Jump to content
opinion

Epigenetic-Ga


GerMonsterNotta

Featured Posts

Yxilon
3 hours ago, Both Sides Now said:


I don’t mean to sound overly critical to Ga but I think most scientists would roll their eyes at that :messga:

I did indeed :ally: but I still love her, also she mentioned both genetics and epigenetics in the Chromatica poster promo she is really into that concept :firega:

Everything could be everything (it could mean anything)
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply
anonanon
3 hours ago, Both Sides Now said:

Hello girlies I’m a lurker here :pawsup:
 

I’m doing a PhD in genetics and when Gaga mentioned epigenetics in her interview I actually cringed a little :poot: I was relieved when she said something along the lines of “I’m not trying to make this pseudoscience” but yeah. 
 

What she’s suggesting is a BIG stretch which I’ve actually noticed in the mainstream. It comes from studies that show that “stress” can cause changes to your epigenome which can be heritable. The jump from that to “the death of my aunt caused me to inherit trauma from my dad” is a bit of a leap for me :ohwell:


I don’t mean to sound overly critical to Ga but I think most scientists would roll their eyes at that :messga:

 

3 hours ago, Cherry Cherry said:

I agree with the inheriting trauma from her dad part. Epigenetics is a lot more subtle than that.

The Dutch Famine is main example we're all taught in genetics I think, but it shows that the trauma isn't transmitted to you but it causes you to inherit a health issue (mental or physical). It's highly likely that the epigenome she inherited from her dad was tainted (for a lack of a better word) but she didn't inherit trauma. She's also experienced trauma herself so I think it's hard to draw a line between her dad's influence on her epigenome and how her life experiences have modified her epigenome. I know that there's ongoing research into how epigenetic modifications are involved in how humans adapt to a changing environment

Hmm I didn't feel that she crossed into cringe territory. When she was talking about inheriting her dad's trauma, I didn't take it literally. I figured she just meant she inherited some epigenetic change that maybe led to her having other health issues. Or, not to get too speculative, but that his trauma led to behavioral changes that effected her childhood and would be associated with modification of her own epigenome. Like I guess in layman's terms you could consider that inherited although a scientist probably wouldn't use that terminology? Although I think that is part of the problem. We can understand what she was saying was an oversimplification of a nuanced topic, but the average person might take it at face value.

Also I don't study epigenetics that much so I could be wrong! The only time was really when I was briefly working on a study about adverse childhood experiences, so that is probably why I jumped to the second conclusion.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Temptation said:

Actually, your pretentious post made me cringe. So just because Gaga is not a scientist means she is not allowed to even talk about epigenetics? Am i allowed to talk about it? 

Gaga is very invested in the science. Not just because of her own experience, but because of the work her charity does with the mentally ill. As i’m sure you know, the BTW Foundation is partnered with several universities and intergovernment agencies to fund research into depression, trauma and intergenerational pain.

It is a still new area of research but Gaga’s excitedness in the topic makes me all the more interested in both her art as well as her Foundation’s research. 

Oh and by the way, every important discovery in science was a “BIG stretch” at the time. That is what science IS.

I disagree with this. In general I believe we should be wary of celebrities talking discussing topics that they are not experts on as if they have more of an understanding than they actually do. They are people like everyone else and should be free to discuss whatever they want, but we can't pretend they don't have more of an impact than you or I would. I don't think Gaga has really done anything that bad yet and she seems to know enough to know that she doesn't know enough, if that make sense, but it's still great when actual experts can chime in and provide more nuanced discussion.

And I don't know if BTWF's research is the best defense because I have been unable to find even a single academic publication about any of the topics you've mentioned other than evidence of one paper that has been recently submitted to a journal. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I would genuinely be interested in reading. 

Genomics is the future of medicine and I do agree she is probably really interested in it, even if out of wanting to understand her own health issues.

Edited just now by anonanon
Link to post
Share on other sites
Miel

I... have my own opinions on the concreteness of epigenetics-based science.

That said, I definitely think she wasn't being that serious about it, and was mainly utilizing it as a sort of in-album contextual metaphor for generational and inherited trauma (which I believe to be much more rooted in socializing than biological essentialism, of course, at least regarding to her example of her father's pain being projected onto her).

Chromatica truly is the sci-fi spiritual successor of Joanne I could not believe it!

