Children Help Their Mothers for Decades

Itninja writes "NPR reported this morning on some interesting findings regarding mothers and their children. From the article: 'Some scientists have proposed that when a woman has a baby, she gets not just a son or a daughter, but a gift of cells that stays behind and protects her for the rest of her life. That's because a baby's cells linger in its mom's body for decades and -- like stem cells -- may help to repair damage when she gets sick. It's such an enticing idea that even the scientists who came up with the idea worry that it may be too beautiful to be true.'"

Comments

Someone's been reading DNA

[HTH NE1]

It's such an enticing idea that even the scientists who came up with the idea worry that it may be too beautiful to be true.

A qualified poet once testified under oath that beauty was truth, truth beauty, and hoped thereby to prove that the guilty party in the case was Life itself for failing to be either beautiful or true. The judges concurred, and in a moving speech held that Life itself was in contempt of court, and duly confiscated it from all those there present before going off to enjoy a pleasant evening's ultragolf.

Yes, there is the "Good Hypothesis": that the cells stay in the mom and try to protect her for the rest of her life.

And yes, there is the "Bad Hypothesis": that the cells gather at inflammation sites and contribute to mom's autoimmune diseases.

But there is also a third hypothesis:

That both of the first two hypothesis were concocted by by a wily editor of The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy in order to increase the level of universal uncertainty and paranoia and so boost sales of the Guide?

Re:Someone's been reading DNA

[tolkienfan]

That is too funny to be absent any Karma. Someone mod parent Insightful!

Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase

[ettlz]

"Service Pack".

Re:Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase

[McNastyMan]

Invest in babies!

Re:Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase

[Craptastic Weasel]

I think you mean "Cervix Pack"...

yeah i know, made me groan too.

Re:Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase

[Amouth]

ouch.. that hurt

i am leaving now

Re:Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase

[ettlz]

"Windows XP Cervix Pack 2". Now that is one CD I don't see Microsoft distributing for free from their web-site.

Interesting...

[KennyP]

Just another gift for perpetuating our species...

I guess /.ers won't have to feel so bad about forgetting Mother's Day now!

Visualize Whirled P.'s

Re:Interesting...

[TubeSteak]

When I read the title "Children Help Their Mothers for Decades" my first thought was "yea, she knows how to take you on a helluva guilt trip."

God help you if you forget Mother's Day.

and FYI to the Slashdot crowd: Valentine's Day is coming up. Send your mother some flowers. Think of it as building up karma... because you're going to need something to burn next time she thinks you ignored her.

Re:Interesting...

[rolfwind]

Valentine's Day is coming up. Send your mother some flowers.

Um, isn't Valentine's Day for romance?

I don't understood that.

Re:Interesting...

[TubeSteak]

Um, isn't Valentine's Day for romance?

I don't understood that.

Just send her some flowers, she'll understand even if you don't.

Re

[Alex P Keaton in da]

So My mom has a fetus cache? Or did I leave a cookie?

Re:Re

[twofidyKidd]

It's Cross-Site Scripting.

I wonder

[netfool]

I wonder if this has anything to do with women living on average, seven years longer than men?

Re:I wonder

[larry bagina]

No. There is no historical statistical correlation between the lifespan of women based on number of children (or even if they had children).

Re:I wonder

[Firehed]

Nope, I'm pretty sure that's more due to the fact that they don't do stupid things as often. Let's be honest here, men are pretty wreckless. How many women do you know go cliffjumping or start street racing just because of the type of car that pulled up next to her at the stop light?

Re:I wonder

[value_added]

Indoor cats live longer.

Re:I wonder

[thatguywhoiam]

Nope, I'm pretty sure that's more due to the fact that they don't do stupid things as often. Let's be honest here, men are pretty wreckless.

nice, your typo contradicted your point :)

Re:I wonder

[antifoidulus]

Actually males have a higher mortality rate even in the womb. There are 1.05 males born for every female, but by the time we get to be around 30, the ratio starts becoming much more even and of course in the over 65 group females outnumber males by a significant margin.

Re:I wonder

[XXIstCenturyBoy]

No. There is no historical statistical correlation between the lifespan of women based on number of children (or even if they had children).

No data doesn't mean its not the case. It mean that no one tested it that way.

Re:I wonder

[TopShelf]

The woman doesn't start street racing at the light because she's too busy putting on makeup while driving! I don't think males have cornered the market on dangerous activities...

Re:I wonder

[Shadowlore]

How many women do you know go cliffjumping or start street racing just because of the type of car that pulled up next to her at the stop light?

Just get yourself a Corvette. You would be suprised by the number of soccer moms in minvans see you pull up next to them and decide "I can take him" and try to street race you.

Joking aside, it is more likely a matter of hazardous *jobs* than risky hobbies. Ho wmany women work(ed) in the mines, served on the front, hunted for the family food, etc.?

Re:I wonder

[Drakai]

Actually, I disagree here. Men do more dangerous things because we are more capable of doing more dangerous things successfully. This isn't just bravado. There is a certain amount of risk assessment to every action a person takes. And depending on how active a person is dictates their self awareness as well as how capable they are of performing a given feat. A given act may be considered objectively dangerous but every act danger level is subjective to the person performing the act.

Men seem to do more dangerous things because they are more likely to survive the 'dangerous' activity. This should balance out the lifespan issue at least somewhat. Plus in modern life the average person isn't excatly the daredevil risk taker, yet the lifespan discrepency remains.

A more interesting study would be comparing the lifespans of women with certain numbers of children. Spinsters, vs. one child, vs. 2 children and so on. It is not just many vs. none since there is also an inherent risk in the act of birthing achild. I would think so anyway. Of course, it might be difficult to separate lifestyle and environment from those studies, but who knows?

Re:I wonder

[Vellmont]

Nope, I'm pretty sure that's more due to the fact that they don't do stupid things as often.

If that were true you'd see a big gender difference at the young ages that men are doing reckless things. That isn't true, and the gender disparity only shows up much later in life. I'm not sure why the difference exists, but I've heard that women get heart disease much less often than men because of the protective effects of estrogen.

Re:I wonder

[smoker2]

I wonder if this has anything to do with women living on average, seven years longer than men?

No, that's because we give them our precious bodily fluids, as often as we can.

Re:I wonder

[smoker2]

Nope, I'm pretty sure that's more due to the fact that they don't do stupid things as often.

Yeah, the streets round here are full of 80 year old ricers !.

The OP said "on average, 7 years longer, not 57 years longer.

Insightful ... hah!

Re:I wonder

[BewireNomali]

Women have higher resting serum levels of growth hormone than men until menopause when they fall. That's where the seven extra years plus come from.

women get extra time because they reproduce. males are overproduced, so we can afford to waste a few doing stupid shit, like you mentioned.

Re:I wonder

[G.E. Leyh]

That could explain why men are about 4x more likely to be killed by lightning strikes than women:
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/severe_weather/light04. pdf

Re:I wonder

[mce]

Actually males have a higher mortality rate even in the womb.

True. That's partly related to the Y chromosome being a crippled one that is largely disfunctional.

... There are 1.05 males born for every female ...

Also true. This again is related to the Y chromosome being a crippled one. Sperm with Y chromosomes is just that tiny bit lighter and therefore swims faster. The same fact explains why, on average, women that have trouble getting pregnant due to certain genetic/environmentl/medical conditions are even more likely to have sons than they are to have daughters if they do manage to get children in the natural way.

..., but by the time we get to be around 30, the ratio starts becoming much more even and of course in the over 65 group females outnumber males by a significant margin.

Also true, but not related to the higher mortality rate in the womb point that you were making.

By the time we get to be around 30, many more males than females have been taken out by stupid testosterone induced accidents, wars, religious fanatism, ... And indeed also by illnesses and weaknesses that are either directly or indirectly influenced by that largely disfunctional Y chromosome.

By the time we get to be 65, other bad habbits that once used to be "almost male only" but that nowadays are increasingly more equally spread, such as smoking, have taken their toll. Lung cancer deaths are clearly on the rise in the female population, but it takes decades for an effect like that to fully show through.

Re:I wonder

[Zerbey]

Actually, more women than men in my experience. Particularly if it's another woman driving. Women can be *mean*.

Re:I wonder

[radtea]

Nope, I'm pretty sure that's more due to the fact that they don't do stupid things as often.

Yeah, like doing all the dangerous jobs. Although the stereotypical testosterone-driven behaviour you cite can't be completely discounted, it is not nearly as important as differences in employment choices, which account for a significant part of the difference in male/female lifespan in the developed world. The most dangerous professions--farmer, faller*, miner, etc--are all male-dominated, and men dominate in workplace areas where hazardous chemicals and carcinogens are most common.

We, as a society, are continually failing our men--encouraging them to behave in ways that shorten their lives and lower their quality of life.

[* a faller is a logger, the guy who actually cuts down trees. It's a good way to die.]

Re:I wonder

[hackstraw]

Nope, I'm pretty sure that's more due to the fact that they don't do stupid things as often. Let's be honest here, men are pretty wreckless. How many women do you know go cliffjumping or start street racing just because of the type of car that pulled up next to her at the stop light?

That is called risk taking. It used to be a valued human male characteristic before being a pussy became the norm.

Risk taking does things like put men on the moon, explore new territory when others believe the world is flat, riot and form new governments, etc.

