DISCOVER Magazine. Science, Technology and The Future
Current Issue
Subscribe Today »
  • Renew
  • Give a Gift
  • Archives
  • Customer Service
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Newsletter
  • Health & Medicine
  • Mind & Brain
  • Technology
  • Space
  • Human Origins
  • Living World
  • Environment
  • Physics & Math
  • Video
  • Photos
  • Podcast
  • RSS
Not Exactly Rocket Science
« Losing Nemo – acid oceans prevent baby clownfish from finding home
Fossil foetus shows that early whales gave birth on land »

Ask an IVF baby: does smoking while pregnant lead to antisocial behaviour?

Blogging on Peer-Reviewed ResearchOur health isn’t just affected by the things we do after we’re born – the conditions we face inside our mother’s womb can have a lasting impact on our wellbeing, much later in life. This message comes from a growing number of studies that compare a mother’s behaviour during pregnancy to the subsequent health of her child.

But all of these studies have a problem. Mothers also pass on half of their genes to their children, and it’s very difficult to say which aspects of the child’s health are affected by conditions in the womb, and which are influenced by mum’s genetic legacy.

Take the case of smoking. Doing it while pregnant is bad news for the foetus, and studies have suggested that children whose mothers smoke during pregnancy are more likely to be born prematurely, be born lighter, have poorer lung function, and be more likely to die suddenly before their first birthday. More controversially, they may even show higher levels of behavioural problems including autistic disorders and antisocial tendencies.

Biologically, these results make sense, but many of these risks can be inherited too. For example, genetic factors can strongly influence both a person’s susceptibility to nicotine addiction and their propensity for violent behaviour. A mother’s genes could also affect the birth weight of her child.

To untangle these influences, the ideal experiment would involve randomly implanting foetuses either in the wombs of their own mothers, or those of unrelated women.  That’s possible in animals but deliberately doing so in humans would be both unethical and impractical. Nonetheless, Frances Rice from Cardiff University realised that this experiment was actually well underway.

Since the advent of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) technology in the late 1970s, many mothers have nourished babies in their womb, who weren’t genetically related to them. Here was an ideal chance to study the effects of conditions in the womb, without any confusion caused by shared genes.

Among the many possible detriments of smoking during pregnancy, Rice focused her attention on two – birth weight and antisocial behaviour. Antisocial behaviour has obvious consequences for the child’s later life and infants who are very light at the point of birth have higher risks of poor health and chronic conditions as adults.

Rice examined the fates of 774 “test-tube babies”, 204 of whom were born to mothers who were genetically unrelated to them. The children are currently between 5-8 years old. Their medical records revealed how heavy they were at birth, and Rice gave their mothers a series of questionnaires to work out if they smoked while pregnant.

She found that babies born to smokers weighed about a pound less than those born to non-smokers. The difference was statistically significant, and it held no matter whether their mothers were genetically related to them or not. Any one of the numerous poisons in tobacco smoke could be responsible for this effect; previous studies have pointed the finger at carbon monoxide, a major part of tobacco smoke, and nicotine, which constricts blood vessels and is a neurotoxin in its own right. Either way, this result provides very strong evidence that smoking directly affects the weight of an infant by changing conditions in the womb.

Rice found a different pattern when she considered antisocial behaviour. Using another questionnaire given  to both parents, she catalogued each child’s portfolio of disruptive behaviour, from tantrums to stealing to bullying. Overall, the children were more likely to behave antisocially if their mothers smoked than if they didn’t, as many other studies have found. But this only held true for related pregnancies – among mums who were unrelated to their children, smoking had no impact on their inclination for troublemaking.

Rice was also careful to adjust her results for many other factors that could have biased them. She took the child’s gender and number of siblings into account, as well as the mother’s educational level, age, degree of stress in the third trimester, and her own level of antisocial behaviour. Having accounted for this wide assortment of biases, Rice believes that the link between smoking during pregnancy and antisocial behaviour has little to do with conditions in the womb, and is probably due to other factors inherited from biological parent to child.

There is a big problem with this data, which weakens its conclusions. The number of mothers who were genetically unrelated to their babies and smoked during pregnancy was very low – just nine women out of a total of 204. That’s a pretty small sample to base rigorous conclusions on but admittedly, it does help matters that studies looking at naturally conceived children found similar links between smoking and birth weight.

Other studies disagree on the subject of prenatal smoking and disruptive behaviour. Some reviews have concluded that the existing evidence supports a true link. Others have agreed with Rice’s study, and found that the effect is almost entirely due to a combination of inherited genes and inherited environments. Take away the influence of genetics, the child’s social background, their parents’ antisocial behaviour, and the connection either disappears or is severely reduced.

