I think it's important to point out, as a longtime reader of both Broadsheet and Olivia Judson's blog (when it's not "taking the week off"), that this post is well-meaning, but ultimately in poor taste.

Olivia's bog is a science blog, not a political blog. I understand that at institutions like Salon, at times like this, politics invades everything. But let's not slime a great science writer for using the "science" of voting as a narrative tool for an otherwise interesting and informative essay.

Seriously, it's the kind of misreading I'd expect from the RNC, not a thought out place like Salon. Certainly not on Broadsheet.

This was not Olivia Judson's usual careful scholarship. Do you find the article to be serious - standing on its own? Can you consider that this was intended to be an example of the pseudo-science that happens when someone, a well-educated someone (the more educated and celebrated the better) tries to take results of science/biology to make a statement of social "truth"?

The people we hate, are all fat. Their kids will be fat too so it's ok to hate them. Not because they're fat but because they're Republicans. Fat (White) Republicans.

"Hmm. Granted, I lack the scientific expertise of Judson, but do you really need a Ph.D. to realize that formulating an essay on a completely hypothetical correlation is somewhat reckless?"

The first thing that jumps to my mind is that in the context of conducting science, every assertion is completely hypothetical.

Boo-urns, Rossmeier.

No like Svutlana science one bit and study absolute minimum for get into post-secondary institutions. That be said, Ms Judson article is interest in stream of consciousness in "let's go from skittish voter to flight pattern of great tit to obese hormonal stew" kind of ways.

Find me this article extreme provocative, but am little bit dizzy now and picture of Ms Judson look little bit naughty, like she try for play trick on everybody.

Olivia Judson does indeed raise some interesting questions about mothers' weight and hormone levels, and possible influences on their children's personalities. There is evidence that fat makes estrogen, which increases breast-cancer risk (and decreases uterine-cancer risk). Also, many lipophilic toxins (e.g., dioxins and some pesticides) accumulate in our fat. It's a poorly-reported fact that children get on the order of a third of their total lifetime doses of such toxins from their mothers' breast milk. Indeed, toxin levels in human breast milk are so high that it could be classified as hazardous waste. Sadly, this is an especially-serious issue among Arctic peoples, who live around a global cold sink. Given that many of those toxins are estrogenic, consequently reduced maternal levels may explain some of the parity-related decrease in breast-cancer risk. Elevated levels of such toxins may contribute to accelerated menarche (in addition to improved nutrition, of course) and decreased sperm count.

Anyway, it's superficial to write off her blog entry as BS. OTOH, somebody could just do the relevant studies. Perhaps they are, but I've been away from this literature for decades.

I opine that "evolutionary biologists" should be required to adopt the professional title of "Evolutionary Biology Theorist" because absolutely none of what they say is testable by experiment.

So uh, yeah. Obesity in a preggers lady MIGHT be a contributing cause of GOPerism or anti-GOPerism.

Or it might not.

Can I have a PhD now too?

While I'm sure Mr. Rossmeier enjoyed writing: "See, I can ponder bold, unsupported claims, too. And I didn't even need to get a fancy degree or a New York Times column to do it." It begs the question, did he even read Judson's piece?

She spends the piece exploring the correlation between hormones in the womb and adult behaviors in other animals, particularly as it relates to being easily excitable or more contemplative in response to external stimuli. Given the fear mongering on the right, the connection to the current political climate shouldn't be too difficult to see.

Had Mr. Rossmeier provided the rest of the Judson quote he uses early in his piece:

"So far, so intriguing. But what does any of it have to do with obesity?

Possibly nothing. But one additional observation suggests there could be a connection. Obese women have different hormonal profiles from women of normal weight. This is, in part, because fat cells themselves release hormones. Some of these affect appetite control and metabolism; others affect blood pressure. Fat cells also release estradiol, a form of estrogen. So when an obese woman becomes pregnant, her fetus is exposed to various “fat” hormones. Whether these hormones shape someone’s personality is unclear. But since exposure to hormones in the womb affects personality in so many other cases, it strikes me as possible that it could here too."

By taking his piece down the road of "[Judson] never attempts to define what constitutes obese. Is she using the body-mass index?" he's ignoring the obvious, that an obese person has more fat cells than a non-obese person, independent of the definition one chooses.

All Judson has done is make a case for why a particular study could be interesting and informative. Too her credit Judson's piece is balanced, Rosesmeier's, sadly, is not.

just to fill up the space lest some other person sits down in 'your' chair.

I agree with other posters that this looks like pretty lame "research". But even if it were valid, I'd suggest that there should be an inquiry about umm, financial status as a variable?

Only suggesting in a hopefully non-irritating way that perhaps obese mothers might be preponderantly of a set of social groups, etc.?

This sounds like poor supposition on any level, but without any other data it's of no value.

I am genuinely surprised at the amount of vitriol that has been hurled at Olivia Judson over her post, especially on the NYTimes comments section. But perhaps I shouldn't be, because the level of science literacy in the US is beyond appalling.

At no point did Ms. Judson make any sort of judgemental remark or even insinutate that obsese women having babies was in any way problematic (other than in terms of clearly negative health outcomes for mom or baby, if they turn out to be real, such as increased risk for diabetes, heart diseasae, etc.). She was merely bringing together a few loose threads from different fields and studies, and offering a kind of musing based on the available evidence, which she admits is scant at this point. But these types of musings are exactly the stuff of good science - and of scientific progress. Where would we be today if good scientists didn't wonder about the connections between seemingly scattered data and particular outcomes - and then become curious enough to go and find out if there's anything to them?

I think some people have had knee-jerk reactions to Judson's post because our social and media environments are so hostile to the overweight and obese. I get that, and I don't support any kind of fat-bashing. But the facts are that an increasing number of babies are being born to mothers who qualify as obese (by any number of measures)andm as Judson correctly states, the uterine environment of obese women is demonstrably different from that of the non-obese. Why shouldn't we speculate about the possible effects of different uterine environments on developing fetuses? Has the discourse become so degraded that we can't even talk about ideas anymore?