Groundbreaking medical research completed by a team at the Institute of Cancer Research, a college of the University of London, working in conjunction with researchers in Japan, discovered that certain cancer cells can cross the placenta of an afflicted mother-to-be into her unborn baby.

Such a link had been suspected previously, with about 17 cases of leukemia and melanoma supposedly passed on from mother to fetus, but genetic “fingerprinting” has established a definite link.

In the most recent case, a Japanese mother died from complications of leukemia one month after giving birth. Eleven months later, her supposedly healthy baby daughter was diagnosed with lymphoma, which is now in remission.

The researchers discovered that cancer cells of both mother and baby carried the identical mutated cancer gene, but the infant had not inherited the gene – instead, it passed through the placenta during the mother’s pregnancy.

Cause for concern?

The fetus’ immune system did not recognize the cancer cells as foreign bodies and so did not destroy them. However, in an article posted on the Guardian website, a UK-based newspaper, Professor Mel Greaves stresses, “The chances of any pregnant woman with cancer passing it on to her child are remote.” Greaves led the research study that uncovered this important link.

Rather than giving pregnant women yet another thing to worry about (the Japanese mother who prompted the study did not know she had leukemia until after she gave birth), the study provides hope for future cancer research and insight into possible cures.

In the same article, Dr David Grant, scientific director at Leukaemia Research, said: “The important message from this … is that leukemia cells can be destroyed by the immune system. Harnessing the power of the immune system to cure and protect patients from leukemia is one of our priority areas of research.”

This story truly is one about finding a glimmer of good out of sad news.

More Facts About Cancer and Pregnancy

According to research, about 1 in every 1,000 pregnant women is diagnosed with cancer, but pregnancy does not cause any form of cancer. Sometimes standard pre-natal testing, such as ultrasounds or PAP smears, may uncover cancers that had gone previously undetected.

On the other hand, symptoms of certain cancers may be similar to symptoms of pregnancy, which can actually delay detection of the cancer.

Breast cancer, occurring in one in every 3,000 pregnant women, is the most common form of cancer during pregnancy.

Treatment of cancer during pregnancy may include:

• Surgery

• Chemotherapy

• Radiation therapy

The latter two treatments are prescribed conservatively, only after careful consideration to their effects on the fetus. Chemotherapy is often safe in the second and third trimesters, with drugs that do not pass through the placenta.

It Can Be Done

Cancer during pregnancy certainly creates additional challenges for the mother-to-be, but with proper supervision, a complication-free pregnancy with a healthy baby can result. Do the results of this study prove differently?

Certainly, mothers with cancer may wish to consider this additional information but in general, I don’t think a cancer survivor determined to reproduce should let this stop her. What do you think?

Here Are Some Helpful links:

WebMD

Cancer.net

Guardian.co.uk

Spanking then

Spanking is supposedly a thing of the past. Just a generation ago, spanking was a common form of discipline. I remember being spanked a couple of times although I don’t think that I was especially problematic as a child. I also remember, coming from a big family with 6 children, that my parents set “age limits” – when kids are too young or too old to be spanked but can’t remember the ages. I never resented my parents for the spankings as long as they were fair and consistent. It was then part of life, part of childhood. I also believe that the spanking didn’t do me any damage but some psychoanalysts think differently.

Spanking now

Spanking nowadays is looked upon as an unacceptable form of corporal punishment. Several research studies report that physical discipline damages the psyche of the child, leading to psychological problems. The new social norm as well as scientific evidence against spanking might be the reasons why I don’t spank my children. It’s not about “I don’t want you to suffer through what I did as a child.” I can’t also claim that my mom loved me less than I love my own kids.

Although the general opinion is that spanking is out, it is still quite widespread in some places and experts are still divided about its costs and benefits. Here are the pros and cons.

Spanking? No way!

Two new studies published in the journal Child Development report that children who experienced physical discipline are more likely to have behavioral problems as adolescents. Associated to the practice of physical discipline are:

• low income

• low educational attainment of the mother

• single parenthood

• family stress

• living in a dangerous neighborhood

However, conservative religious beliefs also seem to promote spanking.

