Guest Post: What the World Looks and Sounds Like to a Newborn Baby

Hi-ResBrinkCover I am delighted to have a guest post from Author Susan Brink today. Susan’s book, The Fourth Trimester: Understanding, Nurturing, and Protecting an Infant Through the First Three Months, was released a few weeks ago. I really enjoyed this book. It is billed as an “operating manual” for newborns, but it read to me more like an “understanding manual.” This is actually more helpful, because if you can understand why your newborn is doing the things she’s doing, you’re on your way to figuring out how you and your baby will survive and thrive in this period. The Fourth Trimester includes chapters on crying, sleeping, feeding, sound, sight, touch, physical development, and stimulation. Each is full of both science (well-cited, I might add) and stories from real parents. The sight and sound chapters were two of my favorites, so I’m happy that Susan chose these topics for her guest post on Science of Mom. Enjoy!

WHAT THE WORLD LOOKS AND SOUNDS LIKE TO A NEWBORN BABY

By Susan Brink

Imagine yourself in Paris, and you don’t speak French. Pretend for a moment that you’re from rural America, have never seen a big city much less the elegant capitol of France, and you’re trying to cross the Champs-Elysees at the Arc de Triomphe. You dare not step into traffic, you can’t read the street signs, and you cannot understand what people are trying to tell you. Sights and sounds overwhelm you. Nothing makes sense.

That’s something to think about when wondering what the world looks and sounds like to a newborn baby. But there’s more. Dr. Alison Gopnik, professor of psychology at the University of California, Berekley, adds two elements to the confusing mix: love and caffeine. “You want to know what it’s like to be a baby?” says Gopnik. “It’s like being in love for the first time in Paris after four double espressos. It’s fantastic. It’s a wonderful state to be in. And very likely, you’ll wake up at three a.m….crying.”

We look into a newborn baby’s eyes and wonder what he sees. We watch her reactions and wonder what she hears. But now we’ve got a wealth of recent research into what newborns see and hear that adds scientific chops to what parents have been imagining for ages.

Vision

After counting fingers and toes, the first thing most parents do is gaze into their infants’ eyes. We tell ourselves that they’re looking right back. But what, exactly, do they see?

We know that vision is the least developed sense at birth. Babies have heard their mothers’ voices through layers of flesh and organ for nine months already, and they recognize her voice at birth. But they have no similar recognition of her face. Already, they can discern contrast and are drawn to the shadows of eye sockets and the edges of faces. But vision has multiple components, including focus, contrast, coordination between eyes, depth, distance, and color. Their developing brains must lay down dendrites and create synapses between cells in visual areas of the brain, the networks that send and receive signals.

Even as that important brainwork is going on, parts of the eye itself must physically develop. At birth, an infant can project a clear image onto the retina, the light-sensitive tissue at the back of the eye. The images are converted to electric signals and sent on to the brain to interpret. But the fovea, the part of the retina that gives good, detailed vision, is not yet mature. The muscles controlling coordination of binocular vision aren’t yet strong. And the brain architecture that will eventually interpret the signals is not yet up and running. So when a newborn baby looks at an object, the clear image received by the retina falls on a fovea too immature to transmit a clear image to visual areas of the brain. And those visual areas are themselves just beginning to form. In time, the fovea will mature and pass on clear images. And with every visual sensation, the brain adds structure to enable more complete vision.

With every open-eyed observation that passes their way, information is making its way from the eye to the developing visual centers of the brain.

In other words, vision develops through the inevitable practice of looking around.

IMG_4085

What Infants See Right Away

Almost from birth, infants are drawn to contrast. We tell ourselves that the baby is looking right into our eyes. If she is, it’s because she notices the contrasting shadow of the eye socket. But it’s equally likely she’s looking at the edge of our face because she’s drawn to the contrast of head against background. For example, newborns can see measurable contrast between very light and very dark objects. At a distance of one foot, they can see high contrast black lines on a white board—lines only 1/16” wide. They notice movement of large, high-contrast objects. In another month, they’ll see some reds and greens. By two months, they’ll be drawn to all the details a loving face, not just the edges and shadows; and they’ll begin to respond to more subtle motions, like the movement of a hand in front of their faces.

