A Face Only a Mother Could Love

A Face Only a Mother Could Love

By Michael Leshinski

The undeniable bond between mother and child has just gotten scientific proof to back what some of us have already known. A recent study published by the American Academy of Pediatrics revealed strong brain activity for first time mothers when there were shown a picture of their own child’s face. The study, as first reported in the NY Times, compared pictures of the mother’s own and another random newborn with similar features. It was found that the mother’s brain, upon seeing the photo of her own child’s face, underwent extensive activation specifically in the emotion processing, cognition, and motor/behavioral output sections. When photos of the random, unknown newborn were presented, the mother’s brain did not show the same levels of activation.

Throughout the study, MRI technology was used to monitor the brain activation levels in the participants. The study also found that certain neurotransmitters, such as Dopamine, were released specifically when the mother was shown the picture of her own smiling baby. Dopamine has been linked directly to areas of the brain that process feelings of reward. When the mother recognized a picture of her baby with a sad expression, the same levels of dopamine were not present. In short, there’s no reward for a crying baby. I can confirm this with my own personal experience since my brother and his wife have recently had their first child. I’ve also taken away two major realizations from the publication of this study. The first involves the scientific implications of these new findings. Maybe it is possible to use this new information to treat unfortunate conditions such as Postpartum Depression. Secondly, the study tested only first time mothers, but I believe that the bond between mother and child lasts a lifetime, even if I am the youngest of three boys.

Boys Suck: Science Proves It

Evolutionary biologist Virpi Lummaa has discovered that Finnish women in previous generations suffered a variety of adverse effects when they bore and raised sons.

Among the impacts: a reduced lifespan, greater vulnerability to disease due to higher testosterone exposure during pregnancy, daughters who were less likely to reproduce, and smaller subsequent children. Additionally, having a grandmother around was more helpful than having a grandfather (probably because she helped with childrearing while he just sat around and ate food).

While modern reproductive technologies have mitigated a lot of the effects seen in pre-industrial families, it is still intriguing to consider these impacts in light of the strong cultural bias favoring the bearing of sons. Perhaps it is a type of "peacock effect", whereby the individuals who still thrive in the face of handicapping or indulging in risky behavior are considered stronger and more robust. Or, as my mother asserts, the value balances out an apparent difference in general robustness and health between male and female young, where males often are weaker to start with.

Of course, having too many sons can be evolutionarily disadvantageous too...

A Modern Day "Handmaid's Tale"?

In the latest and, in my opinion, grotesque twist on medical tourism, Judith Warner, author of “"Perfect Madness: Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety" and host of "The Judith Warner Show" on XM Satellite Radio, writes about the commercialization of surrogate motherhood in India. Her report can be found on the New York Times “Domestic Disturbances” blog, located here.

Many of us have talked, debated and written on the topic of surrogate motherhood, but all too often in the academic abstract. For someone like myself, who has thought about surrogacy in terms of commodification and exploitation, it is interesting to read Ms. Warner take on the issue, especially when she states “Our rules of decency seem to differ when the women in question are living in abject poverty, half a world away. Then, selling one’s body for money is not degrading but empowering.”