But, I digress. The woman's way is the right way.

Re:I wonder

[Empty Yo]

Statistically speaking, if you remove deaths due to work accidents, vehicle accidents and war from the death statistics, then men live with a half a year of women. Those three factors combined pretty much account for the seven year difference.

Re:I wonder

[Arwing]

How many women work(ed) in the mines, served on the front, hunted for the family food, etc.? How many men do you know hunt for the family food?

Re:I wonder

[Citizen of Earth]

Risk taking does things like put men on the moon, explore new territory when others believe the world is flat, riot and form new governments, etc.

Risks taking has also been known to be an element in the sequence of events that precipitate the conception of a child.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

"start street racing just because of the type of car that pulled up next to her at the stop light?"

Maybe.

Primarily, men tend to have more physically dangerious careers and jobs. Hands down, military service (wars) reduces lifespans. Furthermore, more men still are the bread-winners, hence men are more prone to accidents and what not, e.g. construction jobs. Men end up driving and traveling a fair bit more as well; while there may be an increase to do stupid ass things as you suggest for men, they are also put in those situations far more. Of course, soccer moms will argue the counterpoint (but some of the worse drivers I've seen are easily these afternoon kid-transporting moms).

Secondarily, testosterone is a cause but not in the way that you think. The number one killer, at least in the US, is still cardiovascular disease I believe. Testosterone, or lack of estrogen, makes men far more likely to have heart attacks earlier in life (i.e. 40s). Women have the same issue as well, but they must wait until menopause, to which their estrogen levels dropoff and testosterone rises or becomes a more dominant hormone that it was in their earlier years; arteries and what not start clogging at about the same rate as men, but at a much older age. So they die of similar reasons, just in a different decade of life. (If you are wondering why the gap may not be as great given the 15-20 year difference, health care for men is generally considered far superior to women--the gap has considerably closed but the difference was profound in up to probably the 90s).

Third, I wouldn't put it past women to get more and more 'violent' either. It's been shown more and more that as women become more financially independent and in a culture with continued sexual freedom (yes, compared to the prior decade, ad nauseum), their behavior starts mirroring men. Not all a bad thing of course, and their behavior is not exactly like men of course either, but then again, the number of women I've seen pulling jackass 'make you my bitch' stunts is plainly on the rise.

Fourth, and partly in jest, the number of jerks street racing is offset by the number of women who just can't drive.

Re:I wonder

[bryanp]

Nah. We husbands die before our wives for one simple reason.

We want to.

I long for the peace that death will bring.

(just kidding honey - still love ya!)

Re:I wonder

[Lumpy]

How many women do you know go cliffjumping or start street racing just because of the type of car that pulled up next to her at the stop light?

not many but I see at least 5 every day that happily drive 3 inches from the person in front of them while they talk on a phone and eat something, or simply not look when they do a lane change and almost kill 3 people behind her or quietly blow the red light, etc....

I see plenty of women doing very stupid and dangerous things every day.

Human stupidity is shared quite equally between the Male and Female of the species.

Re:I wonder

[hackstraw]

That isn't true, and the gender disparity only shows up much later in life. I'm not sure why the difference exists

Some men develop testicles later in life which produces testosterone -- the male hormone.

Evidence of the contrary is here.

Re:I wonder

[Himring]

How are women finding this site?...

Re:I wonder

[hackstraw]

We, as a society, are continually failing our men--encouraging them to behave in ways that shorten their lives and lower their quality of life.

Evidence of that includes mandatory motorcycle helmet laws, air bags, children playing with helmets on, OSHA, mandatory seatbelt laws, etc.

Has it really gotten to the point that people are that scared to do things anymore?

Go and read about the Hoover dam or the digging of the Panama Canal if you want to hear about men dying at work.

People hardly die in wars anymore (at least Americans don't).

Sheep must sleep better at night now :)

Re:I wonder

[furorimpius]

"Slightly _more_ women than men die from cardiovascular disease each year"

From our favorite news source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183365,00.html

Re:I wonder

[mOdQuArK!]

I disagree with your analysis.

IMO, men do more dangerous things because they (in general/historically) don't place as much value on the survival of the family as the women have, therefore they are willing to take more of a risk than women typically are. Also, testosterone has been shown to encourage "aggressive" behavior, often resulting in people "under the influence" misunderestimating how much risk is involved with various activities. Factors like these have nothing to do with male or female inherent "survivability".

Aside from basic physical tests like how many pounds men or women can bench press, there is nothing that indicates that, given equivalent training, men are more likely to perform more dangerous actions successfully than women - only that men are more likely to perform more dangerous actions period.

Actually, there are certain studies that indicate that women tend to have higher tolerances to long-term pain & stress than men, and tend to live longer than men in a low-survival rate environment (although that might be partly due to the risk-taking nature of men reducing their survival rate).

Re:I wonder

[CajunElder]

I've heard that the reason has more to do with the fact that historically (up until WWII at least), women weren't in the work force in large numbers and didn't have to put up with that additional source of stress (yes I know staying at home with children is stressful, and is a real job even if most people don't think of it that way). There are also other social factors that have contributed to women having longer life spans. For instance, it's always been socially acceptable for men to smoke, but if a woman smoked there was something morally wrong with her. I'm too lazy to Google for the facts, but I believe that as women have gained equal rights, as compared to men, the life span difference has started to shrink.

I'm always telling my wife to get in the kitchen and make me a turkey pot pie, and fetch me a beer. I'm just looking out for her health.

Re:I wonder

[espressojim]

The GP didn't say data wasn't available. "No historical statistical correlation" sounds like a test was performed with avaiable data, and the null hypothesis was the most likely.

Perhaps, with increased data size, the correlation might be found, but just because a correlation isn't there doesn't mean a test HASN'T been attempted.

Re:I wonder

[mce]

What's so difficult to understand about multiplication of survival rates?

1 * 0.995 is close enough to 1 to be undistiguisable from it without taking detailed measurements

1 * (0.995 ^ 35) equals about 0.84

Add to that the fact that more that boys then baby girls are born, so they actually start out at +- 1.05.

The fact that the difference in absolute numbers isn't immediately obvious amongst the younger ages doesn't mean that it isn't there at all. And it means even less that there isn't a force at work that "promotes" such a difference whenever it's given a chance.

Re:I wonder

[Paperweight]

that's an interesting point. why doesn't evolution dictate that there are many more females than males? ':-\

Re:I wonder

[siriuskase]

Nope, I'm pretty sure that's more due to the fact that they don't do stupid things as often.

Yeah, like doing all the dangerous jobs. Although the stereotypical testosterone-driven behaviour you cite can't be completely discounted, it is not nearly as important as differences in employment choices, which account for a significant part of the difference in male/female lifespan in the developed world.

Exactly! that's the point. Women aren't attracted to dangerous activities, including vocations, even when physical differences aren't a factor. And when they do take these jobs, they tend to be hypercareful. Men, for some strange reason, pride themselves in taking macho jobs. And some women aggravate the tendency by finding reckless men to be attractive.

Re:I wonder

[schon]

There is no historical statistical correlation between the lifespan of women based on number of children (or even if they had children).

This paper disagrees with you.

From the link:

A relationship between parity and life span was found by Kitagawa and Hauser (1975), and Doblhammer (1996). Both studies found a U-shaped mortality pattern: mortality is highest for childless women and women of higher parity, while it is lowest for parities two and three.

Re:I wonder

[BewireNomali]

Because we need EXTRA males for a whole bunch of things. In my estimation, exploration, the sciences and engineering.

In school, I was smoking pot with a friend and we were having this random conversation and she blurted out: "You could never convince me to get on a ship in the 1500s." Then it made sense to me. Men do stupid shit - a lot of us die because of it. So evolution produces a surplus of men to compensate. Space travel, exploration, even intellectual exploration like in the sciences and engineering.

Women outnumber men by a handy margin in university in the US. University enrollment by men is also artificially bolstered by athletics; many student athletes would not attend college on academics alone. There's been interest in a kind of affirmative action for men in regards to attending college. More credence, I think, to the idea that males are produced in surplus to account for variables that might affect the population.

Re:I wonder

[Mistshadow2k4]

"Men seem to do more dangerous things because they are more likely to survive the 'dangerous' activity. "

Uh-huh. Where is the study that shows that women who do take up dangerous activity die or are injured more often pursuing said activity than men? I've been a woman for almost 35 years and this is the first time I've heard that it would be more dangerous for me to go skydiving than a man.

Re:I wonder

[se1256]

yeah, i am thinking if they ever compared the living age of women who had children to those who did not, and if those that had children lived longer.

but there's probably other factors involved such as social wellbeing (eg: being married, or having close friends or relatives) which influences how long you live.

Re:I wonder

[Vellmont]

Except that the gender disparity isn't ever increasing, it only shows up after middle age or so. Maybe young male recklessness accounts for a year of extra life (statistically speaking) for women, but the real gender disparity only shows up in the elderly. Just go to a retirement home sometime and see that it's mostly women. Those women all had husbands not many years ago.

Re:I wonder

[Vintermann]

What about heart disease? AFAIK men are more likely to have it. Also, haven't men smoked more than women, historically?

Do you know what these factors contribute, if anything?

Re:I wonder

[mce]

Hey, I never said that recklessness was the only explanation. Go read my other (and earlier) post in this thread for proof here.

