Can I just say how much I am loving being home for good?  I mean, I'm worried about finding a job and getting my articles drafted, but other than that it's just really nice to not feel split between two lives. I've been eating better and walking the dog and cultivating some other good habits that I'd been neglecting...all good things.  Once a job is in place I think I will feel settled for the first time in a really long while.  Hope life is treating you all well!

8 Things I Want You to Know about Anthropology

1. Anthropology is not the small, well defined job description you probably think of when you hear the word.  Margaret Mead was an Anthropologist, and Temperence Brennan on Bones is an Anthropologist and I suppose Indiana Jones is an Anthropologist as well (though we’ll talk more about the last two later on).  But really, there are countless other ways to be an anthropologist too, because…

2. Anthropology is not a What, It’s a How.  An anthropologist worth his or her salt can bring their training to bear on just about any problem or question involving human beings. This training varies across the subfields of cultural anthropology, biological anthropology, linguistic anthropology and archaeology, but always includes a defining commitment to unbiased exploration, respect for all, and the importance of context. Anthropology is, essentially, about working to understand the whole story surrounding any given problem or research question.

3. Anthropologists work with all sorts of populations. We work all over the world with small indigenous groups, populations in developing countries, and western populations.  We may even work within our own communities.

4. The subfields are not discrete boxes, and plenty of anthropologists pull a bit from several in defining their niche. Many even pull from outside the field entirely to supplement their knowledge base.  As a biomedical anthropologist, I’ve had basic training in genetics, evolutionary theory, international health, epidemiology and research methods. I’ve also spent a lot of time honing skills in critical reading and communication.  There are few academic disciplines today that offer the same degree of latitude in training.

5. If you leverage that freedom effectively, the job possibilities can be great. While it is true that you will rarely come across an job posting with the word “anthropologist” in the title, someone with anthropological training can be suited for jobs in academia, public health, cultural resource management, nonprofits, museums, hospitals, human service organizations, forensics laboratories, education…I could go on, but you get the point.  The caveat is that in a lot of these situations, the onus is on the individual to effectively convey (in cover letters, resumes/CVs, and interviews) their qualifications.

6. Anthropology is not as glamorous as the media would have us believe. This probably comes as no surprise to anyone, but a typical day at work (if there were such a thing) does not include kidnapping, shoot-outs, undercover work, or epic history-altering treasure hunts. To the forensic scientists out there- we feel your pain! Though many anthropologists do participate in or lead active field work (gathering data on a particular problem or question right where it’s happening), sometimes “the field” is right outside their own door. And no matter what, a significant amount of their time is often spent in front of a computer managing data or synthesizing field notes and figuring out exactly what their observations are saying.

7. However, sometimes we get to do some REALLY cool stuff.  As far as I know, there’s not much that is more fun than a party in the anthropology department, especially if the drinks are flowing.  I’ve heard stories about treks through the Himalayas, weddings on Vanuatu, mystery illnesses in Siberia and Guam, and stifling field seasons spent on the Kenyan savannah. And that’s just from the folks I know personally. Right now there are anthropologists working to contain the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, and a team from the University of South Florida is helping to identify the bodies of 55 boys buried at a notoriously abusive reform school west of Tallahassee…children who may otherwise have been lost to history forever.

8. Anthropology is vital and worthy field.  Please understand this, if nothing else. There are plenty of jokes about the pointlessness of the degree and the supposed naiveté and unrealistic idealism that allegedly leads people to pursue it, but that is bad intel from uninformed individuals. There may be an element of idealism for some of us, but that’s not an empty idea, it’s a drive to bring about positive change where we can, when we can. And from what I’ve seen so far, it’s a drive backed up by an awful lot of hard work.

What I learned...

1. I may never be capable of writing long pieces at will, but I think I am ok with that.

2. I also kind of stink at walking the line between conversational writing and formal writing.  I am not ok with that, so I'm gonna work on it.

3. Even two paragraph columns in a local paper make one's Google results look better

Now onto sorting, packing, and graduating. Here's the the next adventure. 

My latest awkward attempt at science writing! Yay!

To wrap up my science writing adventure, Mike and I have agreed that I would take a single topic and address it for three separate audiences- children, adult non-scientists, and adults with relevant scientific background.  In order to sneak in one final chance at getting published, I used another “Ask a Scientist” question as my inspiration.

The question, asked by a 6^th grader named Mary, was “Why do kids react to getting hurt by crying? If something were to take the place of crying, what would it be?”

