Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Scioso t1_j4qref5 wrote

This is actually a big deal. OP just linked the press release, but this was in Nature (one of the most important research journals) publication.

From the paper,

“The results were independent of the education level, occupation, marital status and health of the children’s parents as well as the socio-economic disadvantage in the residential area.”

Generally I’m a cynic and quickly can find reasons to scoff at what I see on Reddit. This isn’t one of them.

This may be a “huh” moment that spurns on a lot of research in many fields.


CirqueDuSmiley t1_j4r0x52 wrote

Nature Scientific Reports is very much not the same as Nature


dashmesh t1_j4r5dwu wrote

What's the difference is scientific reports unreliable?


XYcritic t1_j4rphfp wrote

No but it's a different journal and comes with a lower threshold to get something published.


DATY4944 t1_j4rfl6w wrote

Is there something you can do to help your kid "catch up" if mom didn't get as much nature exposure when the child was breastfeeding?


Scioso t1_j4rl6y9 wrote

Not a doctor, nor anyway an expert in children.

I’d say right now it’s nothing to worry about, and may end up being practically irrelevant.

This is a new study, with a mainly unexplained mechanism (the breakdown of why things happen the way they do).

It will be years before any meaningful result filters out to a layperson.

Even if this is actually useful knowledge (seems like it might be), it very likely will be rolled into another theory/ used to confirm something else.

In ten years you’ll probably see a litany of products on the shelves that advertise providing the same thing as actual nature. Likely, they will all be varying degrees of ineffective.

However, as a scientist, this is a big step BECAUSE of what it could help to happen. Science is a ton of confirming ideas that are pretty much solved, so things like this are interesting.