Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Smoking Mothers May Alter the DNA of Their Children

Unknown Lamer posted about a month and a half ago | from the that-explains-the-hooves dept.

Medicine 155

sciencehabit (1205606) writes "Pregnant women who smoke don't just harm the health of their baby—they may actually impair their child's DNA, according to new research. A genetic analysis shows that the children of mothers who smoke harbor far more chemical modifications of their genome — known as epigenetic changes — than kids of non-smoking mothers. Many of these are on genes tied to addiction and fetal development. The finding may explain why the children of smokers continue to suffer health complications later in life.

cancel ×

155 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What about... (5, Interesting)

gnu-sucks (561404) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554125)

What about smokers who abstain from smoking during pregnancy but otherwise chain smoke through life?

Re:What about... (3, Insightful)

skids (119237) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554211)

While there are almost definitely some sort of lesser consequences than those who smoke during pregnancy, what will happen to them is they will be wrongfully blamed for all society's perinatal ills for the next month or so due to the fact that journalists cannot choose their language carefully.

Re:What about... (3, Insightful)

Tailhook (98486) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554381)

due to the fact that journalists cannot choose their language carefully

Respectfully, that is profoundly naive. The language used is carefully chosen to foster this ambiguity and instigate the blame you anticipate. Instilling hate in the hoi polloi necessitates rounding off corners that would otherwise need qualification.

Smoking == crime. Smokers == enemies of the people.

That's all you need to know.

Re: What about... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554617)

An enemy of the people who also fund a Significant number of government programs via the taxes they pay on cigarettes. If every smoker up and quit tomorrow it would create a massive economic crisis.

The government doesn't want people to quit. they are just trying to figure out the max people will keep paying so that the coffers stay full. You can bet on the day tobacco tax revenue starts to drop we will see a halt in the taxes or something else will suddenly be in the crosshairs.

Re:What about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554609)

Oi, they should write like this in Hebrew!

Re:What about... (1)

rossdee (243626) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554751)

Which Hebrew? the ancient language that was used in The Bible, or the language used in Israel today?

Re:What about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47555411)

WTF?? The language of today is not Hebrew, it is Modern Hebrew.

Re:What about... (2, Insightful)

riverat1 (1048260) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554307)

To that I'd add what about mothers who don't smoke themselves but are exposed to secondhand smoke* either because their partner/roommate smokes or there is smoking in places they hang out?

*Before anyone gets all huffy about secondhand smoke being a problem I have experience with it. I was a non-smoker who roomed for a couple of years at college with a pack a day smoker. When I moved out I found I'd become addicted and started smoking (stupid, I know).

Re:What about... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554341)

(stupid, I know).

Yeah, you're incredibly stupid. You belong at 4chan, you insect.

Re:What about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554473)

Yeah, you're incredibly stupid. You belong at 4chan, you insect.

You belong on 9gag you fucking joke. Quit being rude.

Re:What about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554459)

Troll: 1/10. Insited too responses.

My troll will be at least get one grammar/spelling nazi response.

Re:What about... (5, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | about a month and a half ago | (#47555089)

*Before anyone gets all huffy about secondhand smoke being a problem I have experience with it. I was a non-smoker who roomed for a couple of years at college with a pack a day smoker. When I moved out I found I'd become addicted and started smoking (stupid, I know).

No you had another reason, you're just placing blame on those around you for smoking. Whether it was stress, it seemed like that was the likely cause, or something else. My father smoked a pack to two per-day, for close to 15 years. My grandparents(all three that were still alive) smoked upwards of 1-3 packs per day, until they died. I never became addicted, I had no desire to smoke. The only thing I missed was the smell of burning tobacco, and fresh picked. That's probably because as a teenager I used to pick the stuff(meaning I got all the crap oozing from the plants on me), but again I didn't start smoking because of it either.

Re:What about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554551)

Their kids grow up to become Slashdot editors.

Re:What about... (0)

flyneye (84093) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554593)

Couldn't matter much anyway, with all the "as yet unknown" effects of any number of "medicines","vaccinations",cleaning chemicals, fluoride, meth labs down the block, plastics everywhere inducing hormonal effects, butt picking fingers of the cook @ Taco Bell, McDonalds food,cosmetics, soaps, and any of the other things your wallow in all day , every day, something else will fuck up your zygote even more. Have a cigar!

