Talk:Epigenetics/Archive 3

Fear conditioning in relation to epigenetics
At some point, I watchlisted this article. It must have been around the time I was involved with the Epigenetic theories of homosexuality article years back. Just letting you know this, Sxologist, in case you think I followed you here.

Now on to the reason I've started this section: Regarding this, there are academic book sources on the topic, such as this 2016 "The Wiley Handbook on the Cognitive Neuroscience of Learning" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 144. And this 2018 "Epigenetics, Nuclear Organization & Gene Function: With implications of epigenetic regulation and genetic architecture for human development and health" source, from Oxford University Press, page 256. The author of the second book has credentials that are proper for the topic. No information is given about the authors of the first book. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Flyer, no problem – I did expect it to be covered by secondary sources, and second book would be an okay start. However, this area needs to be covered with caution. Many researchers are dumbfounded by it's misuse. Quoting Kevin Mitchell (a world leader in gene-neuroanatomy interaction): Our experiences [...] are expressed through changes in our neuroanatomy, not in our patterns of gene expression. Most epigenetic studies are not actually showing anything. They are just seeing methylation and assuming causality, often using tiny sample sizes, or mice who reproduce every 3 months (as those texts rely upon). You can take a sample of 200 people and predict an experience (or indeed, homosexuality) with 70% accuracy based on methylation, but that's easy to do when the starting point is 50 percent (you will get 50% no matter what). If you make the sample large enough, the effect disappears. Further quoting Mitchell The problem comes from thinking that turning genes on or off equates somehow to turning traits on or off. If you’re talking about something like skin pigmentation, that might apply—I can expose my skin to the sun for a period of time and this will lead to epigenetic changes in the genes controlling pigment production, and I’ll get a nice tan that will last for weeks. But for psychological traits, the link between gene action at a molecular level and expression of traits at a behavioral level is far too indirect, nonspecific, and combinatorial for such a relationship to hold. Moreover, if much of the variation in these traits comes from how the brain developed, the idea that you can change them by tweaking some genes in adults becomes far less plausible. There is lots of other evidence from quantitative genetics that make epigenetic explanations for everything quite skeptical. Quoting Pinker here: Many biologists are starting to express their exasperation with the use of epigenetics as “the currently fashionable response to any question to which you do not know the answer,” as the epidemiologist George Davey Smith has put it. All that said, I do of course support including the secondary sources in here with the relevant info. Sxologist (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A "Criticism" section can be created, and the "Pseudoscience" section can be merged with that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me; pseudoscience probably falls under something like Misuse and criticisms. Sxologist (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad to see some editors with both time and knowledge to try to get this article back on the straight and narrow. If looking for more sources, some articles over the last few years by Prof of evolution Jerry Coyne (author of 'Why evolution is true') are a good resource    Fig (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggest move of talk about "Jing" to a lower section, pseudo-science, or outright removal.
At the end of the intro description is the following:

> A similar concept to epigenetics can be found in the study of Traditional Chinese medicine's understanding of postnatal Jing or essence.[8]

This smacks of one person's attempt to rationalize a very broad idea in Traditional Chinese medicine to a very specific scientific phenomenon. It's probably pseudo-science. But even if it wasn't pseudo-science, such a comparison of one thing being a "similar concept" to another thing is not notable. For those reasons, IMO this sentence doesn't belong here. But at the very least, this should be moved to a low-level, ancillary-type (controversy-type) sub-topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:343:8100:2090:895F:F2F:DE48:788D (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Formatting
Due to the first figure, the start of the article looks weird at high zoom levels. Shouldn't the formatting somehow be changed?

--Mortense (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Lamarckism
Why is this in the Lamarckism category? I didn't think that Epigenetics counted as a variant of Lamarck's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Originalcola (talk • contribs) 00:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Junheesin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kingleo1800.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2020 and 7 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zasan001, Wikisabella. Peer reviewers: Kukam001, Zabru001.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hnnelms.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Bruce Lipton
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6438088/ says this doctor wrote or co-authored three books on epigenetics. I believe he has been introduced into the article in the past and then removed. This seems like a problem our intrepid Wiki editors can solve. Dscotese (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)