There is important visual work going on in the months before a baby actually sees. If the visual pathways, ripe for development early in life, are completely blocked during crucial early periods, the result will be permanent visual impairment. But relax. A healthy baby living within anything resembling a normal human environment will not have those critical pathways blocked.

Research using animal models in the 1960s showed why early visual experience is so important. In experiments done with newborn kittens, scientists sewed shut one eye of each kitten and left it that way for several weeks. When the sutures were removed and the eye allowed to open, the kitten still could not see from that eye, even though the eye was perfectly healthy. What the experiment showed was that if the eye and brain fail to make connections during crucial periods of development, the visual cortex undergoes dramatic reorganization and vision never develops normally.

David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel, Nobel Prize–winning scientists who pioneered this vision work, repeated their work with monkeys. They found that in the normal monkey brain, there are columns of neurons in the visual cortex. Each column receives input from one eye, and the columns alternate between those dominated by information sent from the left eye and those dominated by information from the right eye. The alternating columns allow the brain to start putting that information together as binocular vision.

But among the monkeys deprived of vision in one eye, the neural columns dominated by the seeing eye became wider. The neural columns associated with the blinded eye became narrower. It became clear that in order for monkeys or kittens to see normally, they had to have visual experiences during the earliest weeks of their lives. Without it, the brain’s capacity to make the necessary neural connections was gone.

But the world provides exactly the right visual stimulation for healthy infants without the need of special toys or mobiles. We all have blue sky above, and green trees below and the view of the firmament through branches is a glorious feast of vision. And quite simply, there is nothing an infant likes better than a close-up view of a parent’s face.

It’s a difficult and imprecise business, knowing what a baby is seeing or recognizing. But parents and babies have always gazed into one another’s eyes. It’s deeply rooted, it’s bonding, it’s complex—and it’s important.

Sound

A fire truck screaming, a vacuum cleaner roaring, a talk show host droning, grown-ups chattering, children nattering, dishes clattering. For a newborn baby, the sounds are all there, but the brain isn’t ready to assign more or less importance to any one of them. As a fetus, he heard most of it before, but in utero the sounds were mercifully muffled, almost soothing. The most soothing of all sounds in the new world no doubt is also the most familiar—mother’s voice. Newborns recognize their mothers’ voices, turning toward them more readily than toward any other voices.

Hearing is the most highly developed sense at birth—but newborns cannot yet discern what is worth listening to and what can be safely ignored. They don’t yet have the skill to know where a dog bark ends and a screaming sibling begins, much less to know where one word ends and another begins.

But during the first three months of life, they set about the work, bit by bit, of organizing the sounds around them.

Sorting Through the Din

Think of newborn hearing as a passive exposure with the baby’s brain soaking up sounds and being bathed in the acoustics of his surroundings. Just as each little peek of vision is sculpting new brain circuitry to enable sight, each phrase and sentence sets up the brain wiring that will soon allow the baby to understand where one word ends and another begins. Long before she utters her first “ma-ma” or “da-da,” she’s building the foundation for speech and understanding language.

Babies begin to learn language by listening. And they need to hear human voices. Television and video doesn’t work. That’s because part of what’s needed to learn is human interaction. They learn early on that even their accidental sounds—a burp, a sneeze, a hiccup—get a reaction: a back pat, a gesundheit, a startled look. Soon, another kind of accident happens. The baby leans his head back, the tongue hits the roof of the mouth, and a “g” or “k” sound emerges as he exhales an “oo” sound. It’s a coo! And research tells us that when parents coo back, infants respond by babbling more.

All babies around the world are born with the ability to recognize every sound made in every language on earth. But within months, we lose that ability. The brain is an efficient organ, and just as it’s busy building the connections it will need, it also works at pruning away those neurons that will not be needed.

Dr. Patricia Kuhl, a neuroscientist and professor of speech and hearing at the University of Washington and a leading expert on speech development, discovered why it is that Japanese people have difficulty mastering the ra and la syllables of the English language. Dr. Kuhl and her colleagues tested infants using special pacifiers connected to computers. The infants loved new sounds, and sucked up to eighty times a minute to keep the sound going. But infants, like all of us, get bored with repetition. They eventually slowed down after hearing the same sound over and over. Then as a new sound was introduced, they again sped up their sucking.

