WA
9 months ago
We just recently discovered, that during childbrith, vaginal microbiota is transferred to the child and this transfer is quite beneficial for the development of the immune system of the child. It's called vaginal microbiota transfer (VMT). It's so beneficial that babies being born via c-section are now artificially covered in their mother's vaginal microbiota.
Now imagine the thousands of factors that happen during pregnancy that probably influence the neurodevelopment of a human and which artifical womb doesn't take into account. Simple things such as: hearing and feeling the heartbeat of the mother, feeling the environment, heat, cold, being carried through life and so on.
chromanoid
9 months ago
I totally agree. Even "mere" breast feeding is still full of mysteries that developed during the millions of years of mammal evolution.
m463
9 months ago
Apart from the nutrients from breastfeeding, I recall that it is part of an immune system feedback loop. If the child is fighting off something, it is transferred to the nipple during breastfeeding. The mother's immune system develops a response and provides help to the child in the breast milk next feeding.
schu
9 months ago
The main factor at play here is maternal passive immunity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_immunity#Maternal_pass...
As far as I know, there's no (direct, retrograde) transfer of pathogens from the child to the mother through the breast. But if the child has an infection, there is often a higher chance for the mother to get ill as well (due to close body contact, aerosol particles, etc.) and to develop a "mature immune response", which could lead to a (delayed) positive secondary effect on the child through passive immunity.
xvilka
9 months ago
Interesting. Do you have a source for that?
api_or_ipa
9 months ago
Babbage podcast from the Economist had a great episode recently on it.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/2LCTSD4k9bNDn6i8DzLv9r?si=D...
Nashooo
9 months ago
I'm sorry to be direct but I mean this in the best and most genuine way possible: how is a podcast a source?
hombre_fatal
9 months ago
Well, they provided something and it’s from a reputable publication. You can wait around for more people to chime in or you can dig in yourself until then.
We are in casual conversation here.
tsimionescu
9 months ago
Laypeople are much more likely to learn something useful and solid from a good podcast on a topic, run by someone (or with a guest) who has read the literature broadly and can distinguish solid papers from publish-or-perish drivel. Doing your own research, unless you dedicate an inordinate amount of time or energy to it, is very likely to lead you completely astray.
mensetmanusman
9 months ago
Yes, interestingly some of the signal comes from kissing the baby.
jes5199
9 months ago
sure, but take a survey of any group of five year olds - can you tell which ones were born by c-section? which ones were breastfed?
micromacrofoot
9 months ago
yes but you can measure various effects on the macro scale, which is why we think breast feeding is a little more beneficial than formula
schwartzworld
9 months ago
It’s problematic in some ways. Many new mothers torture themselves unnecessarily about nursing vs formula because they want the best for their baby. The benefits of nursing are real, and if you can do it, great. But if you don’t have the time, biology or even just inclination to breastfeed, your baby will be fine.
There’s no evidence that says formula is detrimental, especially compared to not eating enough at all.
micromacrofoot
9 months ago
yes, always a risk... it's one way science reporting fails people I feel, they don't really explain the scale
pazimzadeh
9 months ago
I agree with you, there’s probably a lot of epigenetic activity going on in response to environmental factors.
On the other hand, these things can probably be studied and identified. There is an organ shortage for transplantation, which historically peaks in times of peace. One idea is to genetically modify animals to make them more immunologically compatible. I could see a world where being able to control every aspect of the development process allows for more suitable organs (less risk of infection, etc).
jncfhnb
9 months ago
> There is an organ shortage for transplantation, which historically peaks in times of peace.
That sounds unlikely to be true. I’m curious where you’re getting that from?
pazimzadeh
9 months ago
sorry I don't remember the source. not super critical to the argument though
user
9 months ago
jancsika
9 months ago
> thousands of factors
But this includes risk factors, too.
E.g., IIRC there's research into how certain stressors on the mother during pregnancy increase the likelihood of things like anxiety and depression for their offspring.
lagpot
9 months ago
Yes, I think people who haven't studied this at all have a very naive view of the end-to-end complexities of pregnancy. It's currently very infeasible to simulate this environment, we don't have the knowledge or the technology, or even a path of how to get there.
What's more likely to come first is artificially created sperm, from a sample of any cells - first by converting them to stem cells, then differentiating those to sperm-producing cells. It's already been trialed in the lab. I expect it's only a matter of time before this becomes a widely available reproductive technology, like IVF is now. Perhaps a few decades, if that.
The most interesting thing about this is it can be done with female cells to make "female sperm", both in the sense that it comes from a female individual and that every sperm cell will be X chromosomed (thus producing only daughters).
At that point, men will be effectively obsolete, and will gradually diminish in population, as each successive generation will be skewed more towards female.
It will be interesting to see how society adapts to being female-centered instead of male-dominated.
xattt
9 months ago
> It will be interesting to see how society adapts to being female-centered instead of male-dominated.