3 points in and ready for more
Link to post
Share on other sites
Both Sides Now
14 minutes ago, anuanu said:

 

Hmm I didn't feel that she crossed into cringe territory. When she was talking about inheriting her dad's trauma, I didn't take it literally. I figured she just meant she inherited some epigenetic change that maybe led to her having other health issues. Or, not to get too speculative, but that his trauma led to behavioral changes that effected her childhood and would be associated with modification of her own epigenome. Like I guess in layman's terms you could consider that inherited although a scientist probably wouldn't use that terminology? Although I think that is part of the problem. We can understand what she was saying was an oversimplification of a nuanced topic, but the average person might take it at face value.

Also I don't study epigenetics that much so I could be wrong! The only time was really when I was briefly working on a study about adverse childhood experiences, so that is probably why I jumped to the second conclusion.

Nice to see so many researchers on this forum :pawsup:

I suppose I may have judged her a bit too harshly but as I said I’ve heard some pretty dubious use of epigenetics in particular. Her train of thought in this interview was a bit difficult to follow in general. 
 

As users pointed out here, there are positives and negatives about her bringing less-understood streams of science into the zeitgeist. I personally really like her interest in sine. We’ll see if she brings it up again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
brucee

when i said this thread would flop i meant that it was a very clever for me. And that I wanted to talk about it but felt like it would not work a lot. nothing else. Obviously it didn't. I've been so insensitive for your first thread... Thouh I love it. 

hello hello baby.
Link to post
Share on other sites
anonanon
50 minutes ago, Both Sides Now said:

Nice to see so many researchers on this forum :pawsup:

I suppose I may have judged her a bit too harshly but as I said I’ve heard some pretty dubious use of epigenetics in particular. Her train of thought in this interview was a bit difficult to follow in general. 
 

As users pointed out here, there are positives and negatives about her bringing less-understood streams of science into the zeitgeist. I personally really like her interest in sine. We’ll see if she brings it up again. 

For what it's worth, I didn't feel your post was too harsh and I'm glad you brought up those points. I totally agree it is nice to see so many researchers weighing in.

Edited just now by anonanon
Link to post
Share on other sites
GerMonsterNotta
1 hour ago, brucee said:

when i said this thread would flop i meant that it was a very clever for me. And that I wanted to talk about it but felt like it would not work a lot. nothing else. Obviously it didn't. I've been so insensitive for your first thread... Thouh I love it. 

Dont worry boo :hug:This is Gaga bringing novel science theories into pop culture, its interesting to see different perspectives on this, although I can get its not in everyones key interest :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
GerMonsterNotta
1 hour ago, Miel said:

I... have my own opinions on the concreteness of epigenetics-based science.

That said, I definitely think she wasn't being that serious about it, and was mainly utilizing it as a sort of in-album contextual metaphor for generational and inherited trauma (which I believe to be much more rooted in socializing than biological essentialism, of course, at least regarding to her example of her father's pain being projected onto her).

Chromatica truly is the sci-fi spiritual successor of Joanne I could not believe it!

I would personally be interested to hear your opinions :teehee: but maybe thats another thread...

There are millions of dollars of investment and new research pieces coming out in using epigenetics in the early detection of diseases such as cancer.... so let's watch this space on if it all pays off... 
https://www.oncozine.com/detect-cancer-early-liquid-biopsy-based-ctdna-methylation-as-a-promising-diagnostic-approach/

Sci-fi Spiritual Successor of Joanne blows my mind  :spin: roll on Friday

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cherry Cherry
1 hour ago, anuanu said:

 

Hmm I didn't feel that she crossed into cringe territory. When she was talking about inheriting her dad's trauma, I didn't take it literally. I figured she just meant she inherited some epigenetic change that maybe led to her having other health issues. Or, not to get too speculative, but that his trauma led to behavioral changes that effected her childhood and would be associated with modification of her own epigenome. Like I guess in layman's terms you could consider that inherited although a scientist probably wouldn't use that terminology? Although I think that is part of the problem. We can understand what she was saying was an oversimplification of a nuanced topic, but the average person might take it at face value.

Also I don't study epigenetics that much so I could be wrong! The only time was really when I was briefly working on a study about adverse childhood experiences, so that is probably why I jumped to the second conclusion.

I think the difficulties of having this debate are due to the fact that epigenetics as a field is conceptually very complicated. Everyone on this thread has been right and wrong in different ways including myself

Link to post
Share on other sites
Miel
47 minutes ago, GerMonsterNotta said:

I would personally be interested to hear your opinions :teehee: but maybe thats another thread...