Using these special pacifiers, researchers found that infants as young as one month of age heard all sound distinctions— the ones that would become part of their native language, as well as others that they were unlikely to hear as adults. The Japanese babies in the study could tell there was a change in sound when they heard rake and then lake. Japanese adults cannot make the distinction—even the Japanese scientists involved in the experiment couldn’t do it.

When tested at ten months of age, the Japanese babies could no longer make the distinction. If they heard the ra sound long enough to get bored, and then the sound changed to la, they remained bored and inattentive. Whatever inborn ability they had to make the distinction was lost to brains that were preparing themselves for the sounds that would be needed in Japan.

And so it is around the world. A French baby and an American baby have the same ability, for several months, to hear the guttural, rolling r of the French language. Within ten months, the American baby has lost it, and if she tries to learn the French language as a teen or an adult, the unnatural attempt to say rouge or après can be challenging, if not downright embarrassing.

Babies love the sound of voices, the lilt of language. They want it to be interactive. They want to connect facial expressions to words, and every word you utter—for this brief period of time—will be completely fascinating to this listener.SusanBrinkHeadshot

It seems that, once again, nature and biology know what they’re doing in giving sound a head start on vision The world is a confusing enough place to enter with good hearing. It’s probably best that infants are more able to begin understanding sounds as their brains quietly go about the business of developing vision.

Susan Brink is a freelance medical writer. Her book, “The Fourth Trimester: Understanding, Nurturing, and Protecting an Infant Through the First Three Months,” is published by the University of California Press and was released March 20, 2013.

Guest Post: A Parent’s Experience with Childhood Apraxia of Speech

     Lucky us, we have another guest post today! This comes at a good time for me, because Cee was sick and home from childcare for most of last week, which was coincidentally the first week of teaching this term for me. It’s incredible how much 4 days of a sick kid can set you back. I’m still catching up on my teaching responsibilities and book project schedule, so I’m happy to have a few stellar writers standing in for me on the blog this week.
     David Ozab is a local writer and father. We met last year at the only bakery in town that has both flaky croissants and a sandbox. A few months ago, I posted a review of a book about language development, Beyond Baby Talk. This caught David’s attention, because he has had a personal experience with his daughter’s language delay caused by Childhood Apraxia of Speech, a condition affecting somewhere between 1 and 10 kids per 1000. He is writing a book about it, and he shares some of his experience here for us.
______________________________________________________________________________
A Parent’s Experience with Childhood Apraxia of Speech

By David Ozab

“Don’t worry, she’ll catch up.”

I heard that sentence from so many parents around Anna’s second birthday. We were worried about her speech; she was talking all the time but we could barely understand her while kids her age and younger spoke clearly. “Don’t worry she’ll catch up,” people would say. I said the same thing to myself. I figured it would just happen. Her speech was like an out-of-focus photograph. Sooner or later, I thought, it would snap into focus.

My wife Julia wasn’t buying it. She thought something was wrong, and she was right.

We might have realized there was a problem sooner if she hadn’t talked at all, but she babbled constantly since she was a baby. She interacted with everyone around her, so we knew she wasn’t autistic. She understood everything we said, so we knew her language comprehension was fine. She even sight-read a handful of words. Granted, they were animal names and she didn’t say the names, she made the sounds. But she knew what the words were.

We would write on her Magnadoodle:

D-O-G

“Woof.”OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

C-A-T

“Meow.”

P-I-G

“oink.”

C-O-W

“Moo.”

F-R-O-G

“Ribbit.”

So we knew she was smart, but she wasn’t talking and she wasn’t catching up.

What we didn’t know was that Anna had something we never expected; something we’d never heard of. Continue reading

10 Tips for Transition to Child Care (From a mom who got it all wrong)

I’m excited to host a guest post by blogger Jessica Smock, an educator, mom, and almost-finished PhD student. Jessica has only been blogging at School of Smock since the new year, and she’s already turned out a ton of thought-provoking and informative posts about education and parenting. Today, she writes about her son’s transition to child care. It’s a sort of confession, because as you’ll learn, it didn’t go so well. The upshot is that she turned her experience into a useful guide for parents approaching this transition. Enjoy her post, and please feel free to add your own experiences and advice in the comments below.

_____________________________________________________________________________

10 Tips for Transition to Child Care (From a mom who got it all wrong)

By Jessica Smock

I thought I had done my all of my homework, as a diligent parent, researcher and educator.