See Nursing for the dynamics of a female-dominated world. As a cis-male who was able to pierce into this space, it has its moments.
There’s a lot of clique-ines, eating of the young and crabs-in-a-bucket mentality. I don’t know if this is because Nursing is historically subservient to medicine, and horizontal trauma is a manifestation of being unable to act out on higher ranking members of the hierarchy. Also, career stagnation - many nurses are lifers in one clinical area and are secretly unsatisfied.
Fortunately, there is hope in pockets of the profession, typically in more cognitively-demanding areas with more “ownership” of patients (intensive care, NPs in primary care).
However, it’s hard to transfer culture between clinical areas, as the ones who are capable have already left toxic areas. The ones that don’t leave are the ones on power trips and don’t want to lose their little fiefdom.
makeitdouble
9 months ago
Like the vast majority of medical research, this aims at solving problematic cases where intervening reduces critical risks.
The stated case for this is premature birth, were the choice is between an artificial womb, the traditional setting, or letting the newborn die.
BizarroLand
9 months ago
I suppose another alternative use would be for trans people and women born without uteri to have biological children.
rysertio
9 months ago
Still better than a preterm baby dying.
mensetmanusman
9 months ago
Yeah the language they learn pre-birth is also a fascinating topic.
renewiltord
9 months ago
This is one of the reasons I am not an organ donor. Think of all the specific things that a body has for a kidney. Should it be taken out, experience completely different conditions, and then be placed into an entirely different body that wasn’t grown around it organically? This could have horrific consequences for the recipient and I cannot, in good conscience, participate. It is unethical.
Tagbert
9 months ago
Yes, the consequences of not getting a kidney transplant for someone with kidney failure is a painful death. The transplant is a much better alternative even if it isn’t ideal.
Preferring to offer death rather than your straw-man argument is probably more unethical.
sojournerc
9 months ago
My father received a heart transplant that gave him many years of extended life. please reconsider being a donor. Something, even if it's not perfect, is better than nothing.
triceratops
9 months ago
Let me ease your conscience. If you become an organ donor it's not your decision whether any of your organs are actually transplanted. And you'd be dead. So you wouldn't be participating.
(Make absurd statements, get absurd replies)
renewiltord
9 months ago
Haha, a defence of suicide bombing is not what I expected.
wholinator2
9 months ago
Explain?
saintfire
9 months ago
If you suicide bomb you ensure that your organs cannot be harvested against your consent..
renewiltord
9 months ago
Once you’re dead it’s not your decision. So if you suicide bomb, you’re dead and none of the other deaths can be blamed on you. You’ll die first because stuff is strapped to you.
triceratops
9 months ago
You decided to blow yourself up around other people. They didn't choose to be near you. So it's like organ donation in exactly no way. No one is forced to accept organs you opt to donate. It's a choice made freely.
If you don't want to donate organs, just say so it's fine. Don't make up some BS ethical dilemma.
renewiltord
9 months ago
Ethics is very important. People will just cut up other people and make another Frankenstein's monster of a creature. The scientists never stopped to ask if they should. In moments where ethics discussions are most warranted there are always folks like you trying to shut them down.
itishappy
9 months ago
> This could have horrific consequences for the recipient
Have you thought through the consequences of NOT receiving an organ? They're pretty horrific as well.
To be clear, what you're outlining is: "For my conscience, I'd prefer people die outright than live to potentially reject an organ." I think you analysis of the ethics here could use a more thorough review.
renewiltord
9 months ago
I don’t think it’s that different from opposing ectogenesis. You could ask the first such child if they’d rather not be born instead.
itishappy
9 months ago
Organ waiting lists require the informed consent of the recipient. As in, the people on the list have expressed a preference towards not dying. A premature child cannot express such a preference.
renewiltord
9 months ago
So you say. But no one has proven to me that they want to live. Government databases notoriously have errors. Besides I can match my knowledge of the child’s preference with the adult’s preference by just not paying attention.
itishappy
9 months ago
> But no one has proven to me that they want to live.
I think I see where you're coming from, but this is a mighty perverse thing to say about people currently dying of organ failure who have expressed a desire to not die of organ failure. This isn't hypothetical, you can reach out to them and ask them how they feel directly. Not paying attention to that is a lack of diligence on your part, not a lack of expression on theirs.
Contrast that with an unborn child who literally cannot express a preference. Proving a desire to be born is a very different problem.
Apocryphon
9 months ago
Sure, but the guy who would conceive and execute on this idea was never going to be a guy who would stop there.
Folks like this don’t aim at some point and then achieve it and stay there. They aim higher, land where they do, and continue to target the higher point. It’s how it is.
You can tell because how many of the rest of the people who would have stopped and not have lab-grown the child? Precisely zero.
MailleQuiMaille
9 months ago
>This could have horrific consequences for the recipient Like, he could live ? The point you are trying to make is unclear.