One study, led by Lisa Berlin of the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University suggests (as reported by CNN) that

• Spanking reinforces negative memories.

• Spanking is linked to lower scores in mental development test in 3-year olds

• Spanking predicts aggressive behavior

What I find surprising (and appalling) about the study findings is the fact that children as young as 1 year are being spanked.

Spanking? Why not?

On the flip side, there are also studies which claim that spanking is not that bad.

Robert Larzelere, associate professor of human development and family science at Oklahoma State University based on his research claims:

• Spanking is an effective disciplinary method.

• There is no causal link between spanking and behavioral problems.

• The best use of spanking is at the ages between 2 and 6 in cases milder discipline tactics, such as time out, do not work.

Is physical discipline passed down in families?

Another study reports that current day moms are more likely to follow their own moms’ parenting practices than current day dads from their parents. The researchers looked at three parenting behaviors, namely spanking, physical affection, and reading to their children. Their results showed that moms of today tended to follow closely what their mothers did in all 3 behaviors. In the case of spanking, it is interesting to note that mommies who were spanked as child are more likely to spank their kids compared to daddies spanked as a child. In fact, there is no connection whatsoever in the parenting behavior of today’s daddies compared to their own moms behavior except in the spanking issue. And on this aspect, they moved the opposite way.

Interesting as these results maybe, I can only speak for myself if I say “No, I don’t follow my mom’s parenting style”, especially in terms of spanking and reading. But then, the circumstances were different then. My mom had less income, lower education and more children to take care of.

What I would love to know is what the next generation of parents and scientists have to say about spanking in thirty, forty years’ time…

So what do you think about spanking?

Apparently, it’s not because they want to make us tear out our hair.  Researchers at  the University of Colorado have been studying toddlers and older children, and they’ve decided that toddlers just don’t think the way adults and older children do.

Toddlers live in the present, as the parent of any toddler knows very well. Only what’s happening right now matters to a two or three year old. Trying to explain to a toddler that if they can’t leave their current dollhouse project soon, then there won’t be enough time to go to the park before dinner, is an exercise in futility.

So why can’t toddlers understand that there will be consequences of their actions? Or that what happens now affects what happens in the future? And why don’t they believe us when we say that yes, they really do need their coat on or they will be cold outside?

The researchers aren’t really sure, and they don’t have much helpful advice in getting your toddler to put their coat on. It’s part of the brain’s development process, and gradually children learn to consider what will happen in the future. And then they turn into adults and spend too much time stressing about the future.

But right now, I guess us parents just have to appreciate that our little ones just don’t have a grasp of planning for the future. When we ask our toddlers to do something, we are often asking them to think about something that is going to happen, and toddlers find that very difficult or impossible to understand. And that’s why they can be so resistant or uncooperative when we tell them not to put their fingers in the door hinge or they will get squashed.

Discovery Kids, Sesame Street, Cartoon Netowrk, Disney Channel,…

The choices are almost endless. They are supposed to enhance a little child’s language and cognitive skills. But are they really beneficial as they claim to be?

Dimitri Christakis, a researcher at the Seattle Children’s Research Institute and the University of Washington says such claims are not supported by scientific evidence. Dr. Christakis reviewed 78 research studies published during the last 25 years on the effects of TV on children and the conclusions he got from the reviews were concerning.

Here are some of his findings:

• 9 out of 10 toddlers (under two!) sit in front of the TV regularly, many as much 40% of their waking hours.
• Many parents are not aware of the potential hazards of TV. In a survey, 29% of parents interviewed believe that watching TV is “good for the brains.” Only about 6% are aware that the American Academy of Pediatrics does not encourage TV viewing in the first two years of a child’s life.
• In another study, 1 out of 5 parents interviewed admit they allow kids to watch TV to have a little bit of time for themselves.
• A number of studies indicate that watching TV programs and DVDs during the first 2 years of life can actually delay language development, regardless of the language.
• Another study reported that schoolchildren exposed to TV in their early years performed poorly in reading and memory tests.
• The claims being made by DVD manufacturers and TV producers are not supported by research data from peer-reviewed journals or even by studies supported by the entertainment industry itself.