Here is the answer that I gave Mary, with some notes added:

“Crying, in some form or another, is something humans and many other animals do to signal to others when we are in pain and in need of help. Though opinions vary on whether or not humans are the only animals who actually shed tears in response to emotional or physical distress, it is clear that the behavior is significantly more evident in us than in any other species.  However, most mammalian and bird species do vocalize distress in a way that is recognizable by other members of their species (and, often enough, by us- maybe I can write about interspecies empathy next!).

Babies cry from the moment they are born for several very basic reasons- they are hungry, they are uncomfortable, they are tired, or they are in physical pain, though they do not actually produce tears until they are a few months old. Because they cannot communicate yet using language, their caretakers must be very well attuned the sound of their cries in order to interpret what they need. Though basal tears- which keep the eye moist- and reflexive tears- which are produced in response to irritation- develop within a few weeks after birth, babies do not have the capacity to cry emotional (or psychic) tears until they are about 7-8 months old.  The scientific literature on infant crying and its impact on caregiver behavior is vast, and a lot of really intriguing stuff has come out of it. Some studies have shown that hunger, pain, and general fussiness each produce specific crying patterns that can be identified.  Pain cries tend to have a higher pitch and intensity than other types of cries…and formal research aside, anyone I know who has spent significant time around infants and young children can rapidly recognize a wail of pain when they hear it. Interestingly, there is also some evidence that babies’ cries follow the cadence of the native language of their culture, which strengthens the idea that crying even in infancy has a distinctively social component.  A 2003 fMRI brain imaging study even showed differences in the brain’s response  to infant crying based on gender and parental status (Seifritz et al 2003).

           

As we grow older and develop language, we can ask for what we need more often than not and do not have to resort to crying.  However, sometimes when children are hurt they become overwhelmed and feel helpless, and crying is an easy and automatic way for them to express that and to get the attention, help, and comfort of their parents or someone else who is nearby. Adults typically have developed other ways of coping with physical pain and so are less likely to cry actual tears, but they may still yell or scream if something hurts badly. Of course, this isn’t 100% true.  Though I am not one to cry from physical pain- I am much more likely to say very bad words, very loudly- I know plenty of grown adults who cry when they are physically hurt. I’m not in a place to speculate as to what drives one reaction as opposed to another, but the fact is that, for whatever reason, the shedding of tears successfully fulfills its signaling function in adult humans. Research has shown that he likelihood that a person will respond to distress with tears is positively correlated with the probability of resulting social support- even elementary school aged children are able to apt to modulate their crying behavior in order to maximize positive responses and minimize negative or shaming ones.  

           

In addition to this, there are physiological reasons for crying as well. When something stressful happens, like an injury, our bodies produce chemicals that prepare us to react to a harmful event. Sometimes crying is a part of the activation of that system.  The exact role of crying (actual weeping, not simply tearing) within the stress response is not clearly defined, but studies suggest that it is linked to the parasympathetic response, which (very broadly) is the body's attempt to move back into "normal" mode following a stressful event. Evidence of this endocrine influence is in the tears themselves- emotional tears have traceable levels of a number of different hormones which are not found in basal or reflex tears. 

Interestingly, studies have shown that hearing a baby or child crying also activates the stress response system in the people who hear it, which is a good way to ensure that someone responds quickly to the person in distress.  So I think that if something were to “take the place” of crying, it would have to be something that could get the attention of someone to come and help.” This is just an interesting recap of what we’ve already covered- that crying as a social signal requires a sort of “give and take” between the distressed individual and another member of the social group. As it has been around a while in evolutionary time, this give and take, at least when it comes to the young, has in a way become hard-wired  

  I was pretty happy with what I managed to sneak into a 400 word response, but was also excited to have an excuse to dig a little deeper because, although this topic might seem like it came out of left field, the evolutionary and psychosocial significance of crying is actually the idea that first drew me an evolution-based view of behavior and health in the first place.

In 2004, though, when I attempted a literature review on the topic, I was able to find about a half dozen articles that dealt with crying as an adaptive behavior in neurologically intact adults. I ended up switching topics due to the lack of info…a last minute move which, because the universe has an interesting sense of humor, resulted in my turning in the paper three days late amidst lots and lots of tears.  I wish I could say that there’s been vast improvement to the literature and my time management skills, but I’d be lying on both counts.  Still, though- there’s something to be said for the eloquence of the situation.  My very last academic writing assignment is a mirror of my first attempt…and this time it was only one day late.

