Why we ❤️ epigenetics so, science-washing and therapists' search for meaning.
Epi-carnation - noun [ U ]
A portmanteau blending the words epigenetics and reincarnation.
What a great word! (Credit for coining it goes to Dr. Chad Luke.) Epi-carnation refers to curious and wacky trend of reframing past-life narratives and beliefs as metaphors for the epigenetic transmission of negative experiences. It falls into the conceptual realm of taking a shiny, new scientific concept to legitimise religious, esoteric, or superstitious beliefs.
I’ll call this phenomenon science-washing. That is another handy portmanteau for you.
In this piece, I explore the fascinating field of epigenetics, focusing on separating the hype from the facts - particularly in the context of psychotherapy. Drawing on the expertise of those far more knowledgeable about the topic, my goal is to bring a bit of clarity, however small, to the murky waters of epigenetics. And hopefully, provide you with some food for thought in the process.
And yes, no surprise there, I will tell you that epigenetics does not legitimise belief in past lives as science.
Is There a Case For Epicarnation?
This is not the only example I have come across, but it will do: Exploring the Connection Between Past Life Regressions and Epigenetics.
Let's have a closer look at this new epicarnating paradigm. From the get go, the intent for science-washing emerges:
'Have you ever wondered about the concept of past life regression? Traditionally, it refers to the idea of tapping into memories of a “past life.” But what if this isn’t just a mystical notion? What if it connects to something rooted in modern science—epigenetics?'
The piece then proceeds to 'explain' what epigenetics is and suggests that past life memories could somehow be encoded in our genetic blueprint (note the seamless shift from 'epigenetics' to 'genetic blueprint'):
'Epigenetics is the study of how our DNA carries more than just genetic code; it also encodes the experiences, traumas, and even successes of generations before us. It’s been shown, for example, that trauma can leave marks on our DNA that last for multiple generations. This opens up an intriguing possibility: could the memories we attribute to “past lives” actually be the echoes of our ancestors, encoded in our genetic blueprint?'
Epigenetic is NOT a study of how our DNA encodes experiences and traumas. For reference, I will define what epigenetics is later on in text. But back to epicarnation, it is a skip-hop-and-a-jump to validating guru's point by the modern science :
'Take, for instance, a story I recently came across about a man who was told by a guru that he was Horatio Nelson in a past life. At first glance, this seems far-fetched. But what if it’s not? What if this man was genetically linked to Nelson, and the guru was intuitively accessing information encoded in his DNA—a “genetic memory” of sorts?'
To be fair, to me the story is still far-fetched, but anyhow!
I don’t have any particular beef with this author, who is a holistic therapist and self-alignment coach. Rather, I use this as an example of how connecting ideas and concepts that seem somewhat related, and then adding a few misplaced definitions, can suddenly create a logical chain that makes whatever the guru says appear somehow a reasonable and possibly science-backed claim.
Something for us therapists to be mindful of when incorporating scientific concepts and ideas into our work and thinking. Making the best effort we can to consult sources created by actual scientists and experts in the field, and ensure we understand the basic definitions is so important. In that way we can make a good use of the available science ideas and results, we are acting responsibly towards our clients and we are also ensuring we are taken seriously by the broader scientific community. In this piece, I will aim to model this by referencing neurogeneticist Kevin Mitchell, but also some others.
When it comes to epicarnation and the miraculous wonders of epigenetics, I have to mention that Deepak Chopra has chipped in the debate. Of course he has (those of you who read my blog will know that I am a big fan of his opus). I find that his involvement in a given topic often serves as an excellent proxy for a BS detector.
And now, let's define epigenetics.
What is epigenetics?
There is no epigenetics without genetics and DNA, so let’s start with a brief overview of DNA.
DNA is a giant sequence made up of four different molecules: Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Cytosine (C), and Guanine (G). These molecules are compacted and organized into chromosomes. Biological information is passed down from one generation to the next through the replication of DNA sequences, with genetic material being inherited from parent to offspring.