Rice’s results certainly support this second conclusion, but they aren’t strong enough to seal the debate. Future studies would benefit from larger samples, but the method is very interesting and potentially useful. It could be used to answer wider questions about how much of a child’s life is influenced by its time in the womb.

Some scientists have tried to separate the effects of nature and nurture by looking at the bodies and behaviours of adopted children, who are genetically unrelated to their parents and even come from different races or nationalities. Rice’s method is very similar; the main difference is that the child is “adopted” into a womb while it’s still an embryo, rather than into a home while it’s a toddler.

Reference:F. Rice, G. T. Harold, J. Boivin, D. F. Hay, M. van den Bree, A. Thapar (2009). Disentangling prenatal and inherited influences in humans with an experimental design Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0808798106

More on reproduction:

Maternal hormone shuts down baby’s brain cells during birth

Did conflict between old and young women drive origin of menopause?

Subscribe to the feed

Bookbanner.jpg

Share

February 3rd, 2009 Tags: antisocial, baby, birth weight, disruptive, in utero, IVF, pregnancy, pregnant, prenatal, smoking, womb
by Ed Yong in Child development, Epigenetics, Genes and behaviour, Genetics, Medicine & health, Mental Health, Sex and reproduction | 3 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

3 Responses to “Ask an IVF baby: does smoking while pregnant lead to antisocial behaviour?”

  1. 1.   Emily Says:
    February 3rd, 2009 at 4:46 pm

    This is really interesting. I wonder if this adds to the argument that epigenetics play a part in autism? Smoking can alter your epigenetic code, and there’s evidence that epigenetic mutations contribute to the development of autism.

  2. 2.   Ruth Says:
    February 4th, 2009 at 6:59 am

    In trying to separate out the environmental effects of smoking during pregnancy from genetic influences, has it ever occurred to anyone to compare differences between the children of smoking and non-smoking fathers with those between the children of smoking and non-smoking mothers?
    If a father smoking has no effect on his offspring but a mother smoking does, then it is clearly directly environmental, whereas equal effects from both parents would show it to be genetic.
    Wouldn’t this be a far simpler way to clarify the issue than trying to extrapolate from a tiny sample of people whose fertility problems mark them out as so different from the wider population that we cannot be sure the results can be generalised.

  3. 3.   Stagyar zil Doggo Says:
    February 7th, 2009 at 3:32 am

    The problem with studying smoking, marijuana, suspected environmental toxins, and other harmful and/or addictive substances appears to be the ethical issues in actually giving these substances to study participants. This seems to have precluded RCTs and limited researchers to observational studies.
    One strategy for getting around this could be to start with a population of heavy substance users, randomly assign them into treatment and control groups and make substance use cessation the treatment. The study could probably be designed to account for spontaneous dosage changes by subjects in the control arm, but at least for addictive substances, they are unlikely to quit of their own accord. The treatment group could be encouraged, perhaps by the promise of monetary reward, or a reduced sentence to keep to the cessation program, possibly under heavy supervision and frequent blood tests.
    This could help clarify things like – whether heavy smoking leads to Parkinson’s disease/Schizophrenia, merely alleviates their symptoms or neither. Similarly for the link between marijuana and Schizophrenia. It could also help to distinguish between the genetic and environmental effects in children exposed to tobacco smoke by their parents.

Leave a Reply





    • About Not Exactly Rocket Science



      Ed Yong is an award-winning British science writer. His work has appeared in New Scientist, the Times, WIRED, the Guardian, Nature and more. Not Exactly Rocket Science is his attempt to talk about the awe-inspiring, beautiful and quirky world of science to as many people as possible.

      My personal website with biography, other writing, speaking engagements, and more

      Some interviews with me
      Some awards that I’ve won
      Who my readers are: 2008, 2009 and 2010 editions
      A complete list of posts from this blog

      Follow me on Twitter or Google+

      Contact me on edyong209[at]googlemail[dot]com

    • Support

    • What others say

      "One of the best sites for in-depth analysis of interesting scientific papers" - The Times

      "One of the smartest science bloggers I read... a prime practitioner among the new generation of scientifically authoritative bloggers" - David Rowan, editor of Wired UK

      "Engaging and jargon-free multimedia storytelling about science and the digital age" - National Academy of Sciences

      "A consistently illuminating home for long, thoughtful, and thorough explorations of science news" - National Association of Science Writers

      "Head and shoulders above many broadsheet hacks" - Ben Goldacre

      "Ed Yong... is made of pure unobtanium and rides TWO Toruks." - Frank Swain

      "Ed Yong is better than chocolate, fairy lights, and kittens chasing yarn. That is all." - Christine Ottery

    • Do you want to be a science writer?