Re:What about... (-1, Troll)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554843)

Couldn't matter much anyway, with all the "as yet unknown" effects of any number of "medicines","vaccinations",cleaning chemicals, fluoride, meth labs down the block, plastics everywhere inducing hormonal effects, butt picking fingers of the cook @ Taco Bell, McDonalds food,cosmetics, soaps, and any of the other things your wallow in all day , every day, something else will fuck up your zygote even more. Have a cigar!

THIS! A million times this.

The smokers as legal (insert n-word here) being blamed for every ill, every problem of society, and now apparently smelling cigarette smoke will immediately cause any woman in the vicinity to bear screwed up children, just reminds me of the various child based witch hunts we engage in every so often, from facilitated writing, to the world's most expensive trial where psychologists manipulated children into making up stories about people who molested them, and on and on.

So, here we are in 2014, and where are all these defective people? And with all the other things that have been found to be actually responsible for babies with big problems, like BPA and excessive phytoestrogen consumption.

Humans have so much chemical exposure today, even from foods considered the best stuff you can ever eat, that we have a pretty rough time determining what does what.

Now keep in mind that smoking tobacco is abysmally stupid, and chewing tobacco resmbles nothing more than stooping down, picking up a piece of week old dog shit, and puting a pinch twixt cheek and gum. It will kill you, and will kill you in a bad way. I had two immediate family members die from it, nothing like spitting blood into a handkerchief and drowning of the course of a few years.

But this study just seems like a way to make expectant mothers feel even more guilty than they already do.

She's carrying a new person inside, and worried that at any time, she might do something to damage or kill the kid. Let's just make her even more nervous.

Re:What about... (1)

flyneye (84093) | about a month and a half ago | (#47556001)

Oh, just vape, like everyone else who wants to smoke in the grocery store.
I notice tobacco chewers aren't any worse off for all this.

Re:What about... (2, Interesting)

felixrising (1135205) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554677)

There is evidence that adolescent boys who smoke, have epigenetic effects that change their sperm for the rest of their life, they produce children that are obese. http://www.reuters.com/article... [reuters.com]

Re:What about... (1)

phyrz (669413) | about a month and a half ago | (#47555235)

except that isn't evidence, its a correlation at best. maybe smokers just have bad diets therefore their children get fat.

Re:What about... (3, Insightful)

felixrising (1135205) | about a month and a half ago | (#47555363)

Well, yes, it's correlation, not a clear pathway for causation... but the findings are intriguing. Maybe people who produce fat sons just happen to like smoking when they are pre-pubescent? Chances are there are some epigenetic effects though...

It takes a village, but all cultures are equal (-1, Flamebait)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554139)

I'm torn on this one. On 1 hand, anything a mother does has to be right by default, and all cultures and belief systems are equally valid, and feelings trump cold hard facts, but this seems pretty damning. How is a 21st century white guy supposed to react to this completely obvious news? Where do I focus my outrage?

Re:It takes a village, but all cultures are equal (1)

Narcocide (102829) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554147)

On gun rights activists, obviously.

Re:It takes a village, but all cultures are equal (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554209)

On the other white men who stole tobacco from the original inhabitants of these lands and forced these women to smoke through trickery and deceit.

Re:It takes a village, but all cultures are equal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554801)

On the other white men who stole tobacco from the original inhabitants of these lands

No such thing.. only 'earlier inhabitants' in the context you're framing.. and they were conquered because they were weak.

Re:It takes a village, but all cultures are equal (2)

geekoid (135745) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554223)

ON smokers, and the industry that keeps paying money to prevent their cancer causing products to be regulated by the FDA so they can keep the chemicals they use under wraps.

Re:It takes a village, but all cultures are equal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554227)

Well, it certainly explains the generation that was born from all those hippies in the 60s.

Re:It takes a village, but all cultures are equal (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a month and a half ago | (#47555431)

Well, it's monday so it's Apple's fault.

'Alter' is a neutral term. (3, Interesting)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554143)

Perhaps there are people dumb enough to smoke while pregnant, but the alterations make their offspring less dumb. This is just a possibility. 'Alter' does not necessarily mean bad.

Re:'Alter' is a neutral term. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554301)

Darwin, Darwin, Darwin

Smoking Mothers are Smoking! (3, Funny)

Irate Engineer (2814313) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554159)

Probably why they are Mothers in the first place.

