Most of humanity rests comfortably on the idea that even if no one else loves us, our mothers still will. But a new study casts some uncomfortable doubt on that assertion. It suggests women may be biologically programmed to love children who are healthy and most likely to live.
Researchers at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., showed 13 healthy men and 14 healthy women pictures of 80 infants. Fifty of the infants were normal-appearing and 30 had abnormal facial features, such as cleft palate, skin disorders or Down syndrome. The participants were given four seconds to view each photo but could choose to extend or shorten that viewing time. They were also asked to rate the attractiveness of each infant.
The study found that women were more likely than men to reject the unattractive babies. The attractiveness ratings the men gave to normal-appearing babies were also significantly lower than those given by the women. The women made a greater effort to avoid looking at the abnormal babies.
It could be that women have an evolutionary need to pay more attention to normal-looking infants. In a time of limited resources, mothers might have diverted their resources away from sick infants toward the healthy children who were more likely to live, the researchers said.
"Women may be more sensitized to aesthetic defects and may be more prone to reject unattractive kids," the first author of the paper, Rinah Yamamoto, said in a news release. "Men do not appear to be as motivated. They didn't expend the same effort."
Most of the women I know whose children have health problems or physical abnormalities are the most loving mothers around. However, there is some support for this evolutionary theory in real life. Studies of neglected or abandoned children show they are more likely to have a flaw in their appearance.
Watching TV is a lot harder than it used to be. For parents, anyway. Now, not only should they avoid using the television as a babysitter, distraction or even sanity-saving break, they apparently also need to keep up a running commentary (or pseudo-dialogue) on what the little ones are watching.
Researchers had already established that time spent watching TV or videos is linked to delayed language development in children ages 8 months to 16 months. (Here's the synopsis of that study.) What they didn't know was exactly why.
So in a new study published this week in Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, researchers at the University of Washington and Seattle Children's Reseach Institute measured everything heard by, or uttered by, 329 children ages 2 months to 48 months. They did this by attaching digital recorders to the kids' clothing on various days throughout a two-year period.
Each hour of TV the children heard was linked to a 7% decrease in words that adults spoke to them. It was also connected to a decrease in the number of words (or utterances, really — these are very small kids) from the children themselves. (Here's the synopsis of the new study.)
The report concludes: "Having a television on within earshot of young children diminishes their exposure to adult words, their own vocalizations, and the conversational turns in which they engage."
This doesn't mean TV is bad, mind you. And the researchers point out that, unsurprisingly, many parents interact less with their children when the television is on. One of the things they seem to be taking issue with is the notion that some of the shows the kids are watching promise to encourage parent-child interaction — and that such interaction appears limited.
They add: "Given the critical role that adult caregivers play in children's linguistic development, whether they talk to their child while the screen is on may be critical and explain the effects that are attributed to content or even amount of television watched.
In short, it's OK to talk while watching TV.
— Tami Dennis
Photo: Playing with your baby is good; shushing her and yourself while watching "Sesame Street" ... not so good.
As researchers learn more about in utero exposure and the effects on the unborn, pregnant women could be excused for trying to shut themselves off from the rest of the world. Sometimes, that might not even seem like an overreaction. In this week's news alone:
The story states: "The intelligence scores of men born in July through October of that year, 6-9 months after the main outbreak of the Hong Kong flu in Norway, were lower than the mean values for those born in the same months during the preceding and following years." Here's the abstract from the Annals of Neurology.
The story states: "Women with epilepsy who took the drug valproate ( Depakote) during pregnancy gave birth to children whose IQ at age 3 averaged up to 9 points lower than the scores of children exposed to other epilepsy drugs, according to a new study." Here's the abstract from the New England Journal of Medicine.
The story states: "Brain scans on a group of 3- and 4-year-old children showed abnormal development in the white matter, which carries messages across the brain, compared with children who did not have prenatal exposure to the drug, often called 'meth.' " Here's the abstract, from Neurology.
For a broader look at the issue of in utero exposure, check out these stories from Times staff writer Shari Roan:
Living for two: Mounting evidence suggests that fetuses are surprisingly susceptible to outside influences such as food, environmental pollutants, even stress.