There are millions of dollars of investment and new research pieces coming out in using epigenetics in the early detection of diseases such as cancer.... so let's watch this space on if it all pays off... 
https://www.oncozine.com/detect-cancer-early-liquid-biopsy-based-ctdna-methylation-as-a-promising-diagnostic-approach/

Sci-fi Spiritual Successor of Joanne blows my mind  :spin: roll on Friday

Spoiler

I think regarding detection of certain diseases within the realm of genetic coding, large scale patterns, etc. I understand the reasoning. But that's in the context of genetic patterns, which I don't think epigenetics is, right? Of course, my opinions could be completely unfounded and I could also just be insensitive, but I don't believe that things like life experiences could be passed down genetically. Maybe I'll be proven wrong one day! But as far as I know, genetic responses happen over the course of adaptation or mutation, and not through singular generations.

Okay LMAO you're right this should be for another thread

Anyway, I canNOT wait for sci-fi Joanne to come out this Friday! We're so close!

3 points in and ready for more
Link to post
Share on other sites
GerMonsterNotta
24 minutes ago, Miel said:
  Hide contents

I think regarding detection of certain diseases within the realm of genetic coding, large scale patterns, etc. I understand the reasoning. But that's in the context of genetic patterns, which I don't think epigenetics is, right? Of course, my opinions could be completely unfounded and I could also just be insensitive, but I don't believe that things like life experiences could be passed down genetically. Maybe I'll be proven wrong one day! But as far as I know, genetic responses happen over the course of adaptation or mutation, and not through singular generations.

Okay LMAO you're right this should be for another thread

Anyway, I canNOT wait for sci-fi Joanne to come out this Friday! We're so close!

Sooooo super duper close ahhhh........ Spongebob Squarepants Spongebobmovie GIF by The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge On The Run
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
GerMonsterNotta
55 minutes ago, Cherry Cherry said:

I think the difficulties of having this debate are due to the fact that epigenetics as a field is conceptually very complicated. Everyone on this thread has been right and wrong in different ways including myself

In Epigenetica no one thing is greater than another......

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cherry Cherry
4 minutes ago, GerMonsterNotta said:

In Epigenetica no one thing is greater than another......

I so brought this upon myself :sharon:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Temptation
5 hours ago, anuanu said:

 

Hmm I didn't feel that she crossed into cringe territory. When she was talking about inheriting her dad's trauma, I didn't take it literally. I figured she just meant she inherited some epigenetic change that maybe led to her having other health issues. Or, not to get too speculative, but that his trauma led to behavioral changes that effected her childhood and would be associated with modification of her own epigenome. Like I guess in layman's terms you could consider that inherited although a scientist probably wouldn't use that terminology? Although I think that is part of the problem. We can understand what she was saying was an oversimplification of a nuanced topic, but the average person might take it at face value.

Also I don't study epigenetics that much so I could be wrong! The only time was really when I was briefly working on a study about adverse childhood experiences, so that is probably why I jumped to the second conclusion.

 

I disagree with this. In general I believe we should be wary of celebrities talking discussing topics that they are not experts on as if they have more of an understanding than they actually do. They are people like everyone else and should be free to discuss whatever they want, but we can't pretend they don't have more of an impact than you or I would. I don't think Gaga has really done anything that bad yet and she seems to know enough to know that she doesn't know enough, if that make sense, but it's still great when actual experts can chime in and provide more nuanced discussion.

And I don't know if BTWF's research is the best defense because I have been unable to find even a single academic publication about any of the topics you've mentioned other than evidence of one paper that has been recently submitted to a journal. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I would genuinely be interested in reading. 

Genomics is the future of medicine and I do agree she is probably really interested in it, even if out of wanting to understand her own health issues.

You’re acting like the science of epigenetics is clear-cut, well-established and unambiguous. Hunny, it’s not. It is complicated and poorly understood - including by scientists. What Gaga is doing, as an artist, is channeling the mysteries and complexities of this massive grey area into something empowering and definite that can possibly heal. Music is medicine. She is basically using art as therapy, in a way that may help the very science it is inspired by. She is allowed to talk about her art. She is allow to talk about her pain. 

Please don’t make scientists some elite bunch of infallible people that know things before they become established as fact (a process which takes years of longitudinal testing and replication of results) and that only ever agree with each other. They, like celebrities, are ONLY human. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...