, or in utero. Then what? I know that sounds extreme but some people are, well, extreme (like this lady – don't click this link unless you want to get angry.) There's a part of me that wonders if sexual orientation is something we need to find a reason for.

image: The Situationist, and then messed with by me. * = Homosexualis Gaygaygayus is a term I just made up, obviously.

Rich guy pretends to be gynecologist to see women naked (he ain't no fruit!)

Political Nanny: Women, Dear Sweet Angry Women!

Clay Aiken ain't no fruit

Best of FameCrawler: Week of May 30th

Dad Denied Despite DNA

Amy Kuras — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:03:00 GMT

Imagine having a kid that you know is yours, that you've spent time with and become attached to, and that a DNA test proved is yours. (you're a guy, obviously, in this scenario, because usually we womenfolk pretty much know when a baby we're caring for is genetically ours).
The kid you fathered and developed a bond with, though, is the product of an affair with a married woman, who stayed with her military-man husband. And that guy, who was away at an Air Force base during your relationship with his wife, gets to be the legal father of your child.
That's the situation faced by James Rhoades of Tallahassee, Fla. The Supreme Court of Kentucky (where the boy's mother and her husband now live) ruled 4-3 last month that Rhoades could not press his paternity claim despite DNA evidence.
The reason is a centuries-old legal precedent called the "marital presumption" which holds that if a woman is married when she gives birth, that man is presumed to be the father of the child even if all parties involved know otherwise.
Which made sense centuries ago, before we understood anything about genetics much less DNA. Now, though, when establishing paternity is as simple as swabbing a cheek, is it really right to keep this child's real father, who is eager to continue a relationship with him, out off his life? Or, conversely, to force men who are already dealing with the fallout from a cheating spouse to be financially responsible for a child that is not theirs because they were married to the child's mother?
"... We are in need of a bold declaration that the marriage circle, even one with an errant partner, will be invaded at one's own legal risk," Justice Bill Cunningham was by quoted Time as writing in his judicial opinion.
GAH. I'm pro-marriage, for EVERYBODY that wants it, but that's just — wow. When at least two of the three people involved showed no respect for the institution, why in heaven's name should the law? Especially when a boy's right to know the truth of his life is being trampled. And a father is left, as the Time article describes him, "devastated."

Image: TIME

Are Your Genes Red or Blue?

Adrienne Martini — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:35:00 GMT

Just like being right- or left-handed, your political preference might be equally hard-wired. Don't believe me? New research suggests that political leanings may have some genetic component.

The study also suggests that Republican and Democrat brains process information differently as well. Which is something that most Americans have long suspected in the first place -- but it's always nice to have confirmation.

The idea itself leads to an interesting conundrum - if an arch conservative just can't help being the way he is, why does he find it so hard to accept that a gay person is simply wired that way as well? That, grasshopper, is the mystery that science needs to unravel next.

All Six Kids In This Utah Family Autistic

Amy S.F. Lutz — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:30:00 GMT

You may not have noticed, but the higher-ups here at Strollerderby have been tinkering a bit with its format and tone. As part of this process, we, the writers, were asked if we had any ideas for new features - like Kitchenista, Playdate, Droolicious, etc.

Well, here's my vote for a new feature: Thank God It's Not Me. It's not as catchy as, say, Pregcellent, but I think it's important. It's so easy to become preoccupied with our own misfortune, to spend way too much time feeling sorry for ourselves and wishing things were different - as the parent of an autistic child, I frequently find myself in such a state. Reading about families who have - I won't say "have it worse," because that's a value judgment the families involved may not agree with - a more difficult situation may give the rest of us a good, therapeutic kick in the ass.

So: the Kirton family, of Utah. They have six kids, ranging in age from 14 to 3, and all six have autistic spectrum disorders. The oldest three, Bobby, Emma and Nephi, have Asperger's Syndrome, a high-functioning form of autism. Kids with Asperger's are smart and verbal, but usually have social and emotional problems.

The next two kids, Sarah (pictured at right with dad John) and Ammon, have severe autism. They are non-verbal, still - at 6 and 4 years old - in diapers, and prone to fits of screaming, rocking, and hand-flapping.

