> 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.
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.
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.