Some of the reasons of the adverse effects of TV cited by Dr. Christakis are as follows:

• While watching TV, children are exposed to “flashing lights, scene changes, quick edits and auditory cuts which may be over stimulating to developing brains.”
• TV also tends to take the time normally spent on age-appropriate and more beneficial activities like free play, role playing, and interaction with parents and other children.

As a mother of twins, I must admit I was tempted on several occasions to use TV just to get a couple of hours’ of peace. But I am glad to say, I never gave in to the temptation and managed to keep my children “TV-free” during their first 3 years of life. After that, we slowly eased them to TV viewing, with selected shows and films, starting with 10 minutes a day. Now at 5 and a half, they are up to 20 minutes of short cartoons or educational TV shows, whereas some of their classmates have already viewed full-length films like the Pirates of the Caribbean and Harry Potter. I know the time will come when my kids will demand for more TV time. In the meantime, we try to engage their interest in other, more useful activities like sports, art and crafts, reading, and music. Hopefully, their varied interests will help limit their need for TV viewing as they grow older.

Two research studies on the health of premature babies. One gives promising results, the other gives disappointing outcomes.

This research gives hope to parents of preemies. Researchers at the University of Adelaide, Australia found that a fatty acid in the brain is not well-developed when babies are born before the 33^rd week of pregnancy. The lipid has been identified as omega-3 fatty acid known as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and insufficiency of this compound in the preemie’s brain may lead to impaired mental development.

The researchers went on and studied the effect of a DHA-rich diet on preemies’ mental development. DHA supplementation was given through the mother’s milk or the infant formula. Breast milk was enriched with DHA by giving breastfeeding moms 1000 mg DHA per day in the form of tuna capsules.

The study looked at 657 preterm babies and the results showed that:

• Female preemies responded better to DHA enrichment than male preemies, and thus showed better mental development.
• Preemies weighing less than 1250 mg responded well to DHA supplementation.

It is not clear why baby boys did not respond well to DHA. The researchers hypothesized that this may be due to the fact that baby boys have faster metabolic rates than girls. At any rate, more research is necessary before this type of diet can be given to all promise. But it sure is promising.

Another research on preemies, however, did not show positive results. Preemies are highly susceptible to systemic infections because their immune system is not yet well-developed. If they survive the infection, they may suffer from neurological and developmental problems. British researchers investigated whether prophylactic administration of a blood cell growth factor to premature babies can reduce the risk of systemic infection and increase survival of preemies. Blood growth factors would raise white blood cell counts, the blood cells which primarily fight infection. The study results showed that although the white blood cell counts did rise, there was no improvement in infection and survival rates. More in depth studies on neonatal immune system is needed before similar procedures can be applied.

Meet the National Children’s Study, supposedly the largest human health study ever. Its goal is “to improve the health and well-being of children.” However, before they can do this, the researchers involved need to collect data. They will do this by tracking 100,000 children from all over the United States from before birth till the age of 21 and examine the effects of environmental influences on their health and development. By “environment”, the researchers mean

• natural and man-made environmental factors
• biological and chemical factors
• physical surroundings
• social factors
• behavioral influences and outcomes
• genetics
• cultural and family influences and differences
• geographic locations

The study will be conducted by researches in several centers across the US and will cost millions of dollars in funding. So far, pilot studies have been conducted and study centers chosen. The full study is scheduled to begin in 2010.

Now, before they can conduct such a study, they need study participants, specifically families from 105 chosen locations all over the country.

But if I were living in the US, am I (and my family) willing to volunteer and participate? My science background urges me to say “yes.” No doubt about it, the aim of the study is noble and I completely agree that we can learn a lot from the data that will be generated. Wouldn’t it be great if I and my family can help in finding the cure to childhood problems such as autism, asthma, SIDS, ADHS, and obesity?

The private individual in me however hesitates. Imagine being under scrutiny for 21 plus years, with all the family going ons recorded and archived. Imagine having my son’s complete life history documented and digitized, be it his first tooth, his shampoo (chemical environment!), his friends (social factors!), and his school records. How safe would his data be? Can they be used against him later in life?

So what’s your take on this issue?