           

 Mampe, B., Friederici, A. D., Christophe, A., & Wermke, K. (2009). Newborns' cry melody is shaped by their native language. Current biology, 19(23), 1994-1997.

Seifritz, E., Esposito, F., Neuhoff, J. G., Lüthi, A., Mustovic, H., Dammann, G., ... & Di Salle, F. (2003). Differential sex-independent amygdala response to infant crying and laughing in parents versus nonparents. Biological psychiatry, 54(12), 1367-1375.

Why are we still debating about breastfeeding?

Note: This post was drafted several weeks ago, shortly after the publication of the article it discusses. My initial intention was to publish it right away, but to be honest I was uneasy because I felt like I didn’t dislike the article as much as I “should”. While that ended up being a fantastic inner monologue leading me to some interesting insights about the nature of science and of communication, it did not do me any favors in terms of cashing in on the debate.  In short, you might say that I wussed out. But in any case, here’s the basic story as I see it.

 Back in February an article in the journal Social Science and Medicine made some minor waves with its claims that breastfeeding- currently exalted within Western culture as The Way Things Ought To Be- is completely overrated. At least, that’s what some in the media would have us believe. The study, headed by two sociologists at Ohio State University, looked at longitudinal data from three groups: 8,237 children, 7,319 sibling pairs, and 1,773 sibling pairs within which one sibling was breastfed and the other bottle-fed. The investigators analyzed data on a number of markers for physical and mental health, including body mass index (BMI), obesity, asthma, hyperactivity, parental attachment and behavior compliance as well as vocabulary, reading recognition, math ability, intelligence and scholastic competence. Though breastfed children did seem to have an advantage in terms of most of these metrics, there was no statistically significant difference between the breast- and bottle-fed siblings in the discordant pairs- a finding which indicates that the similarities of experience for these sibling pairs outweighs the effects of their different feeding styles.

            That sounds like a reasonable enough conclusion, but I have plenty of questions about their results. They looked at an impressive list of metrics, sure, but they certainly didn’t look at everything (plus I have my doubts as to whether something “parental attachment” can truly be summed up quantitatively anyway). And there are fundamental issues with the independent variable, like the fact that breastfeeding time is measured in weeks- quite short compared to current guideline- and  that exclusive vs. mixed feeding was not accounted for in analysis, that muddy the whole picture and make it harder to base any definitive claims on the data.  But all in all, this is not a terrible article. It’s just that it says a few very specific things about very specific infant feeding dynamics in a relatively privileged western society…and that’s all.  Information on the short-term benefits of breastfeeding (Horta and Victoria 2013)- including passive immunity- are acknowledged but glossed over as though they are have no connection to long-term outcomes, and the potentially protective effect for breastfeeding mothers against breast cancer is missing altogether (MÖller et al 2002).  Additionally, while the study controlled for socioeconomic status, there are just *so many* other confounding variables that could not be addressed with the existing data set (post weaning diet, physical activity levels, exposure to allergens, prenatal environment…) that extracting meaning from this is like looking at a puzzle with half the pieces missing.

E.A. Quinn, an Anthropologist and breastfeeding researcher who blogs at Biomarkers and Milk,  makes the point that nothing in the article is especially newsworthy for anyone with a solid background in breastfeeding science. Given that I am NOT a breastfeeding researcher, though, it was news to me.  And it will certainly be news to most readers.  Most importantly, it was considered “news” to the study’s authors, who not likely to be extensively trained in human biology (though to be fair, Dr. Colen does have substantial background in public health) and so were perhaps not fully equipped with the understanding of physiology necessary to adequately and responsibly contextualize their findings. All in all, this leads to substantial potential for public misinterpretation.          

 There’s a piece at Evolutionary Parenting  that eloquently tackles both the study’s limitations and the way the information has been misrepresented in the media better than I ever could. The post points out that, while the authors should bear some responsibility for this runaway train (they did, after all, begin the title of their article with the question “Is breast truly best?”, and I can’t imagine they didn’t know where that might lead) it really is the journalistic community who ought to be called out for the unnecessarily clickbait-y headlines.

The very first two hits on the word “breastfeeding” this morning are "There's Way More to Parenting than Breastfeeding", at the Boston Globe (perfectly fine!), "Breastfeeding Benefits Overstated?" (Less fine, as far as I’m concerned)

With just a little bit more effort (search terms “breastfeeding 2014") you can find this gem over at Slate, which is the article that popped up on my Facebook newsfeed the other day and irked me enough that I had to write this post.