(Having said that, my father will turn 78 next month. 4 months ago he still had a wife, but not anymore. She was only 66 when she died.)

Re:I wonder

[Pentagram]

I don't believe it. Citation please.

Re:I wonder

[Grimboy]

Yay for macho steriotypes!

Re:I wonder

[evilviper]

How many women do you know go cliffjumping or start street racing just because of the type of car that pulled up next to her at the stop light?

No, women don't go street-racing, they're too busy talking on their cellphone as they cut-off the fully-loaded semi they didn't see comming...

Seriously, it's absolutely ridiculous to say that men are wreckless and women are not. The fact of the matter is, the two sexes just have very different forms of their own wrecklessness.

Re:I wonder

[Drakai]

You may be right about what seeds men's behaviour. But I believe you are mistaken that these are not factors in survivability. It is in your caveat "given equal training". I mean, you just casually sneak it in there but it is actually the foundation for my entire post. What is a childhood if not training for life?

  Also what do you mean by "aside from basic physical tests [of strength]"? Do you mean ignore them? Aren't they critical factors in determining if a given act is "dangerous"?

  For example, if a person walks past a ladder knowing an object in view may fall, that is a generically dangerous act. But defining the problem more specifically, we see a 30 pound blunt object at a height of 7 feet. Suddenly, half the male population no longer considers the act dangerous because they can brace it or catch it as they walk by. How many women no longer consider it a dangerous situation?

  What you seem to be saying is that the men are more likely wrong. That while more men will certainly attempt to get the reward for a equal task, they are not more likely to survive the act. You seem to believe that correctness will not be equal.

  I am saying that more men will attempt to get the reward and that of those that attempt to get the reward, men and women, correctness will be about equal.

  One trick to assessing peoples willingness to take risk is to allow each person to create a subjectively risky scenario. Then place a need/reward, again biased to the subject, and rate peoples subsequent willingness to perform the act. That type of study might also breakdown along gender lines and that would be interesting. It would also interesting to see what subjects consider to be risky and how that runs along gender lines.

  Perhaps a better assessment would having a group assess a situation to be safe. You could arrange a platform and a mobile landing about 4 feet off the ground with black padding for a catch. The black would create an illusion of depth. Then for each subject move the platform to what the subject considers maximum safe distance and allow them to jump for it. Then assess correctness. The results could be evaluated a number of ways including or excluding distance jumped, height, weight and physical condition of subject. However, the botom line is that if men are "Risk Takers", as everyone seems to think, they will fail more often than women.

Re:I wonder

[Drakai]

I didn't really find any clear cut stats but the fatalities statistics at www.dropzone.com are searchable, so for 2004-2006 there were 126 reported accidents of which 24 were female. That is 19%.

According to http://parapub.com/sites/parachute/resources/stati stics.cfm for 2001-2002 the average ratio of male to female is 15% female.

So I guess, statistically speaking, you are more likely to die as a female skydiver.

Double Edged Sword

[ed__]

The left over cells are also thought to play a role in auto-immune diseases that can occur after pregnancy, (iirc).

Re:Double Edged Sword

[JesseL]

I wonder if they may also end up seeding cancers.

Re:Double Edged Sword

[RealProgrammer]

I wonder if they may also end up seeding cancers.

On the other hand, perhaps carrying a child to term helps prevent some cancers.

From an evolutionary perspective, which is more likely? If there were any effect, it seems to me unlikely that having children would give you cancer. It seems reasonable that interrupting the process would be worse for the mother than continuing it, in general.

Re:Double Edged Sword

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, maybe you're an idiot. Let's listen to the American Cancer Society instead of the professional crazies of the month club.

Re:Double Edged Sword

[skoaldipper]

Also, the risk of developing breast cancer decreases if you have children, but it also increases if you have your first child past the age of 30.

Re:Double Edged Sword

[Thangodin]

This is basically an urban legend--bad science orignating with the anti-abortion lobby which is now being encouraged by organisation friendly to that cause, including the Bush administration.

This one was debunked a while ago.

Re:Double Edged Sword

[sholden]

From an evolutionary perspective, which is more likely? If there were any effect, it seems to me unlikely that having children would give you cancer.

Why? Cancers tend to occur later in life after reproduction has already occured, hence there is little evolutionary pressure to select against them (well, there is the fact that grandparents can look after children so that the more physically able parents can keep gathering resources - then again those grandparents also consume resources).

Re:Double Edged Sword

[StikyPad]

That was the "bad cells hypothesis," and the study indicated that they do not in fact contribute to disease.

That's nothing.

[ScentCone]

My personal collection of cells can actually mow my Mom's entire lawn.

Re:That's nothing.

[thuh Freak]

Dude, I don't think mowing your mom's lawn is something you want to jump up and take credit for.

Re:That's nothing.

[ScentCone]

Dude, I don't think mowing your mom's lawn is something you want to jump up and take credit for.

Listen, if that's what I have to do to be sure I get my share of her multi-billion dollar estate, then that's what I'll do.

For crying out loud, it was a joke! Today's secret words are "self-deprecating" and "irony," in case you didn't get the memo.

Re:That's nothing.

[RajivSLK]

Dude, I think you missed the joke. Mowing your mom's lawn might have a double meaning... I'd explain it but I have to go trim my bush.

Re:That's nothing.

[ScentCone]

Mowing your mom's lawn might have a double meaning... I'd explain it but I have to go trim my bush

Listen, I've got to go next door and help lay some pipe, but I'd really appreciate it if you would help clear this up for me when you've got some time. Try to be brief, as I'm a busy guy. My wife wants to roast some poultry this weekend, so I've also got to go out the barn and choke the chicken. With all that on my plate, I tend to feel rushed, and end up eating quick food that's no good for me. Luckily my wife is looking out for me, and tends to hide the salami when I'm not looking.

I get it, OK? Whew.

The bugina

[bermudatriangleoflov]

The miracles of the vagina never cease to amaze me....9 months trying to get out and the rest of your life trying to get back in.

Re:The bugina

[spadefoot]

Well, not the same one, I would hope.

Doesn't seem to help with depression...

[RobinH]

Some scientists have proposed that when a woman has a baby, she gets not just a son or a daughter, but a gift of cells that stays behind and protects her for the rest of her life.

That's great. I guess it doesn't help with the depression though.

Re:Doesn't seem to help with depression...

[dantheman82]

Well, so getting married and staying married brings increased wealth (hey, I know that as a single guy, I no doubt spend a greater percentage of my income than if I were married). If you also have kids, you WILL get added immune protection as a mother even though there CAN be additional depression (the depression is stastically greater, although not absolutely greater). I know that my mom, after having 8 kids (I'm the oldest), has an incredible immune system and rarely if ever gets the flu/cold/etc. when we kids do. She can worry at times, but as long as the stress is limited, it's not a bad thing per se. And I'm sure she has no regrets from raising a large family and she's very socially adjusted and we as kids are also quite outgoing, friendly, and have a greater appreciation for diversity (and are much less fussy) than smaller families with whom we interact. Plus, there is a much greater cost benefit having 8 children rather than 4, not to mention the help the older give to the younger, babysitting opportunities, larger pool of shared knowledge, and a lot more. People never can tell I'm from a big family, because I really don't act any differently, and it's interesting trivia ...

So in essence...

[Anonymous Coward]

Babies are the new brocolli! Eat more babies!

Re:So in essence...

[Afrosheen]

Actually, the case for eating babies was made a long time ago.

Re:So in essence...

[uberjoe]

Now there's a modest proposal if I ever heard one.

Fathers, meanwhile

[muertos]

Experience negative health benefits from children.

I know mine drive me crazy.

Re:Fathers, meanwhile

[rakkasan]

oh come, mod parent up. For those of you who have successfully mated with something other than your pc..

Re:Fathers, meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you know? Insanity is heritary. You get this from your kids...

Re:Fathers, meanwhile

[gammoth]

ff! lol!!

Re:Fathers, meanwhile

[EvilSuggestions]

> Experience negative health benefits from children.

Especially if your kid is named Oedipus.

Re:Fathers, meanwhile

[jahudabudy]

Yes, and kids are hereditary, too. If your parents didn't have any, there's a good chance you won't either.

I guess it makes sense

[arkham6]

From a evolution and survival of the species standpoint, it makes sense. Since the offspring is so dependant on the mother for food for many years after birth, the species needs to ensure that the mother lives to provide.

Re:I guess it makes sense

[Red Flayer]

"Since the offspring is so dependant on the mother for food for many years after birth, the species needs to ensure that the mother lives to provide"

Not only that, but the mother surviving means that she will be more likely to produce more children, thus further perpetuating her genes. This is why (IMO) in some cultures, women who have already borne a child are considered better marriage prospects.

Re:I guess it makes sense

[lawpoop]

I think the evolutionary benefit of having your mom live a long time is that she will get higher up in the social hierarchy the longer she lives.

In most societies, the elders are the decision makers, by a process of simple seniority. the longer a woman lives, the more chance she has to arrange society to benefit her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.

Re:I guess it makes sense

[Bogtha]

From a evolution and survival of the species standpoint, it makes sense.

Not really. If this was only positive and had no downsides, we'd have evolved to have this clump of cells without having to give birth. The fact that we don't all have this leads me to believe that either a) there is a significant downside to having this clump of cells (e.g. decreased fertility), or b) that it isn't as wonderful as the initial findings indicate.

