
Why Fathers Really Matter - lambtron
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/opinion/sunday/why-fathers-really-matter.html?pagewanted=all
======
kens
Epigenetics is a very interesting area, and I expect it to increase in
importance following the ENCODE project that just came out.

The NYTimes article is a bit strange, though, trying to politicize epigenetics
through the "mommy wars". The article also muddles the difference between
genetic issues due to aging fathers and epigenetic issues. The recent
Icelandic study links mutations in sperm from aging fathers to autism and
schizophrenia, which is genetic (the mutations show up in genome sequencing),
so it's basically irrelevant to the article's epigenetic thesis. The NYTimes
article mentions a theory that maybe epigenetic regulation is reducing DNA
repair and causing mutations, but that's a pretty tenuous connection.

It's silly to turn this into a "blame game", but it is interesting that males
and females contribute different types of genetic errors: females typically
introduce chromosome errors, while males introduce DNA mutations. 20% of human
eggs have the wrong number of chromosomes, compared with 3-4% of sperm. A cell
has to split the chromosomes twice in meiosis to form a gamete, which is a
difficult process where a lot can go wrong. Eggs sit around potentially for
decades and then need to twice split properly, and this becomes much more
error-prone with age. The first split happens at ovulation, and the second at
fertilization (which is much later than I'd expect). These errors in
chromosome separation are the leading cause of miscarriage and mental
retardation. On the other hand, males are the main source of DNA mutations,
since sperm are constantly being created, and each round of DNA replication
has a chance to introduce errors. [Reference: Molecular Biology of the Cell,
chapter 21, which is an interesting book]

Last week I read the book "The Epigenetics Revolution", which I recommend as
it gives a good description of epigenetics. [http://www.amazon.com/The-
Epigenetics-Revolution-Understandi...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Epigenetics-
Revolution-Understanding-Inheritance/dp/0231161166) (non-affiliate link)

~~~
AutoCorrect
eggs don't sit around for decades. a study published recently discounted the
theory that a female is born with her entire complement of eggs - to the
contrary, like sperm, eggs are produced throughout the female's life.

[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120229-women...](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120229-women-
health-ovaries-eggs-reproduction-science/)

------
tokenadult
"In the past decade or so, the study of epigenetics has become so popular it’s
practically a fad."

Well, that's the one statement in the article I can readily accept as true for
purposes of discussion here. Much more debatable is the assertion further
down, "Twentieth-century Darwinian genetics dismissed Lamarckism as laughable,
but because of epigenetics, Lamarckism is staging a comeback," which includes
a link to a low-quality source. Much better sources on epigenetics for our
discussion here are

"Epigenetics again: will it cause a revolution in evolution?"

[http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/epigeneti...](http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/epigenetics-
again-will-it-cause-a-revolution-in-evolution/)

which is a follow-up to

"Is 'epigenetics' a revolution in evolution?"

[http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/is-
epigen...](http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/is-epigenetics-
a-revolution-in-evolution/)

or

"The Epigenetics Miracle?"

[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/21/the-
epigenetic...](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/21/the-epigenetics-
miracle/)

The scientifically careful study of gene regulation is NOT going to revive
Lamarckian ideas, not at all. But speculation about this is probably in the
popular literature again for years to come.

------
JshWright
It's an interesting article, but a horrible title... As if to say the impact
fathers have after conception doesn't 'really' matter...

~~~
bearmf
Father's primary impact is in his genetic material. Secondary impact is his
parenting impact which starts to matter mostly after child is 2 years old.
Before that, from conception to birth to 2 years, mother is much more
important.

~~~
JshWright
Care to expand on that?

My daughter is two weeks old today. In the past 14 days, my wife has been
responsible for providing 100% of what our baby consumes, but at least half
the time, I'm the one feeding her (we're about 50/50 breastfed/pumped
breastmilk in a bottle).

Aside from that, there's effectively no difference in our roles in caring for
her. We both change diapers, we both bathe her, we both hold her and comfort
her when she's fussy. We don't pay any particular attention to making it a
50/50 split for these activities, but it probably works out to approximately
that, for all intents and purposes.

Right now her schedule seems fairly nocturnal (she seems most awake from ~2300
to ~0400), and I tend to be the one up with her during that time, since I find
I'm pretty productive during those hours anyway (I've gotten pretty good at
one-handed typing).

On a practical level, there's effectively no difference in the amount of care
provided between her mother and I. Your statement that her impact is "much
more important" is fairly offensive to me (and while I haven't bothered
talking to my wife about a comment on Hacker News... I suspect she would be
equally offended).