Re:Smoking Mothers are Smoking! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554377)

That doesn't actually make any fucking sense...

Epigenetics (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554179)

Epigenetics also affected people in the Dutch famine of 1944 [wikipedia.org] (paper [doi] , http link to paper [doi.org] ). The children of mothers that were in the famine were smaller than average, and those children, too.

Epigenetics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554783)

Actually, they were bigger. Around.

Re:Epigenetics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47555327)

Actually, they were both.
Born smaller, but with the "thrifty" phenotype, so much more likely to become overweight or obese.
And so were the grandchildren of those mothers.

Re:Epigenetics (1)

rizole (666389) | about a month and a half ago | (#47555305)

I might be being a pedant (Hey, it's /. afterall!) but wouldn't it be that the Dutch famine of 1944 affected children epigenetically rather than epigenetics affected children?

"Smoking mothers promote evolutionary progress". (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554181)

you could also write that as "Smoking mothers promote evolutionary progress". I mean if you wanted to.
We've no more real external pressure to evolve beyond where we are now. we're all "fit enough" to pork each other.
Now we need genetic externalities and epigenetic lateral transfer to progress as a species.

Just sayin'
-Space donkey

Not to worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554229)

Just eat blueberries, the antioxidants can reverse some of the methylation

Blueberries guys

my mother quit when she was pregnant (2)

p51d007 (656414) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554239)

I was born in the 1950's, LONG before the surgeon general came out saying smoking was bad for you. Heck, the commercials of that era, had doctors advertising cigarettes! When my mother became pregnant with me, she was 25. When "the rabbit died" she quit until after I stopped nursing. Same thing for my younger sister 2 years later. Both of my parents quit for good in the early 70's after repeated nagging from myself, my younger sister & my older sister. Both are alive & well in their 80's now. Even before the facts were really known about smoking, a lot of my parents friends wives quit smoking when they were pregnant. I see pregnant women today smoking and just shake my head. Oh well, it's a free country...even if you aren't quite so smart.

Re:my mother quit when she was pregnant (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554577)

When "the rabbit died"

what does this mean.

I see pregnant women today smoking and just shake my head. Oh well, it's a free country...even if you aren't quite so smart.

it's a free country which means the government can't tell you what to do. doesn't stop you from rolling down your window and yelling, "stop smoking you stupid whores!"

Re:my mother quit when she was pregnant (2)

Qzukk (229616) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554621)

what does this mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org]

Re:my mother quit when she was pregnant (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554985)

that's barbaric.

Re: my mother quit when she was pregnant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47555213)

Was it? Or are you just fortunate enough to live in a more advanced technological society who has developed less-barbaric medicine on the backs of those who had no such luxury?

Re: my mother quit when she was pregnant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47555703)

No, this is just barbaric full stop. A human pregnancy test is not important enough to warrant killing and torturing a mammal.

Re:my mother quit when she was pregnant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554981)

Phrased differently I would have awarded mod points, the trolling comment levels out the smart part.

Peer pressure is surely something worth while in society. At the same time, remember that everyone has unhealthy habits. Have you read the ingredients in your shampoo (you put that shit in your hair every day!)? Eat any type of processed or prepared food that you didn't grow yourself (or have serious organic certification)? How often do you touch BPA rich plastics? How frequently do you drink alcohol? You drive a car to work?

Yeah, we can all try to nag someone to stop _their_ bad habits. Just be prepared to be nagged about your own.

Re:my mother quit when she was pregnant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47555713)

All of these are completely insignificant compared to smoking, nor do they affect the health of others the way smoking does.

Smokers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554271)

They are one of those few groups who shouldn't get any healthcare at all. Even when their problem is seemingly unrelated to smoking.

Re:Smokers (5, Insightful)

znrt (2424692) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554357)

They are one of those few groups who shouldn't get any healthcare at all. Even when their problem is seemingly unrelated to smoking.

same as car and motorcycle drivers, factory workers and owners, smartphone and computer users, meat and processed food consumers, etc., right?

Re:Smokers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554475)

No, I said smokers. Do you have trouble reading? Let me spell it out in capitals for you: SMOKERS.

Re:Smokers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554781)

Projection does not solve your lack of understanding.

Re:Smokers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554989)

And divers. All divers should be denied health care. I don't care if it is sky diving, scuba diving, cliff diving, muff diving, or high diving.

Well, four out of five of those anyway.