It's a question that stumps evolutionary biologists and women of a certain age:
What's the deal with menopause?
OK, so maybe the evolutionary biologist puts the question a little differently: If the goal of any organism is to pass on his or her genes, why do females go on living beyond their reproductive years?
Researchers in Washington and British Columbia sought an answer in killer whales, the black-and-white beauties that cruise their inland and near-shore waterways. Among little-known killer-whale factoids: They are extremely long-lived. And not only do female killer whales go through menopause, they have the longest post-menopause lifespan of any mammal, including humans.
Male killer whales rarely live to be 50, although they can father calves up to their last spout. Females enter their reproductive years around age 10 and lose fertility rapidly after age 40, but live to be 55 and older. One of the female killer whales in the study was known to be more than 90 years old.
One possible explanation for menopause is the grandmother hypothesis: Females who are past their own reproductive stage can help their daughters or other kin raise their offspring, allowing the daughters to produce even more babies because grandma is around to babysit.
But in the study published in the journal Frontiers in Zoology, the scientists saw no effect of grandma whales on either the fecundity of their daughters or the survival of their grand-calves.
They did find some support for another explanation: the attentive-mother hypothesis. Like humans, killer-whale calves remain dependent on their mothers well beyond weaning. Living, on average, 10 years beyond menopause allows a mother to see her final offspring through to maturity (assuming that the "mature" young adult whale doesn't try to move back into the pod basement).
The researchers also found that the calves of the oldest mothers had a 10% greater chance of survival than the offspring of younger mothers -- a comforting thought for any older mammal undertaking motherhood and menopause back-to-back.
In the midst of a national outbreak of salmonella linked to peanut products comes a timely reminder from the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that handling baby chicks and other live poultry can also cause bacterial illnesses.
The CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report recounts two multistate outbreaks of salmonella infections associated with live poultry that took place in 2007.
In one, 65 people in Minnesota and North Dakota became ill with diarrhea and bloody diarrhea, eight of whom were hospitalized. State health department investigations traced the source of the bacteria to handling live poultry at a farm, an agricultural feed store and a fair.
Another, unrelated outbreak that year infected 64 patients in 23 states, with exposure to live poultry at farms, feed stores, a classroom and a petting zoo. Some of those sickened had bought chicks from the feed store or by mail order from a hatchery to raise in backyards.
Poultry is a known reservoir for the bacteria (so are turtles, lizards and snakes), and the CDC advises parents not to give chicks to young children as gifts at Easter or other times, or to let children younger than 5 handle baby chicks or other poultry. Everyone else, the CDC says, should wash their hands with soap and warm water for at least 20 seconds after touching live poultry or surfaces in contact with live poultry.
Getting overweight kids to slim down is job one for many health professionals and researchers, but viable solutions to this complex problem are few and far between.
But a new study suggests that a family-based intervention — even one that only involves parents — may work in helping children slim down. The study was done in four rural Florida counties. In general, rural areas show slightly higher rates of obesity than in urban areas, and medical and preventive healthcare services are often scarce.
Researchers recruited 93 overweight or obese children and their parents who were randomly assigned for four months to one of three groups: a family-based intervention, a parent-only intervention and a control group.
In the family-based intervention, parents and children took part in separate groups. Parents received training on nutrition and exercise and ways to manage behavior, discussed their progress and took part in group discussions about any difficulties they had. Children focused on reviewing progress from the previous week, did some exercise and prepared a healthy snack. At the end of the sessions, both kids and parents met together to plan goals for the week.
Adults in the parent-only intervention went to group meetings, which was structured similarly to the parent portion of the family group, with an emphasis on goal-setting with their kids. Families in the control group went through a weight management intervention after the study’s final follow-up.
After four months, children of parents in the parent-only intervention lowered their BMI scores more than children in the family-based group. Both of these groups lowered their BMI stores more than children in the control group. After 10 months kids in the parent and family groups still showed decreases in BMI, and the BMI of children in the control group increased slightly.
