Today, I came across an article shared in facebook and published in The Newyork Times, regarding Epigenetics and the concern of it's supposedly painful trajectory. I, being a disciple in the field would like to emphasize that the trajectory is not at all over exaggerated and makes sense when you look into the larger picture. The environmental cues (actual or micro) does bring forth changes in the long run and that has been re-instated by several in vitro and in vivo studies, leave aside real time patient samples.
The complexity increases several manifold when you go into the higher organisms. In the terms of statistics, which brings forth the "scientific sense" of "significant", is based on the possibility of occurrence given certain assumed conditions dealt with in the study. Scientifically, it is not possible to take into account every thing. For example, a smoker eats fruits, veggies, may have frequent water intake or an occassional beer. In a study you can follow the individual, but ethically cannot control the subject's lifestyle, unless you keep him/her captive! In most of the aspects, the peer review demands for controlled models, which is being supported adequately by in vitro or in vivo models. That can be proved within the aegis of the journal. That doesn't demeanor the notion that "Epigenetic changes are overestimate of ideas" or as the aforementioned article mentions: "...the fact that it (epigenetic study) may merely be reporting noise".
After a read to the article, I feel that criticism only comes when you are doing things and that it's welcome. I am happy to be part of this journey, the notion of #Epigenetics.
The following picture literally sums it all up :
Source: University of Missouri
No comments:
Post a Comment