Re:Smokers (3, Funny)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about a month and a half ago | (#47555701)

Muff Divers are at higher risk of throat cancer. Ban Muff Diving, yes.

Re: Smokers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47555401)

Let smokers excercise their free choice by smoking. Let them access healthcare, but tax the fuck out of tobacco products so those who smoke pay for the increased health cost burden.

Re: Smokers (2)

Papaspud (2562773) | about a month and a half ago | (#47555771)

they already do.

Re:Smokers (1)

Monoman (8745) | about a month and a half ago | (#47555873)

Do any of those have effect nearby non-users like smoking and "second hand" smokers?

Re:Smokers (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554363)

They are one of those few groups who shouldn't get any healthcare at all. Even when their problem is seemingly unrelated to smoking.

You wouldn't want them to get vaccinated? Or have communicable diseases treated?

Did you work this out all by yourself or did you get help?

Re:Smokers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554807)

Careful now.. you're tap dancing in the minefield between logic and Fox News.

Re:Smokers (1)

Artifakt (700173) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554919)

Why are you even debating the point over smoking, when you (and I) have no idea what the other 'few groups' are? Maybe next on his list is all the Red-headed people because they all didn't even die when Batman knocked them all into that vat of chemicals. Until I hear who the other few groups are, I'm going to assume that mindless hatered and lack of understanding of basic medicine are not even among this niblick's top 10 biggest issues. Hell, the other "few groups" probably include Underweight Belgians, Manx Cat Fanciers and Left Handed Whittlers.

Re:Smokers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554509)

I've been a smoker for a little over ten years. I've been paying into health insurance plans for roughly twenty. I haven't been to a doctor in seventeen years (and that was required for a tetanus shot so I could attend a public university), so I've paid my fucking dues. I wish your mother hadn't been provided healthcare.

Re:Smokers (3, Insightful)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554945)

I've been a smoker for a little over ten years. I've been paying into health insurance plans for roughly twenty. I haven't been to a doctor in seventeen years (and that was required for a tetanus shot so I could attend a public university), so I've paid my fucking dues.

There is a bit of a conumdrum here. As a smoker, you are supposed to die young, and suddenly from a massive heart attack or stroke. Stick with me here, I wish you good health.

Okay, so lets see what happens, the fate of the evil smoker, as compared to "healthy" people. I've told this story before, but here goes again. My mother in law who was a strict teetotaler, a non smoking person who did everything the healthy way, including drugs that kept all the "danger" readings in line, spent the last ten years of her life as a dementia patient, really hitting the Medicare trough. The last two years of her life ,which is when most healthy people really start racking up the bills, she cost around 600 thousand dollars in hospital bills. Pretty impressive.

Now let us take the example of my mother. She smoked, and on weekends, we'd enjoy a few beers. She did die of a massive heart attack, and it was over essentially immediately. So even though this is a sample of two, who cost the system more? My Mother in law, who was probably well over a million dollars during her dementia riddled last ten years, or my Mother who lived healthy up to the end of her days, then went out not costing that asshole anything (and she did die several years older than my mother in law anyway.

Smug people and their ideas on health care are probably the same people that buy high and sell low on the stock market. Using their logic, you would think they would encourage people to smoke. Nope, I've often thought that you could just exchange "smoker" with say the N-word, and see what they got. Just hate.

But we all do die, regardless of wht way too many people think.. I hope I go out the way my mother did, and my worst nightmare is my smart mother in law's protracted death.

I wish your mother hadn't been provided healthcare.

Much better if she was provided free birth control, don't you think?

Re:Smokers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47555709)

Nice story, but most people who die from smoking die a horrible and slow death after many expensive medical treatments.

Re:Smokers (1)

Monoman (8745) | about a month and a half ago | (#47555883)

My experience is different. My parents smoked 30+ years and they didn't die immediately from massive heart attacks as YOU would think. They developed quite a few health problems later in life which required many many meds and doctor visits over their last 10-15 years. Sure, insurance covered much of it but I gotta think the medical industry definitely makes out better if most of their patients are like my parents were.

Re: Smokers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47555231)

Yeah, and fat people. Oh, and Christians! Atheists, too.

It's too bad your mother didn't abort, asshat.

Re:Smokers (2)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about a month and a half ago | (#47555685)

^ There we have it ladies and gentlemen. This is the logical consequence of socialised healthcare.