The results, say researchers whose study is published in this month’s issue of the Journal of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, bode well for community-based interventions in which children may not need to be present. "There are a number of possible benefits to including only parents in treatment groups," they write in the study. "The first possible benefit is that the parent may be forced to take greater responsibility for learning and explaining strategies to adopt healthier lifestyle habits, as well as implementing those changes in the family environment." They also argue that having just parents attend regular meetings about weight control may prevent kids from being stigmatized and thus less enthusiastic about staying motivated.
The study’s authors also say that parent-only meetings may be more cost-effective than whole family interventions, something to consider in areas with fewer resources.
Some products are too astonishing not to be shared with as many people as possible...
Perhaps you've noticed how that infant of yours needs to be fed just when you're getting into a housework groove? Or maybe she demands nourishment just as you're putting the finishing touches on that project evaluation for the office? The attention and holding that such feeding requires can take valuable minutes.
Not to worry -- help is at hand. For $11.95, time-pressed parents can purchase a Bottle Genie that lets infants feed themselves. (It was $19.95, but there's a sale.)
"Mothers and Fathers love to feed their babies. In fact, most early bonding takes place during the feeding routine each day. What happens if you're on an outing, shopping, strolling in the park or even have multiples, and your little one needs a feeding? It's the perfect time for the Bottle Genie baby bottle holder."
(Here's what the Mayo Clinic has to say about infant feeding. It would seem that at least a portion of that bonding comes from human touch, not just the quelling of appetite.)
The press release quotes the product's developer as saying: "As a mother, I knew there had to be a better way than just propping the baby's bottle up on a blanket or pillow, which are neither sturdy not dependable."
Most health experts are champions of family meal time, saying that it not only promotes good eating habits, but also fosters better communication and contributes to that all-important quality time.
But does it also help curb childhood obesity? Maybe.
Research published in the August issue of the journal Obesity tracked family meals and weight levels among younger and older adolescents for five years. Among 2,516 demographically mixed middle and high schoolers, little correlation was seen between frequency of family meals and being overweight, except among one group — younger teen girls.
At the beginning of the study, middle school girls who never ate meals with their families were about three times more likely to be overweight, after controlling for age, race and socioeconomic status. After controlling for more factors, including physical activity and calorie intake, the rate was virtually the same. However, after five years there was no significant correlation. No other links were found in older girls, or younger or older boys, between family meal frequency and being overweight.
"I was hoping we’d find a significant relationship so that kids who eat more meals with their families were at less risk for being overweight," says the study’s lead author Jayne Fulkerson, associate professor in the school of nursing at the University of Minnesota. "But we don’t know what people are eating at meals. The family that’s eating dinner at McDonald’s might have great communication and quality time together, but that meal nutritionally isn’t going to prevent them from being overweight."
Although Fulkerson isn't sure why things change as girls get older, for younger teen girls, "Food is a bigger issue, and this is showing that when they’re younger, eating meals together is helpful for them."
She adds that this shouldn’t be a message to parents to ditch family meals altogether: "Parents should be aware that there are some good benefits to eating meals with kids. Kids who eat with their parents might have better dietary intake, and they can learn good eating habits. Even if we don’t know what they’re eating at meals — and they should be offering healthful things like fruits and vegetables — the psycho-social benefits are great."
Fulkerson is currently at work on a pilot study to determine what families do eat at mealtime.
Cough and cold medicines are perfectly safe for children, say the drugs' manufacturers. But to be on the even-safer side, they're going to recommend that kids younger than 4 not take them.
The Consumer Healthcare Products Assn. said in a statement today:
"After consulting with FDA, the leading manufacturers of these medicines are voluntarily transitioning the labeling on oral OTC pediatric cough and cold medicines to state 'do not use' in children under four years of age; these modified labels will continue to provide dosing information for children four and older. In addition, for products containing certain antihistamines, manufacturers are voluntarily adding new language that warns parents not to use antihistamine products to sedate or make a child sleepy."
(In other words, that last bit says, parents shouldn't dose a kid just so they can have a peaceful night -- or avoid pariah status on transcontintental flights.)
The move comes on the heels of a public hearing last week at which pediatricians urged the Food and Drug Administration to immediately ban such medicines for young children. The agency declined to go that far just yet. Apparently there's a fear that parents -- wanting to do something, anything -- would give their kids adult drugs instead.