Re:I guess it makes sense

[meringuoid]

Since the offspring is so dependant on the mother for food for many years after birth, the species needs to ensure that the mother lives to provide.

Species, schmecies. From an evolutionary point of view, I don't give a damn whether your children survive - indeed, I might be happier if they don't, less competition for my own kids!

If this is true, then I'd say it's because it's in the baby's interests. Look: You're about to be born. You are likely to be partially or totally dependent on your mother for many years. It is therefore in your interests to prolong her life if you can, especially since the stress of giving birth will probably damage her health.

Re:I guess it makes sense

[Abcd1234]

women who have already borne a child are considered better marriage prospects.

Well, that and you know she's a) fertile and b) capable of bringing a child to term.

Re:I guess it makes sense

[Red Flayer]

That's exactly why they're considered better marriage prospects.

Re:I guess it makes sense

[Sir Pallas]

That's actually not quite true. The fact is that women stick together when providing for children, especially if they're related, but even when they're not. The trick is provision. There is a group in Asia where there is no marriage but there is anonymous sex. Men and women live with their mothers their entire lives and brothers care for their sisters children, because they're not sure who their own are. The fact is that most humans are wired to protect children that aren't theirs if need be, which is why we have orphanages and social services. There is a meta-evolutionary process that works within society and it has decided that children should live, even if they're not yours. If a baby is a basket was left on your doorstep, would you take it in, or at least take it to the child protective services? or would you let it die, or kill it yourself, because it would give your children a minute advantage? There is a reason that sort of thing is illegal. Because we don't evolve personally, we evolve as groups.

Re:I guess it makes sense

[lemonnfresh]

Or as my brother was always so fond of saying "you know they f..k."

Re:I guess it makes sense

[Philosinfinity]

What you said is not necessarily true either. Evolution occurs on expressed phenotypes. That is, if the trait never expresses it self, there is nothing to select for. Thus, if there are no species that have a genotype to express this phenotype without giving birth, then this trait can in no way evolve. This negates the conclusion that either a or b is the case. Furthermore, the conclusion of a or b being the only possibilities would have to stem from a premise that both the trait and the absence of it are in the gene pool and neither is being selected for.

Re:I guess it makes sense

[shawb]

Kid tested, father approved.

Re:I guess it makes sense

[shawb]

And the "protect the babies" thing extends beyond the species in many cases. There have been many many cases of mothers providing for another animal: pigs or dogs nursing kittens, etc. Just look to your nearest humane society or SPCA for examples of people nursing (at least bottle feeding) young of a different species.

Re:I guess it makes sense

[MatterOfMind]

I'd even take this a little deeper and suggest that the main benefit is to the germ line cells - in a sense, the body is really just a complex vehicle for the reproductive cells. Human ova are partially developed - partially through meiosis - even before the female fetus is born. Although there has been some recent contention, it is generally thought that new female reproductive cells do not develop after birth (or are limited in number relative to the quantity that develop while in the womb). So, the fetal environment doesn't just affect the fetus - it affects that fetus' offspring, too. Furthermore, sociological research (like the Human Life History Project) shows that "the longer a woman lived after the end of her reproductive years, the more successfully her children's reproductive lives would be."

Re:I guess it makes sense

[MadAhab]

stop quoting from your textbook and put it simply

1. just because a trait exists doesn't mean that it has an evolutionary advantage. it just means that nothing has selected against it (say, blue eyes).
2. just becuase a trait has no immediate evolutionary advantage (e.g. acquiring stem cells from pregnancy) doesn't mean it has no advantage.

fucking duh. there is zero contradiction between the trait (pregnancies, even unsucessful ones, improving the mother's health), and an evolutionary advantage. in fact, you'd have to be a fucking retard not to see that there is a strong correlation: chicks who fuck and conceive are more likely to have kids. and if chicks who fuck, conceive, and don't birth, are more likely to live longer, then they are more likely to fuck and conceive again, and therefore more likley to have offspring (who will probably inherit these traits and therefore have a confirmed evolutionary advantage).

lesson: right wingers think that you have some kind of advantage marrying chicks who don't fuck or conceive. sorry for them. maybe that's why they have so much energy to focus on other people's reproductive behavior; if they focused on their own, they'd be extinct.

man the wingnut trolls are all over these days. too fucking much foundation money paying for undergrad "interns" to splatter total horseshit around. please, folks, study and understand evolution. or go live in a fucking cave. your choice.

Re:I guess it makes sense

[Philosinfinity]

I think you took me wrong here. What I clearly said was that you cannot have selection on a trait that has never been expressed. The poster I replied to said that if it was advantageous for mothers to have these cells, then everyone would have them. However, evolution doesn't account for how new traits come along or what set of traits exist. So his argument is all wrong from its beginning. That's the problem. If his account of selection were correct, we would have bulletproof exoskeletons and be immortal, as he is claiming that selection causes expression.

Did you understand it that time, or should I try again only using single syllable words?

Some of the cells

[RealProgrammer]

are 30 years old and still living in the basement.

Re:Some of the cells

[smoker2]

I think they are starting to smell a bit now though.

Re:Some of the cells

[arloguthrie]

"When are you going to get married and move out, you ungrateful sack?"

"'Ungrateful'? I've been keeping your liver healthy for the past 20 years, Mom! Now shut up, Battlestar Galactica's on."

Re:Some of the cells

[Kuvter]

hey I'm only 25 years old...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Nice nice!

[GillBates0]

Nothing like pure science to counteract my mom's claims that I gave her quite a few grey hair with my childhood tantrums.

I bet my "gift of cells" more than made up for all that.

Already been proven in rat brain studies

[RootsLINUX]

I read something related to this in a neurobiology article back in October. See this link.

For the lazy, some scientists in Singapore and Asia activated a flourescent green protein in rat males and bred them with normal rat females. After giving birth, the mother rats had neuronal cells with the protein expressed in their brains, making it clear that those cells formerly belonged to their fetuses. And check out this quote:

"Moreover, after the scientists chemically injured the mouse brains, nearly six times as many fetal cells made their way to damaged areas than elsewhere, suggesting the cells could be responding to molecular distress signals released by the brain."

Seems like it makes for a pretty damn good argument for this theory to me.

In related news...

[DaHat]

... the rate of pregnancy in woman in their 40-70's has skyrocketed!

Your mom

[szembek]

I've got some cells that are lingering inside your mom too.

Re:Your mom

[MSenhanced]

*weeps to death*

Re:Your mom

[smoker2]

Daddy ?

Is that you ?

Re:Your mom

[Hogwash McFly]

Your post and one of the replies reminds me of a joke.

A young man is enjoying a few drinks in the pub with some friends when a fat, balding man staggers up to the table and says quite loudly to the young guy, 'I've fucked your mum!' The young lad feels a little embarrassed but he and his friends just ignore the drunkard and he stumbles off. Five minutes later the lush is back, this time exclaiming 'I've sucked your mum's tits! Your mum sucked my cock!' through beery breath. Having had enough, the young guy gets up and says sternly, 'Dad, you're drunk. Go home!'.

Re:Your mom

[Drakai]

This is why it's so important to have more than one pub in a town!

But the flip side is autoimmune disorders!

[Dr. Manhattan]

Women get many autoimmune disorders more frequently than men. E.g. Lupus. Pregnancy contributes because of leftover fetal cells. (Plenty of documentation for this.)

(Indeed, the fetus often gets cells from the mother, too. Many women have cells of their own, and from their mothers, and from their children...)

Re:But the flip side is autoimmune disorders!

[CthulhuDreamer]

"Many women have cells of their own, and from their mothers, and from their children..."

Don't give them another excuse for their psychotic mood swings. "That wasn't me, it was one of the kids..."

Re:Hard to believe.

[Frazbin]

I got the full story on NPR-- and the scientist they interviewed brought that up. They *were* under the impression that the placenta formed an impenetrable barrier, and they *did* think that the immune system would attack any remaining fetal cells, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

A gift of cells that stays behind and protects her

[AndroidCat]

So it's okay if I skip a card and chocolates on her birthday now and then, right?

Next time I hear a woman complain about pregnancy

[MECC]

I'll be sure to remind her of all the beneficial fetus cells she gets out of the deal.

The worst science journalism ever.

[Expert Determination]

Really, that is absolutely the worst bit of science journalism I have ever read in my entire life. No other science writing comes even close to the awful level of writing there. Just of the names of the hypotheses "Good" and "Bad" are unbelievably egregious.

"that the cells stay in the mom and try to protect her for the rest of her life"

is one of the worst anthropomorphisms I have read.

"if the Good Hypothesis turns out to be true and every child leaves a posse of good soldiers in their mothers".

That makes me want to vomit.

"There are no published studies that definitively show baby cells floating to, say, a liver cancer site and then turning themselves into healthy liver cells"

You mean there's no actual evidence for anything. This is just some stupid feel good story for mothers?

If she's got a bad heart, they can be healthy heart cells.

And this, I guess, is an extrapolation from what was already a wishful fantasy.

The whole thing is written in that horrible style that you get in magazines called things like "You and Your Baby". I can almost smell the perfumed baby products wafting up from the text.

I think I'd rather read Creationist writing.

Re:The worst science journalism ever.

[b0bby]

I think that's just a quick blurb by the journalist who made the radio story, it's not supposed to be the article itself. You'd have to listen to the story to hear his actual reporting.