The youngest child, Mary, has been diagnosed with the mildest form of autism, PDD-NOS (pervasive development disorder, not otherwise specified). She is a year behind in her development, and shares some of her older siblings' social issues, but the prognosis for her is not as bleak as it is for Sarah and Ammon.

How could this happen? Why would the Kirtons keep having more babies, as each child received the same diagnosis? Well, the odds were in their favor. Autism has a genetic component, but parents who have one autistic child are only about 15% more likely than parents with no affected kids to have another autistic child. This is why my husband and I, after giving birth to our autistic son, rolled the dice three more times - and ended up with four typically developing kids. What it amounts to, basically, is that the Kirtons were really, really, unlucky.

Not that they would agree with that. Despite all the extra effort and expense of raising six autistic kids (an estimated $500 per month for each autistic child), Robin Kirton told Good Morning America, "They're just so wonderful in their own unique ways, and we accept them and love them for who they are, and they just bring so much joy into our lives, and we just love being their parents."

I don't know about you, but hearing about families like the Kirtons definitely gives me some much needed perspective.

Is Being Hot a Hereditary Thing and Other Crap Science Headlines

Kelly Mills — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:31:00 GMT

I've noticed that when we write about research studies, some of y'all express a certain amount of skepticism about the results. I can't say that I blame you, and lord knows I don't take the time to dissect each and every study to verify that the reporting meets the most rigorous standards. But I worry, cuz I'd hate for us to throw science out the window just because the way some studies get reported doesn't always fly. So here, let's look at a crap conclusion and see what the worst examples can be. The headline? "Is hotness an inherited trait? Sexiness is hereditary in the insect world — and maybe ours, too."

Okay, "Like father, like son — sexy fathers can give rise to sexy sons in the insect world. Researchers suggest these findings might also apply to humans." Meaning it turns out some fruit flys probably pass on a male charisma that makes them attractive to females to their male offspring. And this tells us what about humans? Oh, NOTHING. The researcher actually just said something like, "It is possible that attractiveness is hereditable across the animal kingdom." And also, "Extrapolating from one species to another closely related species should be done with caution. Knowing lots about one species may tell you little about another." There are animals with certain biological similarities to humans, so sometimes animal studies can point us in a certain direction as far as biological processes. And sometimes we can learn stuff from animals dissimilar to us in a very general biological way. But fruit flys are not our close kin, and understanding how they transmit charisma tells us zero about us specifically.

Oh, and some other kinds of fruit flys don't even pass on hotness, as the story points out. So when the headline says "maybe" hotness is heritable for us too, they mean, we have no idea at all, really. I mean, maybe I'll win the lottery tomorrow, but there's scant evidence to support that either.

Weekly Check-Up: Did Your Family History Give You Second Thoughts About a Family?

Kelly Mills — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:34:00 GMT

Last week I was in a dressing room, and I overheard the salesperson in the next room talking to a customer. (What? No, I wasn't spying, they were talking loud and I was trying to distract myself from the fiasco that is trying on bras.) The salesperson was talking about her grown daughter, who struggled with drug addiction. "After she went into rehab I learned it can be genetic and skip generations," she told the other woman. "My mom was an alcoholic, but I'm not. If I had known about the genetics I never would have had children." "Oh, you don't mean that," clucked the woman. "Oh yes I do." said the salesperson firmly.

I've been thinking about this ever since. Nowadays the nature versus nurture debate has morphed into something that recognizes the two factors--genes and environment--are utterly intertwined. And this issue hit home because, well, in addition to wide feet and fine hair, alcoholism and about 17 different mental illnesses (depression is the biggie) run in my family. Oh, and alcoholism and depression also run in my husband's family. That's a mean genetic cocktail.

I thought about this before I got pregnant, but obviously it didn't deter me, perhaps because I've managed my own manifestations of these things. But it worries me for my child. Often.

So now I'm wondering if anyone else paused before procreating because of what they could pass on, and how people manage the concern once the die has been cast.