As a new parent, it can be a tough, long process finding the right child care for your child. You have to think about what your needs are: a small, intimate, home-like environment or a fully-accredited, educationally focused child care center; location (at home, close to home or work); your budget; your schedule… Next, you have to do your research, using friends, family, or a local or national referral agency, to identify providers that meet your needs and have openings. And then you should visit facilities and talk with the providers, asking them questions about their curriculum, sick child policy, discipline philosophy, caregiver experience and training, feeding and nap schedules. Finally, you sometimes just have to use your parental instincts, going with your gut about whether a provider will match your family’s parenting style and your kid’s temperament.

I had done all this before my son started a fantastic preschool program.  So why was my son’s transition to day care a complete disaster?boydaycare photo

My son had started off when he was six months old with a few different babysitters that came to my home a few times a week while I wrote and worked on my dissertation. He did well with this and loved playing with his young, energetic babysitters, but it wasn’t meeting my needs. I couldn’t concentrate in our small house with the constant chaos and noise that surrounds a baby. So I started looking into child care centers in my new city. I thought I was more than capable of doing this. I was a teacher and curriculum coordinator for more than a decade, with a Master’s and nearly a doctorate in the education field. I had worked as a research fellow for a social research nonprofit in Cambridge, where my major responsibility was helping to write a research report of high-performing child care facilities in Massachusetts. I had interviewed dozens of providers across the state and country, as well as state education heads and early childhood researchers from Harvard and other local universities, and helped to create a framework for evaluating child care providers.

I didn’t think at all about what happened after I chose the program. Continue reading

Guest Post: The Twinkle Light Model of Autism and the Brain

By Nathalia Holt

Little wisps of blonde hair peek through before Eleanor’s head pops up from behind the chair. She gives me a big smile, a wave, and then runs off, yelling ‘bye-bye’ at the top of her little lungs. Eleanor is our first child, she’s twenty-months-old, constantly oscillating between feisty and willful, silly and sweet. At this age it’s almost as if you can see the neurons connecting in her brain, each new experience bringing the world closer to her tiny baby fingers. As a scientist and nervous first time mom, I know that twenty months is not only a critical age in development but also the best time to catch the early symptoms of autism spectrum disorder.

A decade ago, diagnosing a child younger than three with autism was unheard of. In the years since, several studies have shown us that when autism is caught sooner, before two years old, and is accompanied by early therapy, the outcome is better. Children receiving early therapy not only have significantly higher IQs, but their everyday skills, like brushing teeth and having dinner with their family, are improved. These findings have led to a push in early intervention. After a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics last year, many pediatricians use an autism questionnaire at the twelve-month check-up. The idea being, the sooner the disease is spotted, the sooner it can be treated, and the better the ultimate outcome.

This year the CDC reported a shocking increased prevalence in autism. The number of children being diagnosed is up 78% since 2002. This statistic has sparked fiery debate. Once centered on the debunked role of vaccines, today we have new questions to argue about. Is increased prevalence the result of increased awareness? Better screening? An unknown environmental contributor? Does a genetic basis exist?

There are a few things we do know about the cause of autism. Autism tends to run in families. Supported by the Autism Genome Project, hundreds of patients have had their genomes screened. The findings have been remarkable; certain mutated genes are highly associated with the disease, seemingly passed down across generations. These genes encode synaptic proteins, proteins that bridge neurons and are critical to the collective electrical signaling of the nervous system. Think of these networks like a strand of twinkle lights. When the wires connecting the bulbs together begin to fray, the entire strand stops working properly, blinking in and out. Intriguingly, these genes are implicated in other neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. However, this research has been seriously hampered by the lack of an animal model for autism. After all, what kinds of experiments are safe to do in children?

Researchers at several universities have addressed this by knocking out the function of these genes in mice. They then painstakingly followed their behavior, tracking their social interaction and communication. They found that mice with the mutated version of these genes displayed hyperactivity, repetitive grooming and abnormal vocal and social behavior, in essence, the classic symptoms of autism. For the first time, a clear physiological mechanism for autism has been uncovered.