You mean all these years

[mmell]

I've kept my wife gravid, hoping to kill her in her child-bed, I've been helping her to live longer and healthier? Man!

If it wasn't so much fun, I'd stop trying to kill her this way. Y'know, ever since she had that tubal, I've been wondering about the wisdom of trying to do her in by impregnation. Oh, well . . . too late to stop now!

Re:You mean all these years

[Ssolstice]

Gravid? What is she, a salmon?

Re:You mean all these years

[Fishstick]

From Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0 :

    22 Moby Thesaurus words for "gravid":
          anticipating, big, big with child, big-laden, breeding, carrying,
          carrying a fetus, expectant, expecting, gestating, gone, great,
          heavy, heavy with child, knocked up, parturient, preggers,
          pregnant, superfetate, superimpregnated, teeming, with child

nope, nothing about fish

I have heard it used to describe _really_ pregnant horse before, tho

Jaffa, kree!

[Del Vach]

Just like a Ga'ould symbiot! Second only in healing powers to Richard Dean Anderson himself.

Mom gets an upgrade!

[d474]

Mom 2.0

reminds me of a csi episode

[circletimessquare]

i just saw

a guy is fingered for a rape/ murder, so they check his dna against the crime scene dna and find out that he doesn't match 100%, but 50%, implying his brother did the crime

so csi seeks out all of the guy's brothers, including a crazy homeless schizophrenic one, but none of them match the dna 100% either

until the lead csi guy figures out what is really going on: the guy is a chimera

a chimera is a very very rare person where two eggs/ embryos fuse very early in embryonic development, such that only one person results, but one person where different organ systems in the body are from different genetic makeups, in essence, two brothers becoming one man

for example, the person's brain and bone marrow might be of person a, but the skin and eggs/ testicles might be of person b

so it is possible, for example, to have a child that is genetically your nephew/ niece, if only your brother's testicles are left of him and you are a chimera

the point is, the body is very well able to be made of different genetic lineages, without all of the usual immunological tissue rejection issues and such

Re:reminds me of a csi episode

[jabelar]

Maybe he had a brother no one knew about ...

Re:reminds me of a csi episode

[Anonymous Coward]

For future reference, if you're trying to make an impressive sounding scientific conjecture, you might consider expanding your sources beyond Wikipedia and a prime-time television show by Jerry Bruckheimer.

Re:reminds me of a csi episode

[MSenhanced]

I find that interesting. Thanx for the wikipedia link. That CSI episode must have been spectacular to watch.

Re:reminds me of a csi episode

[Homr Zodyssey]

Was that the episode where they magnified a photograph to an impossible resolution?

Or maybe it was the episode where they compared a fingerprint to all the ones in their database...for some reason rendering each fingerprint to a computer monitor as they did it?

No wait...I bet it was the episode where Grissom makes a condescending comment to the criminal just as they're taking him away.

Heheh. Actually I saw that episode. It was a pretty good one. And one that showed that DNA evidence is not always 100% correct. They had ruled this guy out as a suspect, even though the rape victim was pointing at him and saying "Thats the guy who did it!"

Re:reminds me of a csi episode

[zippthorne]

CSI is so out. Bones has a magic life-sized 3-D holographic victim reconstructor. and the *graphic artist* who runs it is also lightning fast computer programmer as well somehow.

Re:reminds me of a csi episode

[iibagod]

Um, no, implying his brother could not be the perp. You share 25% of your DNA with full siblings. You share 50% with your parents and 50% with your children.

The amount of genetic material you share with your siblings is an average which theoretically would lie at 50%. Since there are millions of combinations of different genes that could conceivably go into a haploid cell (sperm/ovum), the chances are wildly improbable that you could have exactly the same genes from your mother and father that created you actually happen again. Were this the case, you'd essentially have an identical twin not born of the same conception. Conversly, having a sibling with NO common genetic material is also highly improbable. For siblings of the same sex, its actually impossible (You'd both get Dad's X or Y chromosome, since he has only one of either.)

Re:reminds me of a csi episode

[Jeff Benjamin]

a guy is fingered for a rape/ murder

Prison orientation?

Re:reminds me of a csi episode

[Doobie Dan]

> a guy is fingered for a rape/ murder

That was it? Doesn't exactly sound pleasant, but it sure beats 10 years to life.

Re:reminds me of a csi episode

[dustmite]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, are you suggesting that Chimeras don't exist? That the situation depicted is impossible? Simply because of the mainstream nature of the sources used?

Re:reminds me of a csi episode

[Agripa]

You still share 50% of your genes with your full siblings because 25% is through your mother and 25% is through your father. From a genetic standpoint you should be just as related to your full siblings as your children.

Re:reminds me of a csi episode

[smellsofbikes]

Not that anyone will read this but I know one definite chimera and another probable. My cousin's daughter has 1/4 (roughly) of the cells in her body with an extra bit of one chromosome: she's 1/4th Down's Syndrome. She looks a little bit odd, is hyperflexible (can put her legs behind her back, the way some people can put their ankles behind their neck only moreso), has to wear enormous glasses, and lags a tiny bit behind her peers in school, but is reading, writing, and generally acting just like a normal kid. I also dated a woman who looked like two closely-related but different people depending on which side of her you were standing: different eye colors, different leg lengths, slightly different hair color, differently-sized breasts, and it was my assumption that she is a bilateral chimera, which is *really* rare. But I suspect that chimeras in general aren't all that rare: it's just almost impossible to tell unless there are either pathologies (trisomy 22, like my cousin's child) or physical localization of the chimeric tissue (like my ex-gf.) On which general subject, I've read articles claiming that large localized albinism, like Cruella DeVille's white strand of hair (which both my great-grandmother and grandmother had) are a type of chimera where there was a mutation in a cell early on in development, that resulted in a localized area grown from that cell. Not a true chimera insofar as there's not actually a different set of DNA from inheritance (which is actually the case with my cousin's child as well, now that I think of it.)

Re:Easily proven wrong

[Scrameustache]

Since that's never been observed (and I'm sure someone has looked at the stats, it's such an easy study), this can't be true.
I suspect these so-called "scientists"

You go on and ASSUME something, and then you put "scientists" in quotes.
Because, clearly, the master of assumptions is more of a scientist than these lab-coat wearing bozos!

Dance with me, Mom!

[layer3switch]

"Dance with me, mom! Dance the dance of life!" ...fumble, trip, crash...

So is this mean, I can finally talk back to my mom with same tone?

mom: ...sigh... the things I did for you, giving you birth through excruciating labour for hours...
son: ...sigh... the things I did for you, leaving my fetal cell behind to help you heal...

ps: Mom, I love you. I'm just kidding.

Re:Dance with me, Mom!

[infinite9]

ps: Mom, I love you. I'm just kidding.

Your mom reads slashdot? That's a paradox! How did she reproduce?!

Re:Hard to believe.

[Politburo]

Hey, you know what, you're right. The professional researchers who did this work must have overlooked it. All that work wasted!

Seriously.. why is it that with every science story that comes on here, there's some tool who says "Hey, what about [ridiculously simple and/or well-known concept]?"

How do you think these people get to be researchers? Lotto?

Re:Hard to believe.

[eno2001]

Has anyone else noticed more questionable science being reported in the media? Although this research is potentially intriguing and may result in a new understanding of the interaction between the biological entities of mother and child, just reporting it the way NPR has makes it a tad more hopeful than is necessary. Why didn't they instead report it thusly;

"There are cells that a child leaves behind in the host body after being expelled. New research shows that these cells may actually linger in the host body for decades. How these cells affect the host body is a large and unanswered question right now. It's possible that these cells may give rise to various diseases in the host. It's also possible that they my just float around within the body dormant. And finally, there is a very slight chance that they may actually benefit the host. At this time it's too early to say and researchers are reserving comment until more data is available".

It's certainly less intersting when written that way, but it's more honest.

Spelling Nazi Alert - Re:I wonder

[Cro Magnon]

No, I'm sure men get in plenty of wrecks.

Re:Easily proven wrong

[MarkusH]

Indeed, and such a study was done. The conclusion was a statistically significant increase in the lifespan of mothers vs. childless women, although environmental factors (status level and level of education) were more significant.

Interestingly, older mothers had a slower rate of aging than young mothers.

Re:Propaganda

[BridgeBum]

I haven't RTF, but I heard the NPR report on the way in this morning. They actually addressed abortions, still borns, etc. None of that seems to matter in this finding, merely conception (and probably enough development for the zygote to become a fetus so that there is blood, but I don't think that was said explicitly.)

Would this explain..

[Some_Llama]

Women usually live longer than men, would this help explain why? I always thought it might have more to do with roles in society, men doing "harder" more dangerous work (although I for one can attest that being a mother, and raising children is certainly not "easy") causing men to die earlier in life, but this study might show that if all other things being equal, women might have a leg up... if they had borne children?

Re:Would this explain..

[smoker2]

all other things being equal, women might have a leg up...

Err, RTFA, they said a few cells, not a whole damn leg !

Re:Easily proven wrong

[Reality Master 101]

Hmmm, it's interesting that this isn't more common knowledge, especially when it's so commonly said that, "my kids are going to drive me to an early death." :)

I wonder if this same pattern emerges in other cultures. That would help to account for environmental factors that might have an influence.