A PhD candidate at New Zealand’s Canterbury University has found that girls whose fathers are absent tend to enter puberty earlier than their counterparts whose fathers are part of the family unit.

The study looked at pairs of sisters separated in age by at least two years, neither of whom had experienced their first period before the change (or lack thereof) in the father’s presence. There were 68 pairs from father-absent homes and 93 from homes where the father was present. By looking at pairs of sisters, the researcher used a unique in-family design to provide some measure of control against genetic and socio-economic factors.

In addition to the finding that the girls from father-absent homes tended to have their first period earlier, the study also found that younger siblings in father-absent homes had their first period even earlier than their older sisters. This was not the case in father-present homes, possibly indicating a relationship between the amount of time a girl goes fatherless and the timing of her first period.

Source: Absent fathers can cause early puberty in girls: study via The New Zealand Herald

According to research released at the 55th Annual Meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), preschoolers in family or home based child care situations are not meeting physical activity recommendations. With millions of children in some kind of child care situation, and an increasing rate of obesity in young children, studies such as this one should shed light on a growing problem in North America.

However, when a study looks at 27 children (12 boys and 15 girls) spread across seven homes over the course of 86 days, its results cannot be taken blindly. Millions of children are in child care, and they look at only 27? And realistically, the child count is not as important as the child care location count (seven), since arguably the kids from one location would all be doing relatively similar activities. So the ACSM took a look at seven homes over the course of 86 days and made a conclusion. I am not disputing the conclusion, just the means used to come to it.

According to the CDC, children need at least 60 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity per day. Examples of moderate intensity physical activity include brisk walking, playing tag, and swimming.

I am sure that physical activity recommendations are not being met, not only for young children in child care situations, but for kids of all ages. When we, the current generation of parents, were kids, there was no home internet, no all-day preschooler cable network, no video game consoles, no DVDs of television programs and movies and “educational content”. We played outside not because it was the healthy thing to do, but because it was the only thing to do. Now, we, as parents, need to realize that there are more distractions for our kids, more alternatives to physical activity, and take a more involved position in their free time.

And hey, I will be the first to admit that I do a really poor job at keeping my kid active on a daily basis. I come home from work and I’m wiped. I know it can be difficult. If it weren’t for my wife, my daughter would probably watch a lot more television than she does now. She does get out during the day, and we try to get her outside after dinner now that it’s summer and no longer dark at 4pm. The bottom line is we’re not just making sure they meet recommended targets for her health; we’re also developing habits that (hopefully) will stay with her for the rest of her life.

What do you do to keep your young kids active? Do you try to meet the recommendations of the CDC and ACSM? How successful are you? Do you have any tips or tricks to offer other parents when it comes to getting their kids active?

You can read more SciFi Dad at Tales From The Dad Side

A recent study has stated that women who were breastfed as babies have a reduced risk of developing breast cancer. According to the study, women who were breastfed as infants ‘had a 17 percent decrease in breast cancer risk’ note one member of the study team, Hazel B. Nichols. She further stated that, ‘we did not observe this reduction when we looked specifically among first-born women.’

The researchers interviewed over 2016 women between 29 and 60 years old who had breast cancer and 1,960 in the same age group who didn’t. The survey revealed a lower breast cancer risk among women who had older siblings regardless of their mother’s age when she gave birth.

The study team noted as well that additional studies were needed to determine if the length of breastfeeding also impacted the reduction in the risk of developing breast cancer among women who were breastfed.

The article published in Epidemiology, a medical journal suggests that there may also be a link between the ‘levels of environmental contaminants in breast milk and breast cancer’. Previous studies have also indicated that there be well be some connection to contaminants in the environment and breast cancer.

As a firstborn daughter and child, this is not great news to me personally. However, it is important for a lot of women and as a woman I’m glad to know that breastfeeding may help ward off breast cancer for our daughters.

OK, it may seem like I’m on a breastfeeding promotion, but I just find these bit of information when I am surfing the Internet for news. But seriously, with all the information out there, if it is possible to breastfeed – I say go for it. The breast really is best!