Building on this, research published in Nature this past June, shows that there may be a way to improve the social behavior of these genetically impaired mice. By stimulating the proteins lost in autism-associated genes, researchers were able to rescue the function of a signaling molecule on the surface of neurons that is critical to memory and learning. This treatment lifted the telltale signs of autism, resulting in mice with normal social interaction.

This month, new research, pursuing innovative, early therapies for autism was published in Nature. Researchers treated a mouse model of Dravet’s syndrome, characterized by impaired learning and autism spectrum behavior, with a drug called clonazepam. Treatment with this drug completely rescued the social behavior of the mice by repairing communication between genetically impaired neurons. This exciting work is the latest chapter in a new trend in studies that highlight the genetic foundation behind some autism disorders as well as the potential for new childhood therapies.

Autism is complex; this type of treatment may or may not result in a viable future therapy. Yet this work has the potential to usher in a new wave of autism therapy, one in which we are able to map genetics to brain function, where children receive personalized therapy specific to their genetic make-up. We’re not there yet, but as I fret over my toddler’s building social skills, I’m hopeful about the future of autism.

Nathalia Holt, Ph.D. is an HIV fellow at the Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard University. Nathalia is interested in how the individual experiences of patients and physicians influence medical research. She is currently writing on her first book, THE TWO BERLIN PATIENTS, exploring the personal stories behind two of the most influential HIV cases and the future of the epidemic, to be published by Dutton/Penguin. Nathalia lives in Boston, MA with her husband and baby daughter. Follow her blog and on twitter @nathaliaholt.

Guest Post: Organic Versus Conventional Milk: Health Issues And Environmental Perspectives

Last week, guest poster Joanna Samuelson Lidback explained that milk – conventional or organic – is safe to drink and why her family has chosen to remain a “conventional” farm. Today, we have another guest post, this one from Kirstin Hendrickson, on health and environmental problems with large-scale dairy farming.

You may be wondering why on earth we’re spending so much time talking about milk on a parenting blog. That’s a good question, and I admit that we’ve gotten a bit off topic. However, I think that Americans, and especially our children, are far too disconnected from their food supply. It is important for us to understand where our food comes from and the impact of our buying decisions – and to pass that understanding on to our kids. Kirstin gives us more food for thought on organic vs. conventional milk, and I hope that the respectful discussion of these issues continues.

Organic Versus Conventional Milk: Health Issues And Environmental Perspectives

By Kirstin Hendrickson

Ah, the organic versus conventional debate. It’s easy to get overwhelmed by information flying around — much of which seems to change on a daily basis — with regard to whether organic is safer and healthier, or a scam directed at fearful parents. There are some important health issues associated with organic foods, but I don’t want to get into those in this post. Instead, I want to address all the reasons to buy organic food — specifically, organic milk — that AREN’T associated with individual health. Or at least, aren’t ostensibly associated with individual health. Continue reading

Guest Post: It’s Okay to Buy Plain ‘Ole Milk

Today’s guest post comes from Joanna Samuelson Lidback, a Vermont dairy farmer and a friend of mine from my undergraduate days at Cornell. I invited Joanna to submit a post about the differences in organic and conventional milk from both a farmer’s and a consumer’s perspective. I’m glad that she accepted, because I think her voice is important. Most of us buy milk every week, and yet when was the last time you sat down with a dairy farmer and talked with her in-depth about her farming practices?

Joanna’s story is personal; she’s writing about her family history and her livelihood. I expect that some of you will disagree with her conclusions about the value of organic milk, and that’s OK. I hope her post raises the level of awareness around farming practices in general and stimulates respectful discussion about our buying decisions. And if anyone is interested in submitting a guest post with another view, I always welcome that, as long as it is backed by science and/or personal experience.

Without further ado…

It’s Okay to Buy Plain ‘Ole Milk

By Joanna Samuelson Lidback

I was pretty excited when Alice asked me if I wanted to take a stab at this topic. In an effort for full disclosure up front, my husband and I are dairy farmers and fall into the conventional category, though we don’t use rBST either. We do support all dairy farmers, however, and support offering choices for consumers when it comes to food. I tried to remain as neutral as I could as I wrote this post, which was itself a lesson in humility for me. I have friends who are organic dairy farmers and of course did not want to offend them in my writing. I do have great respect for what they do and the added layers of management to maintain certified organic status. And oh, by the way, I’m not usually as research-oriented as Alice is, but I gave it a shot!