Many cough and cold medicines for children under age 2 were pulled from store shelves last year amid wrestling, or pre-emptive wrestling, over the same issue.
Asked Karin Klein recently in the L.A. Times blog Opinion LA:
"If a medicine can't do more than a placebo, why continue to give the medicine, which can have side effects, aside from that OTC pediatric meds are a big money-maker?"
Having trouble deciding on just the right animal to stop the endless chorus of "Please, can we get a pet? Please, please?" Think a dog or cat is too much trouble? Add the journal Pediatrics to your consult-before-buying reading list.
A report in the October issue acknowledges that being around animals can be good for kids -- providing educational opportunities and all that -- and then details the many, many ways such exposures can go horribly wrong. The authors focus specifically on what it terms nontraditional pets (various rodents, reptiles, nonhuman primates and the like) and those animals found in public settings such as petting zoos and parks.
Rodents: salmonella, plague, anthrax, tularemia, ringworm and assorted parasites. The hedgehog comes in for special criticism -- Beatrix Potter be hanged -- because of those spines. Turns out, they can break skin, allowing microbes to enter more easily.
Nonhuman primates: herpes B infections that can cause fatal meningoencephalitis. Don't get hung up on the "meningoencephalitis." "Fatal" is the operative word.
Then there are the petting zoos and exhibits. The related risks include injuries of various stripes, allergies and sure, rabies.
The authors, who clearly are not fans of nontraditional pets and don't pretend to be, refer to various guidelines and safety measures. They also conclude that pediatricians and veterinarians should weigh in on pet selection. Perhaps carelessly, however, they neglect to recommend the merits of a pet rock -- usually only a danger if large and owned by an older sibling.
Tami Dennis, who takes the word "skeptic" to previously uncharted territory, is the Times' Health and Science editor. She's adamant that pitches promoting awareness days, weeks or months are, by their nature, non-stories. And, because she's an adult, she refuses to use words like "veggies," "tummy" and "yummy."
Rosie Mestel, deputy Health and Science editor, studied genetics before abandoning flies, fungi and DNA for health/medical writing. Her hero is the biologist Ernst Haeckel, whose jellyfish paintings inspired snazzy chandeliers. Her favorite toast-spread is Marmite, a British delicacy made of yeast extract. Her least-favorite word is "millenniums."
Melissa Healy is a staff writer for the Health section reporting from Washington D.C. Healy's a veteran of The Times' National staff, having covered the Pentagon, Congress, poverty and social welfare, the environment, and the White House before shifting to Health in 2003. She writes frequently about mental health and human behavior, about federal health policy, prescription medication and ethics in medicine. More wonk than wellness freak, Healy chooses to believe in the health benefits of coffee and wine, and considers water a better work-out medium than beverage.
Karen Kaplan covers genetics, stem cells and cloning. She and colleague Thomas H. Maugh II comprise about 25% of the unofficial MIT-Alumni-in-Journalism Club, and she is proud to have taken more math (5) than English (0) courses in college. Her contributions to Booster Shots will, she hopes, appear more frequently than postings to her mommy blog.
Thomas H. Maugh II has been a science and medical writer at the Times for 23 years. Before that, he was on the staff of the journal Science for 13 years.
He has bachelor's degrees in English and chemistry from MIT and a doctorate in chemistry from UC Santa Barbara.
After a brief stint as a sports writer, Shari Roan turned to health journalism and has covered the topic for The Times for 18 years. She is the author of three books and the mother of two daughters, both teenagers who refer to her as a "health freak." She likes to jog, watch baseball and is very happy that dark chocolate contains some health benefit.
Jeannine Stein writes about fitness, sports medicine and obesity for the Health section. She’s a gym rat from way back and never met an elliptical trainer she didn’t like. Well, maybe one or two. She tempers exercise with a steady diet of reality television because she believes it’s all about balance.
OK, so maybe the evolutionary biologist puts the question a little differently: If the goal of any organism is to pass on his or her genes, why do females go on living beyond their reproductive years? 
The CDC's 
Research published in the August issue of the journal 