Smoker Dads May Have Damaged Sperm

Karen Murphy — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:25:00 GMT

Potentially creating a mutant with every puff: chain-smoking mice were studied and found to be creating mutated DNA in their sperm. Yikes. Of course, when I think about mouse DNA, I always make the automatic leap to people DNA (or not), but perhaps these people who run studies know what they're talking about.

And it sounds pretty serious: "If inherited, these mutations persist as irreversible changes in the genetic composition of offspring." Of course, moms have been blamed for years about things like this, so it's only fair that dads take their share, but this is awfully guilt-inducing, don't you think?

At any rate, if you're a smoker and want to be a daddy, you might want to think about your choices. It won't be long anyway before your kid wants a pack of Barbie Camels; why hasten things by providing a role model?

Eating Disorders: The Mom-Daughter Gift That Keeps on Giving

Karen Murphy — Sat, 05 May 2007 13:10:00 GMT

My mom was always proud that she stayed 120 pounds through most of her adulthood, and still svelte during my teen years she proudly tucked her turtlenecks into her hip-slung jeans when we went off to ride horses together. Sure, and the fact that I never saw her eat much, that couldn't mean anything, could it? Or that she chewed antacids because her stomach was torn up from chewing gum all day to keep from eating? My mom had an eating disorder? My mom? I never put the obvious two and two together until after reading this Huffington Post article on the book "Gaining: The Truth About Life After Eating Disorders", but I guess now that it's no wonder I pared my already-slender 5'7" frame down to a skeletal 93 pounds when I was 25.

Not that I can blame my mom, really. After all, she was yelled at by her pediatrician for gaining more than 10 pounds during her pregnancies. And like her before me, I chose my own path through the confusing maze of body image and pressure to be perfect.

But when I hear my very tall and stick-thin son,only 11, complain that he's "fat", it gives me pause. Is my own habit of eschewing dinner sending him and his younger siblings, 7 and 3, the wrong message? How can I prevent my children from experiencing the same pain that I have surrounding what I perceive as an enormous pressure to be and stay thin? Or can I? Genetics? Or upbringing? It looks like "Gaining" is a good place to start to find the answers.

Is Your Fetus Gay?

Stefania Pomponi Butler (CityMama) — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:02:00 GMT

Are we prepared for genetic testing that will not only determine a baby's sex, eye, and hair color, but (soon) whether your baby is gay, smart, Republican, or, perhaps, an excellent parallel parker? Mark Morford, a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, says we should prepare ourselves for the inevitability, and instead of being shocked and outraged, we need to get over ourselves. Morford writes:

...we kid ourselves into thinking that we don't want it this way, that we want nothing to do with natural selection, with "playing God," when in fact we've already proven a million times over that we want to control and customize every aspect of our lives, from our pets to our plants to our foodstuffs to the color of your iPod...Put another way: We think it's perfectly acceptable, say, to spend ten grand at a clinic to have three dozen frozen test-tube embryos forcibly implanted in the womb all in the hopes that the strongest will survive—but the notion of choosing the gender and hair color of your kid is radically off limits? Please.

Call it shadenfreude, but Morford is looking forward to the "delightful mess" that will occur when genetics will force people to face their feelings about, for example, having a possibly gay child. Within the next decade, he says, we will be forced to confront every prejudice, law, injustice, and liberal bias due to advances in genetics. How will we conduct ourselves? Morford can't wait to find out.

Is There A Brat Gene?

Patti — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:23:00 GMT

We've long thought that nurture was the cause of brattiness, that kids pick up their bad conduct from their parents' own behavior. But a University of Virginia study, published this month in journal Child Development, suggests that it may be nature's fault after all.

Family dynamics, marital conflict in particular, have been the focus of child behavior issues. The new study claims that in reality, it's just genetic. Kids inherit their misbehavior, and focusing on the way families relate to one another may have no bearing on resolving problems. According to the research, how parents argue with each other is based on their own genetic makeup, and so is the way children respond.

Or, to put it another way, when our mothers cursed us with "I hope you have kids just like you someday", they may have been on to something.