My husband dairy farmer (DF) and I have a 30-cow dairy farm. That means we milk 30 cows. We also raise our own “youngstock” (young animals not yet in the milking herd) plus a few steers; so we have a total of about 65 head of cattle that we care for, both Holsteins and Jerseys at our farm. The Jerseys go back to a 4-H dairy project that I started with my family when I was a kid. They are all registered with names and unique personalities. Some of them have been with me for a long time, with one family going back to the very first calves we owned. The Holsteins are my DF’s and they too have their own personalities but numbers instead of names, as they are not registered. We do have pet names for some of them, though, typically related to appearance or something that happened – like Pip, Slurpy and Whitey. Regardless, they are all now “our” girls.

My guess is that as you approach our place and see our girls grazing our rolling green hills in Northeast Vermont, you would maybe assume we are an organic herd. We are not, and I will get into the why not at the end of this post. Continue reading

Truth from the Dairy Aisle: Is Milk from Cows Receiving rbST Safe for my Family?

Today’s guest post comes from a dear friend of mine, Dr. Katie Schoenberg. Katie and I overlapped during our undergrad years at Cornell, but I didn’t actually meet her until we worked together in the Nutrition Lab at Smithsonian’s National Zoo, the first job out of undergrad for both of us. We bonded over analyzing desert tortoise urine and freeze-dried sea urchins (yes, really), and we had enough fun that we both stayed in science! Katie went on to earn her M.S. at University of Maryland and her Ph.D. from Cornell University, where she is currently a postdoc. She’s also a new mom to a beautiful 11-week-old daughter.

I invited Katie to write a guest post for ScienceofMom a while back, and lucky for us, she agreed. Katie’s research is focused on dairy cows, so I asked her what she thought about the safety of milk from cows treated with rbST. Being a stellar scientist and a conscientious mom, I knew I could trust her to give us the low-down on rbST. I’m especially grateful to Katie for putting this post together during her maternity leave, between diaper changes and feeding her baby girl. Her answer to this question may surprise you, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts about how you make food-buying decisions for your family.

Truth from the Dairy Aisle: Is Milk from Cows Receiving rbST Safe for my Family?

By Katie M. Schoenberg, Ph.D.

I have a B.S., M.S., and PhD in Animal Science and study the nutrition and metabolism of dairy cattle.   Recently, I gained a new title:  Mom.  Throughout my pregnancy and during the first 11 weeks of our daughter’s life I have enjoyed combining my zeal for the scientific method, my scientific expertise in pregnancy and lactation, and my newly acquired non-fact-based (though hormonally driven) motherly instinct.  This has persuaded me to revisit my own truth on an issue that I have thoroughly researched in the past:  the safety of the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST, also referred to as growth hormone or bGH) in the dairy cows producing the dairy products we consume.  As a new mom, now responsible not only for making healthy choices for myself but also my child, would I feel the same way about the safety of rbST? Continue reading

Guest Post: Mothers With One Child Are Happiest (and a Giveaway!)

Today’s guest post comes from Dr. Susan Newman and discusses the support for choosing to have just one child in the modern family. Dr. Newman has written a book on the same topic, and she is giving away a copy of it to one lucky ScienceofMom reader. See below the post to enter the giveaway. I’m looking forward to some good discussion on this one!

Mothers With One Child Are Happiest

Resisting the temptation and pressure to have more children

by Susan Newman, Ph.D.

Having an only child is desirable from a wide range of viewpoints and practicalities, but that doesn’t make decisions about family size any easier. Going from one child to two (or two to three or more) is a dilemma single parents and couples wrestle with, sometimes for years.

The mother of a three-year-old child talked to me about whether or not she really wants a second child. She is not an isolated case of men and women who are asking the same question.

The husband of an almost 40 year-old wants to give their five-year-old a sibling. His wife doesn’t. She told me that she has weakened and agreed to see a fertility specialist, but isn’t sure she can cope with another child or fertility treatments.

A friend, age 34, has been teetering on the second baby fence for four years, but her resolve is being undone by pressure from her family to have another. She hesitates knowing her job (and promotions) will be in jeopardy if she takes another maternity leave.