However, if you are unable to breastfeed for whatever reason, don’t beat yourself up; just continue taking care of your baby the best way you can. Luckily there are lots of baby formulas on the market fortified with nutrients found only in breast milk.

last week, we covered the recent studies from UK universities that claim diet affects babies gender. In a nutshell, the studies report that high-calorie diets seemed to produce boys, and lower calorie diets produce girls.

Louise Silverton, Deputy General Secretary of The Royal College of Midwives in the United Kingdom, warns women trying to conceive that altering their diet can have serious consequences. It’s long been known that the diet of mothers before and during pregnancy has long-term effects on their health, and the health of their baby. In particular, midwives are concerned that mothers might reduce the nutrients in their diet to try to conceive girls, or overeat unhealthy foods to try to conceive a boy.

There’s no way to guarantee a boy or a girl, except having a “boy” or a “girl” sperm chosen during IVF, which is illegal in many countries except for avoiding gender-dependent diseases.

You can increase your odds of getting a boy or a girl with methods like the Shettles method, the theory involves timing intercourse relative to ovulation. There’s a whole book devoted to the theory, which is based on sound scientific reasoning. But again, it’s no guarantee of a girl or a boy, just an increase in the odds of getting the gender you want.

Getting your man to wear very tight underpants is also reputed to increase the chance of a girl. Extra-tighty whities mean less sperm, and men with low sperm counts tend to father girls. But your husband or boyfriend may veto this idea!

So the bottom line is, without medical intervention, you can’t guarantee a boy or a girl. So don’t follow some weird diet to try to get one or the other. I was very anti-boy before I got pregnant, and guess what – my baby was a boy. I knew I needed to deal with the fact I could be having a girl, and every mom needs to be open to having a girl or a boy as early as possible. Here’s how I got my head around having the “wrong” gender.

• Midwives Concerned At New Diet And Baby Gender Research, UK

Every year, more than 3 million babies worldwide die at birth as stillborn babies. In the US alone, over 10,000 babies are stillborn each year. There are many factors behind the problem and one of them is preterm delivery.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has recently given a 1 million USD study grant to the Seattle Children?s Hospital Research Institute. The study aims to explore ways of preventing stillbirth and prematurity on a global scale. Researchers at the Seattle hospital will lead the project but other pediatric researchers from other American institutions as well as from Brazil, South Africa, and Pakistan are also involved.

Sources:

http://www.seattlechildrens.org/home/about_childrens/press_releases/2008/02/003217.asp

http://www.seattlechildrens.org/prematurity/

Pregnant women have long suspected it to be true, but a new study out of Australia has confirmed it: carrying a baby can make mothers-to-be more forgetful.

Australian scientists have found that a woman’s memory can be impaired for at least one year after she gives birth, although the effects are minor and generally concern unfamiliar or demanding tasks. “The memory deficits many women experience during and after pregnancy are pretty much like the modest deficits you’d find when comparing healthy 20-year-olds with healthy 60-year-olds,” researcher Julie Henry said.

The study analyzed the results of 14 different global studies that tested the memory performances of more than 1,000 pregnant women, mothers, and women who had not been pregnant. Findings showed that pregnant women performed significantly worse on some, but not all, aspects of the test.

The most difficult tests for the pregnant women were those involving new or difficult tasks. For example, recalling a memorized phone number was easily accomplished; remembering a new phone number or person?s name was harder for the women.

The study, published in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, also suggests that so-called “baby brain” can still be evident even a year after giving birth. But because none of the studies has gone beyond that time, it could not determine whether the problem is permanent.

We all know that folic acid aids in preventing birth defects of the brain and spinal cord called neural tube defects (NTDs). In addition, studies have shown that it can prevent other birth defects, including cleft lip and palate, and some heart defects. The March of Dimes recommends that women who are or plan to become pregnant take a multivitamin that contains 400 micrograms of folic acid daily starting before pregnancy, as part of a healthy diet. Folic acid is recommended for all women of child-bearing age because about 50% of all pregnancies are unplanned, the organization reports.

But did you know that taking folic acid may also help prevent premature births? Researchers at the 28th Annual Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) meeting unveiled a study that revealed women who took folic acid supplements for a year or longer before they conceived had a 70% decreased risk of preterm birth between 20 and 28 weeks of gestation. A year of folic acid supplementation dropped the risk of delivering during weeks 28-32 by 50%.