Or maybe

[flyinwhitey]

The gain that mothers get from pregnancy is offset by some other variable.

Add to that...

[Belial6]

Add to that the stress of having more hazardous jobs, and knowing that in the end, men will have to fend for themselves, while women know that unless they are truly hidious, there is someone out there that would take care of them.

I still think that stress is our biggest kill. Take a look a picture of someone that was 35 in 1920. They were old at 35. Now take a look at what people look like at 35 today. They range from old to incredibly hot. Funny thing, the harder a persons life was, usually the older they look.

Re:Add to that...

[multipartmixed]

To hell with the stress of having more hazardous jobs... what about the stress of having wives??

Re:Add to that...

[RumpledElf]

Some statistics on happiness:

Married men are happier and live longer than single men.

Single women are happier and live longer than married women.

Never read any statistics about what happens when women marry women :) (but gay men get more stressed out about their appearance than straight women, who get more stressed than men, and lesbians don't care about looks at all)

Am I off topic enough now?

Re:Add to that...

[rtb61]

Married men are happier and live longer than single men.

Single women are happier and live longer than married women.

Well "DUH" pay attention to what you are writing. Married women die younger because they died before their husbands rather the windowed single women who outlived their husbands. Single women does not exclude women who were married. Single men also include single bitter broken bankrupt divorced men not just never married batchelors.

A demostration of the kind of nonsence that statistics can generate.

Guilt Trip deflector

[UnknowingFool]

Thanks. Now when my mom asks me what I've done for her, I can deflect the guilt trip.

or curse their mother for decades

[peter303]

Women who have borne children are more susceptible than men to immune diseases like lups, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, graves diseaes, cronic fatigue, etc. Could it be the residual cells of their offspring put their immune systems into overdrive?

Re:Easily proven wrong

[lawpoop]

Markus H Christ, what the hell is wrong with you?! Don't you know that you are arguing with REALITY MASTER?

You must really be a loony if you are so foolish as to ARGUE with REALITY.

Re:Easily proven wrong

[HunterZ]

Maybe, but my impression was that it would be more about leading to a higher quality of life, and not necessarily increased longevity.

They do now

[Phoenix666]

But it's ironic because women have always had much shorter life expectancies because of childbirth.

I wonder just how in the heck fetal cells can remain in a mother's body that long. Do they move into the bone marrow and set up shop?

Re:Easily proven wrong

[diakka]

This is a good observation, but I don't think that lack of a difference would disprove it. There are many other factors that could affect the outcome, such as the trauma inflicted upon a woman's body in the process of pregnancy and childbirth . Also, the lifestyle of a woman may change after she has a baby, she may spend more time taking care of the child and exercise less. Either of those factors could possibly counteract any hypothetical good done by these cells. This observation would still be valuable in allowing women to make choices about their health. The hypothesis seems to have a slightly religious flavor. The unspoken message is that childbirth is what God intended for women and to avoid having children would result in poor health and/or an early death. However, it might also be true that women who don't want children may still be able to benefit by intentionally getting pregnant and subsequently having an abortion.

Only one little problem

[kilodelta]

The hormones released during pregnancy also accelerate the growth of certain cancers. For instace, a year and a half after I was born my mother found a lump in one of her breasts but put it off for another 12 years. That was when it took her life because by then it had metastisized to the lungs, liver and brain.

Had she not gotten pregnant she probably would have lived several years beyond that.

So pregnancy does exact a toll. But the majority of people are fortunate.

Re:Hard to believe.

[Fudge Armadillo]

This was answered in the piece; the researchers found that the baby's cells were indeed making it through the placenta wall, and were not being attacked by the mother's immune system. The researchers found this counter-intuitive as well.

This is great news!

[Hrodvitnir]

Now when my mom and I get into an argument and she uses the line "Hey! I brought you into this world!" I can counter with:

I gave you super healing!

simplier than that...

[sedyn]

I think the current statistics have a much simplier reason than that. Currently, people in their 70-80s were young at a time when there were more social taboos, especially surrounding women.

For example, I recall reading (a year or two ago) that if you remove preventable deaths (ie: from smoking) then on average men live 6 months longer than women.

Another factor surrounding this generation is that men fought in WWII, and some vets do show decreased quality of life for it.

I think in 30 years, the statistics will shift a bit. The only thing that can prevent that is that (on average) I think women are more careful about eating properly... (and I have heard that heart failure is becoming a greater issue)

Re:simplier than that...

[benzapp]

For example, I recall reading (a year or two ago) that if you remove preventable deaths (ie: from smoking) then on average men live 6 months longer than women.

That is an absolute lie. As with all things in life, women have it far easier than men and live many years more than men on average. Preventable diseases are trivial when you consider how women will never work as garbage collectors, taxi cab drivers, or the host of other dangerous jobs in which men die in large numbers every day. A casual stroll through any hospital will quickly show you that women consume the vast majority of hospital resources.

The statistic you mention, if it were even possible to calculate (which it is not), is just a modern manifestation of Victorianism idealism masquerading as social science. Women are are the purer, fairer sex and if those damn brutish men would just take care of themselves, we'd finally prove to the world that women are oppressed!

Oh, and lastly, there is absolutely no way any study of the type you mention could ever determine anything to a 6 month window of accuracy. The margin of error would undoubtedly be significantly greater than that. Thus, such a study really just concluded that gender is irrelevant in the determination of lifespan.

Re:simplier than that...

[sethaw]

For example, I recall reading (a year or two ago) that if you remove preventable deaths (ie: from smoking) then on average men live 6 months longer than women.

Maybe you read about it here:
Women Live Longer Because Men Are Dumb

The original link doesn't work anymore, but you can get most of the details from the discussion.

Re:Hard to believe.

[Dynedain]

And yet space exploration vehicles costing hundreds of millions of dollars are destroyed because someone forgot to convert between metric and imperial units.

Sometimes the most obvious things are so taken for granted that they can become overlooked.

Re:Hard to believe.

[Vellmont]

How do you think these people get to be researchers? Lotto?

Researchers are usually pretty good (with the exception of the pseudo-scientists and publishing via media outlets). I think the journalists who write these articles are probbably chosen via some kind of lotto system though. It's as if science writing is the low man on the totem pole job, so it's almost always given to someone without a science background.

For everything else theres Motherhood.

[db32]

Ok...so mothers get to live longer because of the left over cells. What about the years shaved off by dealing with youngins?
Child birth: +10 years
Raising a child: -7 years
Genetic design working out in your benefit: Priceless.

Beauty Is Skin Deep

[Doc Ruby]

What's so beautiful about the idea that females send unknowing new people into this cruel world, just so the mothers can leech off the stemcells? They keep the byproduct of the stemcell production around, first to help with chores, then to pose for exploitative pictures, and later to drive them to the senior club.

Bridge?

[XMilkProject]

The therapist always told me I wasn't responsible for my mothers death, but now I have scientific evidence.

My cells should have been there for her.

If only Google Maps could find me the nearest bridge.

Good Bye Cruel World!

Re:Hard to believe.

[lawpoop]

What do you think this placenta is? An impenetrable brick wall?

FYI cells can travel through it.

Men are catching up

[corellon13]

Actually, a recent http://www.wnep.com/Global/story.asp?S=4269677&nav =menu158_6study shows that men's lifespans are catching up. This, according to the study, is mostly due to women working harder, smoking more, etc. Sure it goes on to say that women will continue to live longer than men (about 4 years currently), but that it is due to the risky behaviors of men.

So, I don't think there is really much evidence to support this story based simply on the fact that women live longer than men. This actually supports your statement that lifespan is different between genders due to life style and roles rather than genetics.

Re:Hard to believe.

[SirWhoopass]

I think you drew the wrong conclusion. Do you know how crappy journalism is as a career? They're all the low man on the totem pole and would be doing something much better if they had a science background.

Re:Hard to believe.

[Politburo]

Right. My comment doesn't apply in all situations. In your example, the error wasn't because someone "forgot to convert", but because they were reusing old code and didn't fully QC. Code is really quite different from the situation we have here.

As this research came out of a well known university, I'm confident in assuming that it's undergone at least a cursory QC that would have identified an issue as obvious as the OP's.

Ectoplasmic nucleiod spore unit receptacle

[digitaldc]

My Psychiatrist said I needed to talk to my inner child, so I went and bought my mom a cellular phone.

In general I agree. Here's an exception.

[ianscot]

It's as if science writing is the low man on the totem pole job, so it's almost always given to someone without a science background.

That beat often goes to the underlings and newbies, unfortunately. Somehow the more lucrative jobs at the paper are the troll opinion columnists, whose job is to get eyeballs on the page by being controversial dorks.

Here's a nice little counterexample, though: A while ago I noticed a story in the Daytona Beach newspaper about the Chilean "globster" that washed up on the beach in 2003. A reporter named Dinah Pulver, who actually has some seniority at the Daytona paper, wrote things up well. The story was pretty darn good for a popular source, including solid historical context and plenty of well-fleshed-out detail. I wrote Ms. Pulver to tell her it had impressed me, and we corresponded a little.

That single story was enough to win some loyalty from me, and since then the Daytona Beach paper has been among my regular news stops, despite me living in Minnesota. In general I'm impressed by the intelligent tone of the whole newspaper, but Ms. Pulver's science writing was what won me over.

