From: randy (cryofan@mylinuxisp.com)
Date: Sun Aug 03 2003 - 06:04:46 MDT
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 00:35:45 +0200, you wrote:
I agree with this general theory. I also wonder if it does not affect
IQ. During my travels, I have had contact with a lot of third
worlders. It always seemed to me that they had low IQs. Perhaps the
poor maternal diet is why.
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/08/01/nutrients.reut/index.html
>
>In a study that shows more than ever you are what you eat, scientists
>said on Friday they had changed the coat colors of baby mice simply by
>altering their mothers' diets.
>
>Basically what they show is that by giving vitamins the expression of
>the agouit gene is turned down. Maternal diet also affects other gene
>expression, which is interesting. I may have mentioned earlier that
>maternal choline appears to improve spatial memory in mice.
>
>This opens up an interesting issue (and a rhetorical "trick"): is it
>acceptable for mothers to tailor their diets to help or affect their
>child? Many of the standard anti-genetic arguments seem to say no, which
>would imply that mothers should not be allowed to deliberately eat food
>rich in (say) choline, which makes for a good rhetorical reductio ad
>absurdum. But if we accept that mothers may eat chocolate (rich in
>lecithine, which turns into choline) to improve their children but not
>any genetic interventions, what is the fundamental difference? Is it
>just gene expression changes that are OK? Again, it seems nature is not
>obliging us with any other answer than that a lot of effects during
>early development can affect the child profoundly; what we do with them
>and how we handle them ethically is up to us. There are no ready-made
>boundaries.
-------------
-Randy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 03 2003 - 06:23:22 MDT