Tatjana Buklijas

A conceptual framework for the developmental origins of health and disease

In the last decades, the developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD) have emerged as a vigorous field combining experimental, clinical, epidemiological and public health research. Its goal is to understand how events in early life shape later morbidity risk, especially of non-communicable chronic diseases. As these diseases become the major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, research arising from DOHaD is likely to gain significance to public health and economic development. But action may be hindered by the lack of a firm mechanistic explanation and of a conceptual basis, especially regarding the evolutionary significance of the DOHaD phenomenon. In this article, we provide a succinct historical review of the research into the relationship between development and later disease, consider the evolutionary and developmental significance and discuss the underlying mechanisms of the DOHaD phenomenon. DOHaD should be viewed as a part of a broader biological mechanism of plasticity by which organisms, in response to cues such as nutrition or hormones, adapt their phenotype to environment. These responses may be divided into those for immediate benefit and those aimed at prediction of a future environment: disease occurs in the mismatch between predicted and realized future. The likely mechanisms that enable plasticity involve epigenetic processes, affecting the expression of genes associated with regulatory pathways. There is now evidence that epigenetic marks may be inherited and so contribute to non-genomic heritable disease risk. We end by discussing the global significance of the DOHaD phenomenon and its potential applications for public health purposes.

How evolutionary principles improve the understanding of human health and disease.

An appreciation of the fundamental principles of evolutionary biology provides new insights into major diseases and enables an integrated understanding of human biology and medicine. However, there is a lack of awareness of their importance amongst physicians, medical researchers, and educators, all of whom tend to focus on the mechanistic (proximate) basis for disease, excluding consideration of evolutionary (ultimate) reasons. The key principles of evolutionary medicine are that selection acts on fitness, not health or longevity; that our evolutionary history does not cause disease, but rather impacts on our risk of disease in particular environments; and that we are now living in novel environments compared to those in which we evolved. We consider these evolutionary principles in conjunction with population genetics and describe several pathways by which evolutionary processes can affect disease risk. These perspectives provide a more cohesive framework for gaining insights into the determinants of health and disease. Coupled with complementary insights offered by advances in genomic, epigenetic, and developmental biology research, evolutionary perspectives offer an important addition to understanding disease. Further, there are a number of aspects of evolutionary medicine that can add considerably to studies in other domains of contemporary evolutionary studies.

Developing a Curriculum for Evolutionary Medicine: Case Studies of Scurvy and Female Reproductive Tract Cancers

Most early evolutionary thinkers came from medicine, yet evolution has had a checkered history in medical education. It is only in the last few decades that serious efforts have begun to be made to integrate evolutionary biology into the medical curriculum. However, it is not clear when, where (independently or as part of preclinical or clinical teaching courses) and, most importantly, how should medical students learn the basic principles of evolutionary biology applied to medicine, known today as evolutionary or Darwinian medicine. Most clinicians are ill-prepared to teach evolutionary biology and most evolutionary biologists ill-equipped to formulate clinical examples. Yet, if evolutionary science is to have impact on clinical thought, then teaching material that embeds evolution within the clinical framework must be developed. In this paper, we use two clinical case studies to demonstrate how such may be used to teach evolutionary medicine to medical students in a way that is approachable as well as informative and relevant.

The Science and Politics of Naming: Reforming Anatomical Nomenclature, ca. 1886–1955

ABSTRACT: Anatomical nomenclature is medicine’s official language. Early in their medical studies, students are expected to memorize not only the bodily geography but also the names for all the structures that, by consensus, constitute the anatomical body. The making and uses of visual maps of the body have received considerable historiographical attention, yet the history of production, communication, and reception of anatomical names—a history as long as the history of anatomy itself—has been studied far less. My essay examines the reforms of anatomical naming between the first modern nomenclature, the 1895 Basel Nomina Anatomica (BNA), and the 1955 Nomina Anatomica Parisiensia (NAP, also known as PNA), which is the basis for current anatomical terminology. I focus on the controversial and ultimately failed attempt to reform anatomical nomenclature, known as Jena Nomina Anatomica (INA), of 1935. Discussions around nomenclature reveal not only how anatomical names are made and communicated, but also the relationship of anatomy with the clinic; disciplinary controversies within anatomy; national traditions in science; and the interplay between international and scientific disciplinary politics. I show how the current anatomical nomenclature, a successor to the NAP, is an outcome of both political and disciplinary tensions that reached their peak before 1945.

The laboratory and the asylum: Francis Walker Mott and the pathological laboratory at London County Council Lunatic Asylum, Claybury, Essex (1895–1916)

London County Council’s pathological laboratory in the LCC asylum at Claybury, Essex, was established in 1895 to study the pathology of mental illness. Historians of psychiatry have understood the Claybury laboratory as a predecessor of the Maudsley Hospital in London: not only was this laboratory closed when the Maudsley was opened in 1916, but its director, Frederick Walker Mott, a champion of the ‘German’ model in psychiatry, was instrumental in the establishment of this institution. Yet, as I argue in this essay, for all the continuities with the Maudsley, the Claybury laboratory should not be seen solely as its predecessor – or as a British answer to continental laboratories such as Theodor Meynert’s in Vienna. Rather, as I show using the examples of general paralysis of the insane and ‘asylum colitis’, the Claybury laboratory is best understood as an attempt to prevent mental illness using a microbiological model.

Histories and Meanings of Epigenetics

The fast evolving field of epigenetics is currently generating interest and excitement, but also controversy. With its main proposition that environmental influences, from food to stress, can be rapidly inherited through molecular mechanisms that supplement or modulate information contained in DNA, some have come to see epigenetics as a bridge between social and natural sciences, reigniting the nature/nurture debate. Others, however, argue that epigenetics, while important, is part and parcel of genetics and not paradigm-changing. These contrasting views go along with opposing historical narratives and understandings of future promise of epigenetics. I examine these different histories and juxtapose these different meanings, to sketch how epigenetics came to high public prominence and what kind of larger developments in science and society this prominence indicates.