Motherhood permanently alters your brain

motherhood

New research by Dr. Liisa Galea…suggests the form of estrogens used in hormone therapy and previous motherhood could be critical to explain why HT has variable effects. Research in women, and Dr. Galea’s research in animals, shows that one form of estrogens, called estradiol, which is the predominant form of estrogens in young women, had beneficial effects, while estrone, which is the predominant form of estrogens in older women, did not. Furthermore, the effects of estrone also depended on whether the rats had experienced motherhood: estrone-based HT impaired learning in middle-aged rats that were mothers, while it improved learning in rats that were not….

“Our most recent research shows that previous motherhood alters cognition and neuroplasticity in response to hormone therapy, demonstrating that motherhood permanently alters the brain” says Dr. Liisa Galea.

Dr. Liisa Galea is interested in how hormones affect brain and behaviour. Hormone therapy (HT) has been shown to have variable effects on brain function and Dr. Galea noted that one factor that had not received much attention was the form of estrogens used in HT. There are three forms of estrogens: estradiol, estrone and estriol. Estradiol is the most potent of estrogens, and it is the predominant form in young women, while estrone is a weaker estrogen and is the predominant form in post-menopausal women. A systematic review of the published scientific literature indicates that estradiol-based HT may have more beneficial effects, while estrone-based HTs may have more detrimental effect on cognition and dementia risk in women…

…Dr. Galea’s previous research had shown that motherhood causes changes in the architecture of connections in the hippocampus, so her team investigated whether the different forms of estrogens could have different effects on rats that had experienced motherhood once (primiparous rats) and on those who had not (nulliparous rats). They found that estrone-based HT improved learning in middle-aged nulliparous rats, but impaired learning in primiparous rats of the same age. These primiparous rats also showed a reduction in neurogenesis and zif268, a protein involved in neuroplasticity in the hippocampus.

As estrone is a component of the most common form of HT prescribed for women in the US, these findings could have implications for the treatment of age-related neurodegenerative disorders in women.

“Hormones have a profound impact on our mind. Pregnancy and motherhood are life-changing events resulting in marked alterations in the psychology and physiology of a woman. Our results argue that these factors should be taken into account when treating brain disorders in women” concludes Dr. Liisa Galea.

Questions relating to procreation are more scientific than social – just as the opposite is true of questions about religious belief, even though the hypothetical average individual has been taught otherwise.

I find it all interesting because I not only never had any interest in becoming a father, I had a vasectomy quite young. Of course, living, then, in a good Catholic state that simple out-patient procedure was illegal along with contraception. My urologist asked me to swear I would tell anyone who asked that I went to Rhode Island to have it done. 🙂

Apple and Google invited to debate a confidential summit for spies


Click to enlargeDownton Abbey for spies

At an 18th-century mansion in England’s countryside last week, current and former spy chiefs from seven countries faced off with representatives from tech giants Apple and Google to discuss government surveillance in the aftermath of Edward Snowden’s leaks.

The three-day conference, which took place behind closed doors and under strict rules about confidentiality, was aimed at debating the line between privacy and security…

According to an event program obtained by The Intercept, questions on the agenda included: “Are we being misled by the term ‘mass surveillance’?” “Is spying on allies/friends/potential adversaries inevitable if there is a perceived national security interest?” “Who should authorize intrusive intelligence operations such as interception?” “What should be the nature of the security relationship between intelligence agencies and private sector providers, especially when they may in any case be cooperating against cyber threats in general?” And, “How much should the press disclose about intelligence activity?”

The list of participants included:

Richard Salgado, Google’s legal director for law enforcement and information security; Verity Harding, Google’s U.K. public policy manager and head of security and privacy policy; Jane Horvath, Apple’s senior director of global privacy; Erik Neuenschwander, Apple’s product security and privacy manager; Matthew Kirk, Vodafone Group’s external affairs director; and Phillipa McCrostie, global vice chair of transaction advisory services, Ernst & Young…

From the U.S.:

John McLaughlin, the CIA’s former acting director and deputy director; Jami Miscik, the CIA’s former director of intelligence; Mona Sutphen, member of President Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board and former White House deputy chief of staff; Rachel Brand, member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; George Newcombe, board of visitors, Columbia Law School; David Ignatius, Washington Post columnist and associate editor; and Sue Halpern, New York Review of Books contributor…

The event was chaired by the former British MI6 spy chief Sir John Scarlett and organized by the Ditchley Foundation, which holds several behind-closed-doors conferences every year at its mansion in Oxfordshire in an effort to address “complex issues of international concern.” The discussions are held under what is called the Chatham House Rule, meaning what is said by each attendee during the meetings cannot be publicly revealed, a setup intended to encourage open and frank discussion. The program outlining the conference on surveillance told participants they could “draw afterwards on the substance of what has been said” but warned them “not under any circumstances to reveal to any person not present at the conference” details exposing what particular named individuals talked about…

Investigative reporter Duncan Campbell, who attended the event, told The Intercept that it was a “remarkable” gathering that “would have been inconceivable without Snowden,” the National Security Agency whistleblower.

“Away from the fetid heat of political posturing and populist headlines, I heard some unexpected and surprising comments from senior intelligence voices, including that ‘cold winds of transparency’ had arrived and were here to stay,” said Campbell, who has been reporting on British spy agencies over a career spanning four decades.

He added: “Perhaps to many participants’ surprise, there was general agreement across broad divides of opinion that Snowden – love him or hate him – had changed the landscape; and that change towards transparency, or at least ‘translucency’ and providing more information about intelligence activities affecting privacy, was both overdue and necessary.”

Since none of us were invited to the discussion we’ll have to rely upon “interpretations” leaked over coming weeks. Certainly, some of those attending were on the side of privacy and transparency. Not governed by government-level paranoia or bound by class-dependent arrogance.