Although each situation is unique, the profound confusion surrounding the question of having more children is similar. Some people begin with a very practical approach and ask themselves questions like these: What will we give up in time, money, freedom, intimacy, and job advancement with another child in the household? How thin will we be able to stretch our financial resources? Continue reading

On Parenting, Science, and Trust – and Choosing to Vaccinate

I had a guest post published on the The Mother Geek blog yesterday. If you’re on Facebook, you’ve probably seen it already, but I thought I would post a note about it here since not everyone is on Facebook. Actually, just about the only person I know who isn’t on Facebook is my mom, so this one is for you, Mom:) If you are on Facebook and haven’t yet “liked” the ScienceofMom Facebook page, I invite you to join the Sciency parenting conversation there.

The Mother Geek is written by Jeanne Garbarino, a postdoc at Rockefeller University and a mother of two. I love the mix of writing about science, career, and motherhood on her blog, so when she invited me to submit a guest post for her Momday series, I jumped at the chance.

For my guest post, I chose to write about how being a scientist helps me to trust other scientists and medical professionals when it comes to my child’s health. When the scientific community overwhelmingly supports a parenting practice – like vaccinating our children – I’m on board. If you read my blog, you know that I question other decisions plenty. When it comes to the decision to vaccinate, I trust the science that it is the best thing for my child and for our community.

An excerpt… check out The Mother Geek to read the rest!

Because I trust scientists and doctors, I didn’t question the CDC’s vaccination schedule. I didn’t pore over vaccine research or agonize about the decision to vaccinate my child. Instead, I trusted that the committees of experts at the CDC and AAP carefully make the best recommendations possible based on the data available. Maybe that is naïve. Maybe I am a lazy mother for not trying to become a vaccine expert before I allowed those first needles to enter my daughter’s thigh. Or maybe not.

What would be naïve is for me to think that I could become an expert on vaccinations.  It would be naïve for me to think that I could understand the vaccine field better than the committees of scientists and doctors who have made this their life’s work. I know how much work it took me to become an expert on one or two corners of nutrition and fetal physiology. It took thousands of hours of reading textbooks and journal articles, sitting in lectures, attending conferences, and struggling at the lab bench before I started to feel even a little bit comfortable calling myself an expert in any field. So I think it is naïve for a parent to think that she can become an expert on vaccines by spending some time on the Internet reading questionable sources, almost all of which have some agenda. I accept that I can’t know everything, and I have enough faith in humanity that I trust others who know more than me.

**Added January 18, 2012 — This article was also reprinted on the Australia website, Mamamia! I loved seeing the many supportive comments, as well as a little debate. Check it out here: “On Parenting, Science, and Trust – and Choosing to Vaccinate” on Mamamia.

A Dozen Things Reference Books Won’t Teach You About Raising A Baby (Guest Post from Kristine Wise)

I’m so excited to roll out ScienceofMom’s first ever guest post today! I love the idea that this blog can be a platform for the voices of other parents. In today’s sweet post, Dr. Kristine Wise touches on many of the joys and challenges of first-time parenting, and I’m sure you can relate! I met Kristine when we were both students in the doctoral program in Nutrition at UC Davis, and last year we gave birth to our first children about one month apart. She is a scientist, a teacher, a runner, an amazing cook, a steadfast friend (as in the kind who calls you up after 6 months have slipped by since you last talked and says, “ahem, we need to catch up!”), and now a fabulous mother. Her post is focused on the surprising lessons she’s learned as a stay-at-home mom. Any working moms want to weigh in with their experiences?

A Dozen Things Reference Books Won’t Teach You About Raising A Baby

Guest Post by Kristine Wise, PhD

Ever since I can remember, I’ve wanted to be a mom. I’ve always loved kids and years of babysitting taught me at least the basics of child care. I knew you had to cradle a baby’s neck, I’d changed diapers, and I still remember how important my blanky was to me for many (probably too many) years. I have a wonderful role model in my own mom who makes mothering look easy and fun, so I thought being a stay-at-home mom would be, if not easy, then at least a natural fit for me. In the short year since ET was born he has taught me more than I ever imagined, and I wouldn’t trade being a stay-at-home mom for anything. However, it’s not always fun, and it’s definitely never easy, and at times I still question my qualifications. Here are a dozen of the unexpected lessons I’ve learned and observations I’ve made. Continue reading