Anonymous Coward would rather we all die lying in our own urine at an arthritic 96 after having spent 40 years of pension contributions, than in our mid-60's from a smoking related disease. He's willing to pay for the former, but not the latter!

ANY stress "alters the DNA" of a fetus. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554317)

Diabetes.

Obesity.

Starvation.

These all result in epigenetic changes to the DNA of a fetus.

What's REALLY interesting/scary is that these changes themselves can be inherited.

One of the best groups that has been followed and studied are survivors of starvation in the ghettos of WWII, polish ghetos IIRC.

We've seen that children who were born to mothers who were actively starving during pregnancy, are more prone to the "thrifty" phenotype, more prone to abnormal weight gain and obesity, than those who's gestation was before or after. Analysis of their genes has shown they had changes in the methylation of certain key genes compared to their parents or peers, altering their expression. In other words, the cells of the developing fetus adapted to the stress they were exposed to, resulting in LIFE LONG ALTERATIONS in the EXPRESSION of their DNA. The DNA itself, DID NOT CHANGE, yet they had different expressions of those same genes, for the rest of their life!

Crazy, right? Well, wait for this next bit, it'll really bake your noodle.

The GRANDCHILDREN of those women who were starving while pregnant *inherited* the changes to their parent's DNA (male AND female parents!), even if their mother did not undergo the same stress that their grandmothers did. The altered phenotype they express may be less severe then that of their parent, but they maintain those altered methylation patterns.

Another way we are finding this is children of women who are obese and/or hyperglycemic (gestational diabetes or poor diabetes control) are more prone to obesity or type 2 diabetes themselves, independent of post-gestational life. And if their mothers happen to have a gastric bypass and lose significant weight, then have another pregnancy? The children conceived after the weight loss seem to be no more likely to have weight issues or diabetes than children of non-obese women.

On the one hand, this is exciting, because a whole new field of study is blossoming as we watch!

On the other hand, even if we get the current obesity epidemic under control, or even reverse it, we're going to be feeling the effects for, literally, generations. Sins of the parents, indeed...

(PS: And, no, I don't mean that to mean the children are being divinely punished for their parents acts. Give me a break, poetic license in a crappy situation.)

Re:ANY stress "alters the DNA" of a fetus. (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554481)

This makes great sense.

In the wild, other mammals are completely capable of reabsorbing fetuses into their bodies during times of stress, giving evidence that the birth of a litter of young is predicated on environmental factors.

If a mammal uses resource surplus & hardship as a determining factor to give birth, it is not much of a stretch to imagine genetic predisposition is formulated by those factors as well.

Re:ANY stress "alters the DNA" of a fetus. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47555283)

Well, let's be fair about the obesity epidemic...it seems to have started when we reduced the weight at which Americans were considered obese. Overnight, 55% of Americans became obese, when it had been a far lower number the day prior. Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.

Re:ANY stress "alters the DNA" of a fetus. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47555309)

Considering a diagnosis of obesity is made incorporating BMI as a key factor (which, yes, has its own problems, but that's another discussion) and not a specific weight, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you don't actually know what you are talking about, and are just parroting something someone told you, or that you misunderstood.

If you got that information from your doctor, you owe it to yourself and your health to find someone else. Preferably someone who doesn't either make crap up, lie to make people feel better, or is so behind the times in health care they're going to do more harm than good.

Re:ANY stress "alters the DNA" of a fetus. (1)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about a month and a half ago | (#47555707)

You know I think this is kind-of bollocks. It seems reasonable to me to assume that at times of environmental stress, an individual baby will survive or not depending on its genes. Therefore more babies with this "thrifty" phenotype will survive than those without, the thrifty phenotype having been constructed from genes already present in mother and father, and effectively randomly selected.

So when a researcher arrives to study the genes, if he's a complete fucking moron, he will assume that somehow the environment changed the genes of the egg or sperm and that this was passed down to the offspring. This is all notwithstanding that there are dozens or hundreds of mutations in the long chain of mitosis involved in creating another Human being.

Re:ANY stress "alters the DNA" of a fetus. (1)

devent (1627873) | about a month and a half ago | (#47555715)

Great, and if you could provide the peer-reviewed articles of the studies then you would deserve the +5 Informative.

"Alter" is probably a bad way to put it (1)

thieh (3654731) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554331)

I am sure there will be moms who want to make their kids the next X-man by smoking now

them them stronger (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554391)

The changes probably make the child more tolerant to environmental pollution, so there!

