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. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-27317-1

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.

71

CirqueDuSmiley t1_j4r0x52 wrote

Nature Scientific Reports is very much not the same as Nature

23

dashmesh t1_j4r5dwu wrote

What's the difference is scientific reports unreliable?

6

XYcritic t1_j4rphfp wrote

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

8

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?

2

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.

5