The Starting Gate addresses the relationships and blurry lines between genetic, biological, and environmental factors, stretching across generations: it offers understanding of how nature and nurture can be difficult if not impossible to separate, when determining causality of certain societal realities. Low birth weight was taken by the authors to be a "heuristic". Indeed, the authors further elucidated birth weight to be a "rich index with several unique characteristics that may be exploited for intergenerational sociobiological analysis" (8). I thought that this book was extremely educational in increasing my understanding of the research process, and ways of thinking about or approaching a problem. Many questions came to mind as I read; the Notes and Methodology sections were invaluable in helping me to untangle these queries.
A point I thought to be interesting was that suggesting a "large, biologically heritable component" of birth weight is not to say that biology is "destiny"; rather, it is emphasized that society and biology work "in tandem" to result in inequalities that extend across generations. Understanding the relationships and circumstances that heighten the chances for low birth weight may be instrumental in solving the issue: the authors proposed, for instances, for pregnancies to be considered events providing eligibility for social programs, and for increased attention to birth weight status, especially during treatment of disabilities (154). Awareness of familial risk of low birthweight would possibly encourage those at risk, and their physicians, to be attentive to clinical issues associated with low birth weight.
After reading The Starting Gate, I thought that it would be beneficial for society if the government were to give more attention to the problem of low birth weight and its role in social stratification. In addition to educating the public on social approaches of intervention in ongoing cycles, it may as well be beneficial to fund biotherapeutics-- asides or separate from gene therapy-- to treat the most prevalent health complications of premature or low birth weight infants.
Looking into this problem from a bio-pharmaceutical angle, I came upon the example of INOmax, an inhalable nitric oxide, that is the only FDA approved drug for hypoxic respiratory failure in near-term infants. The condition is also called "blue baby syndrome"-- with use of the drug, which is said in its stock market profiles to be "unmatched", the face of the newborn that is struggling for air turns almost instantaneously from blue, to a healthy pink. In some ways it seems to be a miracle drug, although it is still in works. Continued innovations on the biotherapeutic side of the problem would work to alleviate the problem of physical disabilities or health complications that some of the low birth weight individuals may suffer, by lessening them at the beginning. Medical technology to make any physical or mental impediments more insubstantial may thus be important to pursue. In a way, if successful in a large degree, the research findings would also be able to intervene in the cycle.
I disagree with the complete disassociation between biology and the idea of 'destiny'. I truly believe that nature is a much more powerful indicator than nurture. While biology is not an exact science and we can never truly and comprehensively understand who we will become through biology (or who we are destined to be), biology does set limited barriers to our psychological, physical, and social life-paths. In a way, biology does give our future selves a sense of parameters and so can easily be associated with a vague and broad sense of the idea of destiny.
ReplyDeleteThis post suggests the government to help with the issue of low birth weights and its role in social stratification. Yet, all of Ashley's solutions seem to involve biological processes instead of social changes: bio-therapeutics, gene therapy, medical advancements and a review upon the relevant bio-pharmaceuticals. Educating the public was also brought up, yet from studies and even from experiences in our own lives, radical change through social intervention takes generations to take effect, if at all (racism and sexism are still rampant in America and the world, regardless of the many attempts for change). My point in all of this is that nurture is admittedly an influential part of the development processes. Yet it comes down to the question, what comes first, the chicken or the egg. I believe that nature is a much more important, if not more applicably changeable and that biology is the angle from which we should attempt to improve public health.