Figures (1)

raind (174356) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554395)

Not surprised, I still smoke and feel way more physically and mentally addicted to that, then say alcohol which I gave up years ago.

Dangling participles anyone? (5, Funny)

KitFox (712780) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554439)

Title got my attention and worried me a little bit.

So do you need to smoke the mother before or after she's given birth to alter her childrens' DNA?

Re:Dangling participles anyone? (0)

rubycodez (864176) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554499)

If she were strickly smoking cock she wouldn't have been a mother at all

Re:Dangling participles anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554525)

OK so children should not smoke their mums, got it !

True for weed too? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554441)

Given that marijuana causes neural changes and alters distribution of grey matter, it would be interesting to learn how it affects the DNA of children born to mothers that smoke it recreationally.

Re:True for weed too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554865)

Smoking weed is perfectly harmless, even good for you.

Just ask anyone who smokes it.

But seriously you're right, it would make a good study.

Adopt (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554463)

Adopt. That's what we did. My sons birth mother could hardly afford food, much less cigarettes. The 3rd world may suck for many things but they don't chain smoke and there sure as hell aren't any crack addicted parents.

Kidding aside, you should adopt. There are children in need, and I love my kid as much, if not more than any kid I could have gotten the old fashion way. We were very lucky he needed parents.

Re:Adopt (2)

w_dragon (1802458) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554567)

If you've in an area of the world where they grow tobacco people smoke, third world or not. Same way third world countries with poppies often have some level of opium problems. Drugs are cheap if you can produce them yourself.

Re:Adopt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554819)

Adopt. That's what we did. My sons birth mother could hardly afford food, much less cigarettes. The 3rd world may suck for many things but they don't chain smoke and there sure as hell aren't any crack addicted parents.

So in other words, you've adopted a foreign kid. Congratulations, you supid cunt. You're encouraging the baby rabies of the third world instead of taking care of your own.

Save your platitudes; I hope when the shit hits the fan that you, your wife, and your kid are all face down in the ditch.

Re: Adopt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47555221)

Sieg heil, motherfucker.

Re:Adopt (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554973)

I love my kid as much, if not more than any kid I could have gotten the old fashion way.

That is not only sad, but really disturbing. Well, I guess if you would love an adopted child more than one you home-brewed, you did the right thing

Totally against smoking mothers (4, Funny)

haruchai (17472) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554493)

steaming, sauteing, or even poaching will keep them plump & juicy

I quit smoking many years ago... (5, Funny)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554537)

But being a man, I was always smart about which cigarettes I bought. I never bought the ones that caused cancer and all that other scary shit. I only smoked the ones that caused low birth weight and pregnancy complications. I figured since I would never be pregnant, those were the ones to go with. I could never figure out why the brands would keep switching though. ;-)

Smoking mothers (0)

Culture20 (968837) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554541)

Children who smoke their mothers have bigger issues than DNA alterations.

Reaction from the Smoking Lobby (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554635)

They will likely come out and say it's not the smoking that's causing the damage.
It's the fact that the government is now forcing everyone to go outside for a cigarette, exposing them to all that extra, harmful UV radiation, thats causing the damage.

I call bollocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554645)

Everything is bad. Don't do anything, ever.

For people who think smoking is a person's choice (1)

dixonpete (1267776) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554653)

I grew up in a haze of tobacco smoke with two heavy smoking parents. In the home, in the car, basically any time I spent with them I was exposed. As an adult living in a apartment building I regularly experience coughing and teary eyes from smoke that comes through from the hallway. It'll probably never happen but I'd be utterly thrilled is tobacco was entirely banned.

I hear banjos! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554683)

'Nuff said.

Not so bright. (1)

Cammi (1956130) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554755)

The key word is "may". For the illiterate ... "may" = "I Don't Know". In other words, this is another Jenny McCarthy Fear Monger article.

Re:Not so bright. (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about a month and a half ago | (#47555007)

The key word is "may". For the illiterate ... "may" = "I Don't Know". In other words, this is another Jenny McCarthy Fear Monger article.

So it's actually smoking women that cause autism?

That's just joking. I agree with you otherwise. This is like those creepy commercials that shows some dude that claims he lost his legs because of smoking.