A premature birth is defined as one that occurs before 37 weeks of gestation, says the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Improved medical knowledge and technology have made survival for these small infants more likely; of babies born at 28 weeks or later, 90% are expected to survive, according to the NIH.

Folic acid is important in maintaining health for everyone. It has been known for a long time that folic acid plays an important role in producing normal red blood cells. People who are deficient in folic acid sometimes develop a form of anemia called megaloblastic anemia, which is characterized by a reduced number of red blood cells.

Folic acid may also play a role in preventing other health problems, the March of Dimes reports.

Before I was married, I took some art classes. One of my projects was a group of figures including a pregnant woman. All my other figures stood up fine but my pregnant lady kept falling over and I ended up having to glue her feet down. And I remember thinking, why don’t real pregnant women fall over?

We know they don’t (except for me in my 9th month trying to put my shoes on), but it turns out some scientists have been wondering the same thing.

Katherine Whitcome, a biological anthropologist at Harvard University, studied the spines of several pregnant women and discovered a previously-unknown-to-medicine anatomical feature that allows a woman’s spine to cleverly adjust to support the weight of the baby

The lower part of a pregnant woman’s spine has adapted to be able to bend backwards and counterbalance the weight of the baby, and women’s vertebra are a different shape to men’s, which allows it to happen relatively comfortably.

I can hear all you pregnant ladies now. My back is killing me! We aren’t perfect, but those neat little design tricks nature has done makes it a whole lot easier than carrying 30-plus pounds around with no adjustments. We do it much better than men with beer bellies!

Products like body pillows and maternity belts can be a great help for relieving backache.

And, tell your husband or boyfriend about this article and get him to give your back a massage tonight. Or run you a lovely warm, bubbly bath. Or both. Pregnant ladies, you are a miracle of evolution. You deserve it!

Source – New Scientist Magazine

A new study done published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology seems to point to a link between caffeine and miscarriage. According to the study, women who consumed over 200 mg of caffeine a day had twice the rate of miscarriage as those who did not. The risk did not change whether the source of the caffeine was tea, soda, coffee, or chocolate.

Researcher Dr. Di-Kun Li says that caffeine is dangerous to developing babies because it passes through the placenta and can be difficult to metabolize. It’s presence may alter cell development and decrease blood flow to the placenta.

If you are expecting, or planning to conceive, you may want to consider monitoring your intake or removing caffeine from your diet all together.

Research at the Baby Lab Project at Uppsala University in Stockholm is studying electromagnetic brain activity in babies by attaching electrodes to their heads whilst they are playing with different objects.

The aim of this research is to tell which part of the brain does what when the child interacts with the world around him. This will help the researchers to discover the differences between brains in those with autism and others. In order to do this they had to develop special light electrodes so that they were not too heavy for the baby.

One of the reasons for the research is to be able to diagnose autistic children sooner and more easily. This will enable treatment to start earlier, currently it is practically impossible to diagnose before the age of 18 months and sometimes it can take much longer, even into adulthood.

Further information

Diet and Neurodevelopmental Delays

Baby has 128 Electrodes Attached to Head in Bid to Discover Secrets of Autism

A study at the University College in London has shown that unsupervised play outside causes children to become healthier and more sociable. These days we are very cautious about letting our children out alone and many children under the age of eleven are not allowed out unaccompanied.

Researchers claim that this can lead to obesity and a lack of independence. Children who go out on their bicycles or down to the park obviously get more exercise and fresh air as well as meeting with more people and having to deal with simple situations that may occur, such as talking to people, buying things in shops and crossing the road. Unfortunately there are often limited facilities available where parents feel safe letting their children go unaccompanied.

Obviously there is legitimate concern about stranger danger. Can this be balanced out with the benefits of allowing children out? Significant problems with strangers are rare, and have not changed much over the years, although we hear a lot about in the news. These days, with mobile phones and other technology, children can go out unaccompanied and, in many circumstances, can easily contact their parents should they run into difficulties.

Further Information

Still, I don’t know how comfortable I would be letting my daughter roam the streets. What are your thoughts?