So, good reporting wins readership. Sometimes. (At least for people who find the Bill O'Reilly trolls of the world to be empty blowhards.)

Oh joy

[argStyopa]

First we have Boomer mommies that are scheduling C-sections because just waiting around for Junior to pop out just doesn't fit into their busy schedule.

Now we have evidence that suggests that if that DINK woman decides to pop out a pup she may live a little longer?

Not to say that people are so self-interested they'd have a baby just for their own medical advantages, but hey, at least that adoption waiting list for white infants might start growing shorter.

Please, I hope nobody suggests that this will keep women looking younger because then we'd be up to our armpits in babies for adoption from wealthy suburban communities and Hollywood.

Babies - the new Botox!

Re:Oh joy

[hiitgy]

You do realize that the wealthy communities you're speaking of in general have declining populations? The United States would be in full population decline were it not for the significant influx of immigrants here.

Generally speaking affluence and/or quality of life is inversely proportional to population growth. So complaining about wealthy suburban communities popping out too many babies is pretty far fetched.

Effects on later childbirths

[doddi]

Fourth hypothesis: The cells try to kill the next child. This would help the child having the full attention of the mother.

It might sound a bit ridiculous but shouldn't the cell's effects on later births be studied?

Re:Effects on later childbirths

[Maximum Prophet]

The happens if the mom is Rh-negative and the Dad is Rh-positive, but it's antibodies, rather than complete cells.

Re:Effects on later childbirths

[serbanp]

Perfectly true. However, these days a dose of I-forgot-what's-its-name can be injected in the mom (in the first 48 hours after birth) that makes her capable of having a second child.

Re:Effects on later childbirths

[Maximum Prophet]

It's RhoGAM, (Rh-immune globulin). My wife's had to have that shot more times than she can remember. Invasive medicine (while pregnant) and miscarriage also requires a shot.

Re:Effects on later childbirths

[serbanp]

Thanks. I'm too looking forward to see that it really works in my wife's case...

Dear Mr. Kernalbaha

[aricusmaximus]

Dear Mr. Kernablaha,

You are absolutely right. What were we thinking? The whole idea is rediculous. Thank you, Mr. Kenalbaha, for providing the insight that only a person with a "minimal knowledge of biology" could provide. Us here with postdoctoral degrees have been clearly wasting our efforts on nonsense. We'll send back our grants and ask that all our peer reviewed articles be retracted.

Sincerely,

Diana W. Bianchi, M.D.
Vice Chair for Research,
Floating Hospital for Children, Tufts University

Re:Easily proven wrong

[saforrest]

This is so easy to test that it's easy to disprove. If the baby cells "protected" the mother, then statistically mothers should live longer than childless woman. Since that's never been observed (and I'm sure someone has looked at the stats, it's such an easy study), this can't be true.

I suspect these so-called "scientists" who are proposing this aren't really all that high in the scientific food chain.

What a preposterous statement. Has it occurred to you that possibly, just maybe, the act of giving birth to a child is not statistically independent of a woman's lifespan?

Until recently, thanks to ultrasound testing, the use of Caesarian sections, induced labour, etc. childbirth was a major, major cause of death for women, and therefore we'd expect women who never had children to live longer on average. Globally, that's probably still the case; and it wouldn't surprise me to hear it's the case even in developed countries, since many women still die in childbirth even with modern medecine.

So the benefit to mothers described here may put a dent in these numbers, but it certainly isn't the only thing affecting longevity, and it's certainly naive to think the two lifespans (of mothers and non-mothers) should be the same.

If were as uncharitable as you, I might say that arguing that suggests that maybe you're not "really all that high in the scientific food chain." :)

Re:Propaganda

[dr_dank]

None of that seems to matter in this finding, merely conception (and probably enough development for the zygote to become a fetus so that there is blood, but I don't think that was said explicitly.)

Since when have so-called "facts" ever disuaded the anti-abortion nutters from pushing this crap in poor women's faces?

IIRC, pound for pound and cell for cell . . .

[mmell]

we (collectively) are more bacteria than human - i.e., less than 50% of the cells living in your body now are actually descendants of the sperm/egg fusion which occurred when you were conceived.

Creepy, huh?

old news...

[wherrera]

This was published in 2004 in JAMA, and has been in discussion for years in the stem cell literature.

See:

http://www.uffl.org/pdfs/rauscher.pdf

This is new?

[bosabilene]

Hell, I've been helping my mother for 36 years. Every time I go back home for a visit I'm moving boxes, fixing stuff, showing her how to use the computer again... Isn't that why we move out in the first place? Well, that and being able to screw our ladies in the privacy of our own homes (or just jerk off to the porn sites for some of you).

Re:This is new?

[niktemadur]

Hey, don't forget about the lifelong thing of getting her VCR to stop blinking 12:00, and I do mean lifelong, 'cause you and I both know she'll never get around to TiVo unless you get it for her for Christmas.

Re:Hard to believe.

[Max Threshold]

Bullshitting and ass-kissing, probably. There are a huge number of idiots posing as scientists, and they tend to congregate at major research universities.

Sensational discoveries == research grants; research grants > scientific integrity.

Doesn't fit...

[Ssolstice]

In most animals (especially vertebrates) the individuals that mate usually die off more quickly than those that don't. While it is hypothesized that this is simply a population control mechanism to provide more resources for the newer generations, it doesn't really support the idea that women who have children will live longer. The offspring's cells may be helpful (or not) for a while, but it doesn't look like they'll stick around in the body "forever".

You've missed the point....

[Asklepius M.D.]

The amazing thing here is not that fetal cells (and their corresponding DNA) migrate througout the mother's body. After all, both mother and fetus share a circulatory system. The amazing thing is that these cells "linger for decades". After the baby is born, there should no longer be a source of the offspring's genetic material in the mother. As the prenatally produced cells die, they should not replenish without a fetus in utero. If, as this sensationalist article suggests, cells with fetal DNA exist in the mother for years, then one of two circumstances has taken place. First, these cells do not die for decades. This is unlikely, but theoretically possible. More likely is the second hypothesis, which is that fetal stem cells have migrated into the mother's body, implanted, and begun to reproduce. Depending on the type of stem cell, only certain "derivative" cells should be produced. (This explains why mom doesn't grow new body parts.) This would explain the autoimmune theory since blood cells have a higher statistical likelihood of being circulated in the mom's body. Further research should be done as to the types of fetal cells in the mother, the origins and life-expectancies of these cells, and the point in fetal development in which parent and child begin to share cells. Either way, the interesting thing is the presence of these cells long after the child's birth - not the existance of fetal cells in the mother in the first place.

Other things

[phorm]

Darwinism strikes at the genders equally. How many more women than men suffer dangerously abusive relationships, end up in prostitution (not that there aren't males of this persuation, but I know of more females... supply and demand), or other such avenues that might shorten one's lifespan.

How about applying make-up while driving for a start... I've seen that more than once.

Instructions for firefox users . . .

[mmell]

dict gravid

already known

[Quadraginta]

Assuming we can extrapolate back from their behaviour after birth, that is. At least, I spend about 86% of my time preventing one child from trying to kill the other...

Old Vs young

[phorm]

Interestingly, older mothers had a slower rate of aging than young mothers.

It makes sense in a way. Let's say you get a limited supply of extra cells that help healing, regeneration, etc...

If you're younger, they might be used up along with some of the other 'resources' in your body, or lost during chemical changes. If you're older, the cells are more recently added, and might help prevent/repair some of the more dangerous aging symptoms later in life.

What I'd wonder is if the cells themselves are a way for the body to compensate for the other dangers of childbirth. It is hard on the body in many ways, and brings other medical risks, so perhaps these cells are there as a way of fixing some of the other things that break along the path of pregnancy?

There's hope for us yet!

[niktemadur]

The organs that serve the species, as opposed to the individual, are the same organs that will probably get you if nothing else does first: the prostate in the male, the ovaries and mammary glands in the female. Once an individual reaches a certain advanced age, that individual might have avoided heart disease or whatever else, but cancer of the 'naughty bits' is almost guaranteed.

TFA points in an interesting direction, however, at least for the female of the species. Maybe it's not a propagate then get out of the way scenario, but a use it or lose it one. It's there to be used, not to let it atrophy.

So c'mon, people! What's good for the gander is good for the goose, let's keep using those 'naughty bits' until we're a hundred years old and beyond! Oh, and eat lots of garlic and olive oil to keep the heart pumping.

See y'all at the 2070 Slashdot Convention!

I misread the comment

[CrazyJim1]

"Some scientists have proposed that when a woman has a baby, she gets not just a son or a daughter, but a gift of cells that stays behind and protects her for the rest of her life"

I thought it refered to the kid as the gift of cells that protects the mother.

New plan...

[X86Daddy]

So I need to start running around like Christopher Reeves did on South Park, popping an embryo every so often to make me healthier!

Healthy Eating

All I have to say is...

[orbz]

wow, this one sure got a lot of crappy jokes.

anyhow, i think all that's really worth saying about this is this

Re:Hard to believe.

[Lumpy]

How do you think these people get to be researchers? Lotto?

Actually yes.

Here in michigan if you buy a Mega-Millions ticket and do not win the jackpot the closest runners up can choose to be a Researcher. but you have teo spin the big Science wheel to find out what kind of researcher you will be.