Smoking is just plain bad, which is why I gave it up in 1976. All of this FUD is becoming cruel.

Nothing like suggesting to a pregnant woman that being around cigarette smoke is yet one more thing that she has to fear she'll harm her child with. She feels a tremendous weight of responsibility in the first place - who wouldn't. Let's just amp that up some, eh?

Both of my parents smoked. And aside from the webbed fingers, and the nictating membrane on my eyes, I'm pretty normal.....

Odds of birth problems may not be that high... (1)

Kittenman (971447) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554769)

I'm one of many slashdotters (I'm sure) who's mother smoked while pregnant, drank (no doubt) as this behaviour wasn't seen as bad in the times (I was born in '59). No drugs, I suspect - can't imagine my mother (she's been gone 30 years) doing that!.

I'm not saying that smoking/drinking isn't bad for the unborn child, but the odds may not be as loaded that way as you'd think. And my parents both smoked all the way to their deaths. I've never smoked.

And yes, I'm normal - why do you ask?

Re:Odds of birth problems may not be that high... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47555657)

Your name is Kittenman, how normal can you be?

Might not always be bad! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554795)

My mother smoked and for the most part I am healthy at 46. Non smoker myself. What if it was the reason I was born with the knack?

I was raised by a single mother with a grade 6 education, sometimes on welfare, no role models to encourage me to go into engineering, no resources to learn electronics or computers etc. When I was young I thought I was adopted because somehow I got the geek gene that was not present before in the family with understanding and knowledge that I seemed to have been born with and became a successful electrical engineer. Maybe it was the smoking.

Even though smoking is statistically and significantly harmful in many ways, what if some other mutants from the 60's pass on genes that lets their distant offspring survive or prosper in the future. Evolution needs mutation, does it not? Oh, perhaps not. We'll be programming our own genes soon enough I guess.

Hit Single: Nicotine Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47554797)

Smoking Mothers would be a good name for a band.

Not just mothers... (0)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a month and a half ago | (#47554813)

My eldest brother has asthma.

My Dad smoked. He gave up before his second child was conceived. The rest of us don't have asthma.

Re:Not just mothers... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47555021)

You would figure someone on Slashdot would know better than implying that correlation proves causation. I have 2 cousins, 2 nephews, and 1 niece that all had or have asthma. None of their parents smoke, and smoking was not allowed in their houses. Both cousins were "cured" in time from their asthma, mostly by being treated for allergies (go figure that it was environmental and pet allergies and not tobacco right?). One of my 2 nephews smokes, with asthma, and he has less attacks than his brother and sister.

Now if every child of smoking parents (or fuck, even a father) became asthmatic, you may have a point. As is, your correlation is worth less than a roach turd and proves even less.

May! (1)

mtthwbrnd (1608651) | about a month and a half ago | (#47555179)

That's a great word which in the world of science reporting means: This story is a filler, if you don't have much time then skip this one.

Tulips.... (1)

niftymitch (1625721) | about a month and a half ago | (#47555473)

Many viruses affect tulips, causing streaked flowers, mottled leaves, distorted plants and stunted growth.
One evil virus is the tobacco mosaic virus and yes it impacts animals too.

For 50 years that I know many greenhouses for cut flowers have prohibited tobacco products
and sterilize their cutting knives.

Of interest a new virus has been found to infect the gut of many humans. It has only recently
been identified and the value it provides to the human gut is the hot new research topic.

The risks to humans from the the tobacco mosaic virus seem to be ignored in much
of the tobacco cancer research.... I think that is a blunder. I also want to make sure the
Colorado grower associations take precautions to keep the tobacco mosaic virus out
of their herb patches.

"genes tied to addiction " - LOL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47555885)

1) There is no such thing as 'addiction' (if by 'addiction', you mean a physical force that compels a person to commit certain physical actions, such as lighting a cigarette, lifting it to your mouth, and smoking it, etc.) See the books 'Addiction is a choice' and 'The myth of addiction'.)
2) There are no "genes tied to addiction", and repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true.

What we call 'addiction' is behaviour which is bad for your health, which serves to alleviate unpleasant feelings, which originated in childhood due to abuse. As simple as that.

erm... (1)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | about a month and a half ago | (#47555911)

So environmental factors result in DNA changes...is that new?

I thought that those of us not blinded by religion were already of the opinion that this is part of evolution, adaptation, survival of the fittest and all that good stuff....

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>