~~~
bearmf
JshWright, congratulations! I am sure you are going to be a great father.

That said, you cannot be a mother to your child. Your roles now are
approximately equal, but they will inevitably change over time. Feeding and
changing diapers is enough for now, and that indeed can be split between
partners, because baby cannot really tell the difference right now.

For further normal development, babies need to develop a bond with their
mother. This gives them a fundamental sense of security. It is one of human
baby's primary needs which is also observed in most mammals.

Children later become attached to their fathers. It is a different experience
for them, which involves more "rational" thought instead of primary urge to
bond with their mothers.

~~~
JshWright
I'd be interested in seeing any research you may have seen that supports your
position. Anecdotally, that hasn't been my experience (in those around me,
obviously)

~~~
bearmf
Here is an overview: <http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/APA-Monitor-
attachment.html>

However, I see that there is nothing in the article specifically about primary
caregiver being female. To summarize, it is better to have one primary
caregiver who has established a strong attachment with child. Traditionally it
has been a female role, and I do believe women are better suited for it.

~~~
gizmo686
I don't see anything in that article to suggest 1 primary caregiver is best.
The sense I got was that children got a benefit from having a strong
attachment, but no arguement or experiment to test for weather 1 strong
attachment is better than 2, possibly weaker, attachments.

Also, I am always suspisous of 2nd hand science reports, especially when they
do not provide a direct link to the original paper(s). If anyone does track
down some research papers on the subject, please post it here.

------
Claudus
Supposedly: Children with older fathers and grandfathers 'live longer'
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4152379>)

" _Experts have known for some time that lifespan is linked to the length of
structures known as telomeres that sit at the end of the chromosomes that
house our genetic code, DNA. Generally, a shorter telomere length means a
shorter life expectancy. ... However, scientists have discovered that in
sperm, telomeres lengthen with age._ "

~~~
Dn_Ab
Causal links cannot be drawn with that paper. _This study was unique in
showing that telomere length determination by paternal age was generationally
additive. It was not designed to determine if older paternal age translates
into longer lifespan._

------
hsshah
For a less biased still gentle introduction on epigenetics:
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/epigenetics.html>

------
markyc
[..] a child’s genetic future is set for life. [..] Character: check

Doesn't the author mean personality? I thought personality is in the genes and
character is built throughout one's life.

------
smoyer
This article is clearly on the nature side of the "Nurture versus Nature"
argument and clearly genetics can play a big part in how your child turns out.
But why can't we just say "both" to the nature versus nurture argument? Who
hasn't been either negatively or positively impacted by the role of their
fathers once born?

~~~
mtoddh
To me it seemed like the article was less about nature vs nurture and more
about the author's resentment that men aren't held as accountable for their
children's health as mothers are:

From the article,

 _Older mothers no longer need to shoulder all the blame: “It’s the aging man
who damages the offspring."... The well-being of the children used to be the
sole responsibility of their mothers. Now fathers have to be held accountable,
too. Having twice endured the self-scrutiny and second-guessing that goes
along with being pregnant, I wish them luck._

~~~
adaml_623
The author really seems to buy into the concept of a blame culture doesn't
she. People don't seem to realise that there is a chance of 'bad' stuff
happening and if they want the good stuff they need to take a risk. You might
be able to minimise some risks but if you obsess over them you're going to go
down the path of seeing only danger everywhere.

Of course this blame culture develops and spreads through social networks
where people talk behind the back of someone who doesn't have a perfect child
and blames their genetics or parenting skills or lifestyle choices.

~~~
brc
The blame culture is a terrible problem. If nobody is responsible for anything
because it's not their fault, and somebody else is to blame, how are people
going to become self-reliant?

~~~
akldfgj
What does fault have to do with self-reliance? Fault is in the past, solving
problems is in the future.

~~~
brc
I'm assuming your question is genuine rather than rhetorical.

If a person believes that their personal outcomes are largely or totally
created by circumstances out of their control, they will have difficulties
becoming self-reliant. Blaming other people and other things for personal
failings and problems seldom leads to better outcomes.

------
anuraj
Does epigenetics qualify as a science. That needs to be established first.

------
andyl
Misandry: alive and well at the NYT.