Stupid things and dangerous jobs

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Someone controlled for occupational and lifestyle variables by comparing life expectancy between nuns and monks. The usual 7-year advantage for women showed up again. I seem to remember that infant mortality is also lower for girls than for boys.

Another theory...

[Necromancyr]

Another idea would be that these cells don't stick around for the entire life, as is suggested, but instead amplify healing, repair, and immune response immediately after a baby is born.

Some horrendous damage can/is done to the mother's body during child bearing and birth, so it would make sense (fitness wise) if the cells helped the mother get back to baby-birthing health as fast as possible...

Interesting if it could be turned into a therapy for widespread/non baby-having use.

Re: Valentine's Day is for Romance

[NewKimAll]

Exactly. My Mother ALWAYS expects to receive gifts on virtually any holiday and it drives me crazy since it sounds like a demand. Everytime she says, "What did you get me?", on days such as Valentine's Day or her Wedding Anniversary, I remind her that those days are exclusively meant for her and her husband, not her daughter.
--
The best way to ensure that you'll never get a gift from me is to ask, "What did you get for me?".

old joke

[DaFallus]

Why do men die before their wives?

Because they want to

/rimshot

As a father I demand equal tissue shares

[aminorex]

I'm just as genetically entitled as my daughter's mother. I demand equal cellular boosters!

"Children Help Their Mothers for Decades"

[suitepotato]

Children Help Their Mothers for Decades

"Oh, stop the complaining. Stop being so melodramatic. I only asked you to stop by for a few minutes on a Sunday afternoon to help your poor old mother move the overly heavy couch, which I remind you was only bought so heavy because you were such a rough and uncontrollable child, and push it ten feet to the other wall. You want something that feels like forever? You try being in labor for seventy-five straight hours. You kids are always so ungrateful, I don't know why I put up with you. Just you remember to do like I said and go buy flowers for your Aunt Edna's grave and don't be a cheap lazy bastard and forget to put my name on the tag either cause I got the groundskeeper at Shady Acres watching out for me."

Has a baby, or just gets pregnant?

[nurb432]

What if you dont carry them to term? Just stay pregnant most of the time, and live forever.

Re:Easily proven wrong

[McFadden]

If were as uncharitable as you, I might say that arguing that suggests that maybe you're not "really all that high in the scientific food chain." :)

If I were equally uncharitable, I'd drop the word "scientific" from the above.

So risk is rational?

[DM9290]

Men do more dangerous things because we are more capable of doing more dangerous things successfully. This isn't just bravado. There is a certain amount of risk assessment to every action a person takes. And depending on how active a person is dictates their self awareness as well as how capable they are of performing a given feat. A given act may be considered objectively dangerous but every act danger level is subjective to the person performing the act.


Right. And every man dumb enough to want to intentionally risk dying for cheap thrills is rational enough to only do things which are objectively safe because of their supremely honed reflexes and perfect masculine physic.

Men seem to do more dangerous things because they are more likely to survive the 'dangerous' activity.

So when a man is looking out of the bay at the ground at 10000 feet and deciding weather or not to jump. How exactly does a MAN compute his odds of death compared with a woman? And at what point does the woman say 'no.. I'm not going to do it. I'm a woman and my odds just aren't good enough. If I was a man then the danger would be just right."

Re:So risk is rational?

[Drakai]

Right. And every man dumb enough to want to intentionally risk dying for cheap thrills is rational enough to only do things which are objectively safe because of their supremely honed reflexes and perfect masculine physic./i This is weird. I thought I understood your point but your sentence is all back-assward. I guess I could try to put you shit in order then answer it? I think you meant subjectively safe. My attempt: "Every man who risks dying is not doing safe things." I see how you are jumping straight to the greater risks in life and in away that makes sense. People don't generally die slipping on ice. But as far as that goes nor do people die that often skydiving. At least not so much as to contribute to the national average. So for "your about to jump out of working airplane" example, I think you are mixing fear and courage into the equation. And I understand that given the subject of risk and death but I would never say that women are not courageous or brave. But I would say that men are more likely to be less afraid of the jump and therefore more likely on average to make the jump. Why? Is it the confidence in knowing that the cord will pull and the shoot will deploy? Do some men guenuinely believe they will survive the plunge? Or as another reply stated they are simply less afraid to die because family matters less. You see the problem is that your scenario removes control and that is a completely valid point. In the absence of control are men still more likely to take risks. Phew, I really had to work to get to this point. In the absence of control are men more likely to take risks and if so is it because they are less fearful of the consequences or more confident in their survivability? Or is the reward simply more rewarding (the thrill)? I'm guessing all three. Ironically, from my personal experience in a group rock climbing activity a girl got scared on the cliff face and did in fact say "I am not a guy" when others were trying to encourage her to get past her fear point. Eventually she made it, she just needed more time and rest. The problem in a non-safe environment is that both time and rest may not be available.

Re:So risk is rational?

[Drakai]

Right. And every man dumb enough to want to intentionally risk dying for cheap thrills is rational enough to only do things which are objectively safe because of their supremely honed reflexes and perfect masculine physic.

This is weird. I thought I understood your point but your sentence is all back-assward. I guess I could try to put you shit in order then answer it? I think you meant subjectively safe.

My attempt: "Every man who risks dying is not doing safe things."

I see how you are jumping straight to the greater risks in life and in away that makes sense. People don't generally die slipping on ice. But as far as that goes nor do people die that often skydiving. At least not so much as to contribute to the national average.

So for "your about to jump out of working airplane" example, I think you are mixing fear and courage into the equation. And I understand that given the subject of risk and death but I would never say that women are not courageous or brave.

But I would say that men are more likely to be less afraid of the jump and therefore more likely on average to make the jump. Why? Is it the confidence in knowing that the cord will pull and the shoot will deploy? Do some men guenuinely believe they will survive the plunge? Or as another reply stated they are simply less afraid to die because family matters less. You see the problem is that your scenario removes control and that is a completely valid point. In the absence of control are men still more likely to take risks. Phew, I really had to work to get to this point. In the absence of control are men more likely to take risks and if so is it because they are less fearful of the consequences or more confident in their survivability? Or is the reward simply more rewarding (the thrill)? I'm guessing all three.

Ironically, from my personal experience in a group rock climbing activity a girl got scared on the cliff face and did in fact say "I am not a guy" when others were trying to encourage her to get past her fear point. Eventually she made it, she just needed more time and rest. The problem in a non-safe environment is that both time and rest may not be available.

True Story, 1999

[Anonymous Coward]

Woman is pregnant, baby is late by a day or so. Doctors gleefully rub hands, schedule induced labor.

        Hubby exhaustively canvasses all living relatives of unborn child, some 10+ individuals, to determine if late birth is normal for this genetic mix.

        All relatives concur that late births are the norm, that all children on both sides of family have been born 1 to 4 weeks late for at least four generations, at least 50 individuals. Corroborating documentation is produced by maternal grandmother for several dozen instances through an old family bible that specifically states babies were born late.

        Hubby presents evidence to doctors, triumphantly, expecting congratulations and friendly response.

        Chief doctor stares glassily through Hubby and states flatly: "GESTATION PERIOD IS NOT A HERITABLE TRAIT." Other doctor present nods gravely. Both refuse to examine written report.

        The storal of this mory is: you can have all the data in the world, but if nobody is willing to look at it, it boots naught.

Mommies 1, Daddies 0

[ff1324]

Mom get the gift of illness curing cells for live. Dad gets the bill.

Nice

[spx]

Thats interesting to read, considering I just found out Im expecting last week. When I had my first, I wasnt sick for over a year or two, and it was never that bad.

This makes no sense

[StikyPad]

I'm pretty sure more of my stem cells stayed in me than remained behind. Why would the leftover cells have a higher longevity/survivability than my own? If a stem cells were wookies, would they live longer? Ladies and gentlemen, that does not make sense.

OK, that's it!

[Gorimek]

I'm not cleaning my room anymore!!

Re:Not me, you dumbass. MA wanted to *kill* Haleig

[MadAhab]

Oh, you mean Haleigh's brain had atrophied to 50% of its previous volume before a miraculous recovery? Or did you mean that Terry Schiavo would have recovered eventually, in contradiction to all human knowledge and science? Or are you just pulling shit out of your ass? Of course, since you are a troll, perhaps the part of YOUR brain that atrophied is exactly the part that you would need to understand what I'm saying.

Any sources?

[egghat]

I can't believe this, but it would be very interesting.

There are countries e.g. in Scandinavia where 80% of the women work. So they cummute (drive a vehicle) and work (work accidents). And there hasn't been major war in Scandinavia. Still the life expectance of women is some years higher.

Yes, the gap is getting smaller, but it's more like down to 6 years from 8 years and not down to 6 months.

Bye egghat.

Stem Cells, Aloe Vera Polymannose, etc.

[sephano]

I recently attended a presentation by the esteemed Dr. Reg McDaniels of Aloe Ministries. He discussed and showed chomosonal evidence that undifferentiated stem cells do cross the placental barrier from child to mother. This discussion was in the context of aloe vera polymannose and how regular supplementation raises adult stem cell production by several orders of magnitude.

What I can't figure out...

[cobras2]

is why the feminists want to be the same as men, serve in the army, etc, if it's safer to be a woman... you've already got a sweet deal, what's the problem?!

(note to anyone who feels like flaming me: I'm kidding)