      Read origin stories and advice from over 130 science writers from around the world.
    • Not Exactly Rocket Science content

      RSS Recent Posts

      Recent Posts

      • Neurons transplanted into mouse spines reverse chronic pain
      • Virtual resurrection shows that early four-legged animal couldn’t walk very well
      • New sense organ helps giant whales to coordinate the world’s biggest mouthfuls
      • Here’s where all the magic happens
      • Blind mice regain sight after scientists persuade their optic nerves to grow
      • I’ve got your missing links right here (19 May 2012)
      • Meet the paralysed woman who commandeered a robotic arm
      • Deep-sea bacteria redefine life in the slow lane
      Categories

      Categories

      Archives

      Archives

      • May 2012
      • April 2012
      • March 2012
      • February 2012
      • January 2012
      • December 2011
      • November 2011
      • October 2011
      • September 2011
      • August 2011
      • July 2011
      • June 2011
      • May 2011
      • April 2011
      • March 2011
      • February 2011
      • January 2011
      • December 2010
      • November 2010
      • October 2010
      • September 2010
      • August 2010
      • July 2010
      • June 2010
      • May 2010
      • April 2010
      • March 2010
      • February 2010
      • January 2010
      • December 2009
      • November 2009
      • October 2009
      • September 2009
      • August 2009
      • July 2009
      • June 2009
      • May 2009
      • April 2009
      • March 2009
      • February 2009
      • January 2009
      • December 2008
      • November 2008
      • October 2008
      • September 2008
      • August 2008
      • July 2008
      • June 2008
      • May 2008
      • April 2008
      • March 2008
      • February 2008
    • RSS Twitter

    • My wife, who makes it all possible

      Alice.jpg
    • Blogroll

      Science blogs

      Science blogs

      • 80 Beats
      • A Blog Around the Clock
      • Adventures in Ethics and Science
      • Aetiology
      • Alice Bell
      • Ars Technica
      • Arthropoda
      • Atlantic Science
      • Babel's Dawn
      • Bad Astronomy
      • Bad Science
      • BPS Research Digest Blog
      • Cancer Research UK Science Update Blog
      • Child's Play
      • Cocktail Party Physics
      • Collision Detection
      • Culture Dish
      • Culturing Science
      • Deep Sea News
      • Discoblog + NCBI ROFL
      • Dot Earth
      • Dr Petra Boynton
      • Drugmonkey
      • EarthLab
      • Embargo Watch
      • Epiphenom
      • Evolving Thoughts
      • Finite Attention Span
      • Fistful of Science
      • Gary Schwitzer's HealthNewsReview
      • Gene Expression
      • Genetic Future
      • Genomeboy
      • Genomicron
      • Gimpy's Blog
      • Highly Allochthonous
      • Ionian Enchantment
      • JL Vernon Presents American Psico
      • Joanne Loves Science
      • John Pavlus
      • Just a Theory
      • Lab Rat
      • Laelaps
      • Last Word on Nothing
      • Lay Scientist
      • Loom
      • Mark Changizi
      • Mind Hacks
      • Myrmecos
      • Neuroanthropology
      • Neurologica
      • Neuron Culture
      • Neurophilosophy
      • Neurotic Physiology (SciCurious)
      • Neurotribes
      • Obesity Panacea
      • Observations of a Nerd
      • On Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess
      • Open Minds and Parachutes
      • Political Science (Evan Harris)
      • Predictably Irrational
      • Retraction Watch
      • Save Your Breath for Running Ponies
      • Schooner of Science
      • Science Punk
      • ScienceLine
      • ScienceLush
      • Sentence First
      • Sex, Drugs and Rockin' Venom – Confessions of an Extreme Scientist
      • Skepchick
      • Speakeasy Science
      • Superbug
      • Take as Directed
      • Terra Sigillata
      • Tetrapod Zoology
      • The Artful Amoeba
      • The Chicken or the Egg
      • The Examining Room of Dr Charles
      • The Flying Trilobite
      • The Frontal Cortex
      • The Gleaming Retort
      • The Great Beyond
      • The Intersection
      • The Inverse Square Blog
      • The Millikan Daily
      • The Primate Diaries
      • The Science Project
      • Thoughtomics
      • Thus Spake Zuska
      • TYWKIWDBI
      • Vagina Dentata
      • Voyages Around my Camera
      • Weird Bug Lady
      • White Coat Underground
      • Why Evolution is True
      • Wild Muse
      • Wired Science
      • Words of Science
      • XKCD
      • Zooillogix
      Other blogs

      Other blogs

      • Cafe Philos
      • Miss Cellania
    • NetworkedBlogs
      Blog:
      Not Exactly Rocket Science
      Topics:
      science, biology, news
       
      Follow my blog


  • Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us