Image: BARBARA KOSOFF
-
What a Plant Knows
How does a Venus flytrap know when to snap shut? Can it actually feel an insect’s tiny, spindly legs? And how do cherry blossoms know when to bloom? Can they...
Read More »
Scientific papers tend to be loaded with statistics and jargon, so it is always a delightful surprise to stumble on a nugget of poetry in an otherwise technical report. So it was with a 2005 paper in the journal Development and Psychopathology, drily entitled “Biological Sensitivity to Context,” which looked at kids’ susceptibility to their family environment. The authors of the research paper, human development specialists Bruce J. Ellis of the University of Arizona and W. Thomas Boyce of the University of California, Berkeley, borrowed a Swedish idiom to name a startling new concept in genetics and child development: orkidebarn.
Orkidebarn means “orchid child,” and it stands in contrast to maskrosbarn, or “dandelion child.” As Ellis and Boyce explained in their paper, dandelion children seem to have the capacity to survive—even thrive—in whatever circumstances they encounter. They are psychologically resilient. Orchid children, in contrast, are highly sensitive to their environment, especially to the quality of parenting they receive. If neglected, orchid children promptly wither—but if they are nurtured, they not only survive but flourish. In the authors’ poetic language, an orchid child becomes “a flower of unusual delicacy and beauty.”
Sensitive Souls
Inside the small world of scientists who study genetics and child development, the notion of the orchid child was stunning. The idea of resilient children was hardly new, nor was the related idea that some kids are especially vulnerable to the stresses of their world. What was novel was the idea that some of the vulnerable, highly reactive children—the orchid children—had the capacity for both withering and thriving. They appeared to be extremely sensitive to home and family life, for better or worse. Is it possible, scientists wondered, that genes underlie this double-edged childhood sensitivity?
Ellis and Boyce’s paper launched a search both for those genes and for the risk pathways that might lead to bad outcomes such as delinquency, substance abuse and mental illness. Most of the work initially focused on the genes that behavioral geneticists call the “usual suspects”—and it paid off. Studies soon showed that genes linked to particular enzymes or brain chemical receptors, if combined with family stress or maltreatment, can lead to a slew of behavioral problems or mood disorders. These links have now been verified again and again, and scientists are searching for additional genes that might play a role in this exquisite childhood sensitivity.
But where to look? If one is looking for genes that might be linked to unhappy lives, the genetics of heavy drinking is a place to start. That was the reasoning of behavioral geneticist Danielle M. Dick of Virginia Commonwealth University, who, with 13 other scientists from around the world, has been exploring a gene called CHRM2. CHRM2 has already been implicated in alcohol dependence, which is in the same group of disruptive behaviors as childhood conduct disorders and antisocial behavior. What’s more, the gene codes for a chemical receptor involved in many brain functions, such as learning and memory, so the gene might also be involved in behavioral disorders. Dick and her colleagues recently decided to test the idea.
The team of researchers took DNA samples from a group of more than 400 boys and girls who have been part of a larger child development study since before kindergarten and analyzed variations in their CHRM2 gene. These kids did not have behavioral problems at the start; they were a representative sample from communities in three U.S. cities. The youngsters have been studied every year since kindergarten, and they were around age 17 at the time of this new study. The scientists collected information on the teenagers’ misbehavior—delinquency, aggression, drug abuse, and so on—from both the mothers and the kids themselves. They also asked the teens how much their parents knew about their lives—such as their whereabouts, who they hung out with, what they did with their time, and how they spent their money. They wanted to get a general idea of how closely these kids were monitored by their parents in their daily comings and goings as a way of measuring parental nurturing, indifference or neglect.
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentFascinating study.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWouldn't weeding out delinquent behavior and unhappy individuals in the past have also eliminated the sometimes crucial contributions to society's continued survival?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat kind of humanity are we intending to engineer? Who really knows what's best for us?
An interesting study to be sure, but I take issue with the criteria they used to "measuring parental nurturing, indifference or neglect." I had the greatest parents in the world - loving, nurturing, infinitely supportive - but they didn't know every detail of my life, and didn't feel the need to insert themselves into my business unnecessarily. They didn't always know how I spent my money, or what I was doing with my time, but that certainly wasn't a sign of indifference or neglect on their part, rather quite the opposite. I had many activities I enjoyed doing with my parents, we spent a fair amount of time together, had great discussions about a variety of topics, and they were always interested and supportive if I did happen to talk about my personal life. I was just intelligent, mature, and private by nature, and they loved and more importantly trusted me to, for the most part, run my own life. This made for a lovely relationship that fostered trust, independence, and mutual respect. Better by far, I noted at the time, than teens raised by parents determined to know what they were doing and with whom every moment of the day. (I actually oftentimes noted this kind of behavior specifically lacking a positive correlation with "quality" parenting.) I think I would have been much more likely to have "withered" under the stress of an overly intrusive parenting style.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know without a doubt that I received the absolute highest quality of parenting growing up - a perfectly nurtured (if slightly modern) childhood which unfortunately would not be represented accurately within the parameters of this paper. Hopefully future developmental behavioral studies will find a more accurate way to measure the complex issue of what it means for a parent to best "nurture" their child.
@esm90: One example does not a study (or its interpretation) make. Peace.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm pretty sure that abusive and neglectful parents can easily be weeded out without dire consequences for humanity. An Orchid Child will likely be far more creative and productive with a good environment than any child from a bad environment. While the definition of "good parent" is certainly subject to a great variation in definition, some things are pretty widely accepted as bad parenting. Eliminating true abuse and neglect goes a long way toward eliminating crime and thus makes the world a much better place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo? You are not a broad based study. You are 1 example. If you have a comment on the study or its results that is based in science then feel free to comment. If you want to try to spin your narrow minded interpretation of second hand information with no evidence to back you up, don't expect too many people to be overly impressed. My own childhood was similar to yours but the outcome was very different. This doesn't mean that my life validates or invalidates this study in any way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn a personal level, the results touch me. Though I've suffered depression since I was age 7 and was emotionally neglected or made to feel wrong about myself as well as being trapped in the wrong type of body, I've survived. I haven't thrived. I look forward to the day I will no longer have to survive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood points!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this