What it comes down to is this: The decision whether or not to breastfeed is a really big deal to most new mothers. It is true that our current cultural climate is such that many women feel guilty and shamed if they are unable or reluctant to breastfeed.  That is 100% wrong, and I wish it were not the case.  I also believe, though, that everyone who wants to explore breastfeeding should be able to do so in a supportive environment with accurate *and complete* information readily accessible to them.  Inflammatory headlines claiming no real benefits to breastfeeding are shallow and misleading.  OF COURSE no one should have to feel bad about opting to formula feed, but no one should be made to feel like they're buying a myth for opting to breastfeed, either, because it's simply not true. There are aspects of infant attachment and well-being that cannot be easily quantified, and even if we accept that they won’t change the entire trajectory of a child’s life, they still matter.

If you read through the blog posts and articles mentioned, including the press release for the study itself, you’ll notice a common thread of looking out for mothers and wanting to help create that more supportive environment regardless of feeding method.  It seems that in the end everyone’s gotten this one vital aspect right, at least.  But this is proof that we can do better- breast vs. bottle does not need to be a divisive issue with victories or losses to tally up.  I only wish everyone would acknowledge that up front instead of giving in to the impulse to antagonize. For an informative and thought-provoking take on breastfeeding, check out The Situated Mother by the ever-insightful Kaitlin Drouin. And, as always, let me know what you think about all this.

Sources:

Colen CG, Ramey DM. Is breast truly best? Estimating the effects of breastfeeding on long-term child health and wellbeing in the United States using sibling comparisons. Social Science & Medicine. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.01.027.

Drouin, K. H. (2013). The situated mother: Evolutionary theory and feminism as complementary components to understanding breastfeeding behavior. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 7(4), 326.

Horta BL, Victora CG: Long-term effects of breastfeeding: a systematic review. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2013

Möller, T., Olsson, H., Ranstam, J., & Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. (2002). Breast cancer and breastfeeding: collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 47 epidemiological studies in 30 countries, including 50 302 women with breast cancer and 96 973 women without the disease. Lancet, 360(9328), 187-195. Retrieved from https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/publication/1123899 on March 16 2014

My experience with the science writing tutorial (Dr. Little used that word the other day and I really liked it.  Less cumbersome than independent study) has been interesting so far.  It has become obvious at this point that my plan to use this to make myself a more prolific writer has not worked, but honestly I've realized that I'm all right with that.  I find myself so much more interested in *consuming* science news than in writing  it myself.  There are just so many people already reporting the facts of a story that it's hard to get excited about doing the same. What I've been doing is choosing current events that catch m eye and then reading the story from every news source I can find. A few weeks ago I looked at that story about how Alzheimer's may be the 3rd leading cause of death.  This week I'm focusing on the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.  My goals are to figure out some general trends in science reporting for lay audiences and also to identify agencies that do (in my opinion) an especially great job on a consistent basis. It's a serious mission- I've got spreadsheets and everything. I don't know what shape this is going to take over the remainder of the semester, but I'm hoping at the very least that I will leave knowing who to trust (and who to advise others to trust).  These days there's an absolute overload of information available on just about every topic, and it's impossible for even a dedicated consumer to keep up with completely. I guess this is my way of setting up for the knowledge building equivalent of "work smarter, not harder"...which ironically requires that I spend a bunch of time on trial and error, figuring out what "smarter" is.

Anyhow, I just wanted to check in and update you guys. I do have a couple of substantive pieces in the works that I'll hopefully be putting up soon, and I'm contemplating a few others.   In the meantime, let me know what you think of my newest venture. And if you get a chance, maybe check out this particularly impressive specimen of science reporting ;)

Well, it's been a sort of off-kilter few weeks- tons of snow and messed up travel plans, birthday goings-on and deadlines passing by unnoticed.  Plus I've been trying to kick a head cold for the past few days, which means I haven't had a good night's sleep in a while (Quick aside: those little plastic things you put on your nose to help you breathe at night are awful.  They don't do a whole lot and when you have to pull them off it feels like you're removing half the skin from your nose at the same time.)  I've got a few posts in the works (thoughts on getting older, thoughts on anxiety...coincidence?)  but nothing quite post-worthy yet.  And I'm still taking requests for content while I am defining this space, so if you've got a burning "Why do our bodies do that?" "What's the deal with __________" question, leave it in the comments and I will find out for you.

(For now, I must leave you all so I can make some tea and google "how do I make snot stop pouring out of my face?".)