During DNA replication, errors occasionally occur, known as mutations. When these errors are not lethal to the organism and they occur in germ line cells - the sex cells (eggs and sperm), they introduce variation into the population’s DNA pool. Some mutations can even offer adaptive advantages, particularly in changing environmental conditions. Organisms better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing these beneficial traits on to future generations. Over time, although very slowly, this process enhances the species' fitness for survival in its environment. This is known as natural selection.
Epigenetics is not a mysterious force that defies the laws of natural selection and Darwinian evolution. Rather, it is an umbrella term that encompasses any modification of DNA that results in different patterns of gene expression or regulation. This could include how and when certain genes or other regulatory elements of DNA are turned on or off, or regulated in their pattern of expression. Unlike DNA sequence which is stable, epigenetic modifications are fluid: they change over time and are reversible.
Nor is epigenetics something exceptional and rare that only occurs during traumatic or life-altering events.
Some examples of epigenetic regulation listed below:
Different cells in the body are different (skin cell, blood cell, brain cell etc) yet they all have the same DNA. The difference between them is epigenetic.
Inactivation of the X chromosome in biological women (everyone born biologically as woman carries two X chromosomes but only one of those is active)
Immune system activation during infections
Melanine production during sun exposure is regulated by epigenetics
Regulation of glucocorticoid gene regulation in times of stress
And many, many more ...
As you can see, some of these events are just a day to day, 'mundane' events.
Importantly, as a general rule, epigenetic modifications are not passed down from parents to children. For instance, it’s not because a parent was exposed to the sun and developed a tan that their baby will be born with tanned skin.
Is Epigenetic Inheritance Overrated?
Epigenetic inheritance refers to the idea that some epigenetic modifications could be passed down across generations. In other words, certain acquired characteristics of an individual could potentially be inherited by their offspring, which would challenge the accepted scientific view of natural selection of traits.
In particular, could it be that some traumatic experiences are passed down the generations through epigenetics mechanisms?
The issue here is that there is a conflation of meanings between everyday language and scientific terminology, which has very precise definitions.
Let’s unpack this—key terms here include "trauma," "passed down," and "epigenetics."
Define "trauma," right? Trauma is a loaded term, and defining it is a complex issue that deserves more attention given its wide and deep presence in conversations about mental health and even our sense of identity. But we can probably all agree that the threshold for what is considered a traumatic experience does not seem to be the same for everyone. To say that trauma can be passed down across generations, the first question should be: What exactly do we consider trauma to be?
Not many people, especially those who work with individuals who have experienced hardship (whether emotional or physical), would question the idea that certain patterns of reactivity, fears, and attitudes can be passed down through generations. Whether these patterns emerge within a single family or across an entire culture through collective learning, for me at least there is little doubt that intergenerational transmission of trauma exists. But does it happen through epigenetics?
Define inheritance.
It is now well documented that the stress markers such as the elevated cortisol levels can be passed from mother to child in utero through epigenetic transmission. In this context, we can speak of the epigenetic inheritance of trauma.
But if we inspect it closely, this is not the same as the transgenerational transmission of trauma claim, right? From the point of genetic and epigenetic mechanisms, these two phenomena are fundamentally different.
For one epigenetic mark to be transmitted to the next generation, without it being the above mentioned in utero transmission, the germ line cells -the sex cells (eggs and sperm) - would have to carry that epigenetic modification and then somehow avoid the epigenetic reprogramming or resetting that erases most of epigenetic tags existing so to give the "clean slate" to the offspring, so to speak.
Things seem to be tricky enough when we are talking about the transmission of epigenetic marks acquired in response to environmental or psychological stress. But claiming that a complex behavior is passed down epigenetically through generations is much more speculative - and maybe even fanciful is not a too strong of a word here.
Using the transgenerational transmission in the stronger sense, the evidence for it happening in humans or even mammals is very limited - a detailed review of evidence can be found here, here and here. That does not mean it is not happening. I think, for me, it means that, at this point, it was over-hyped, when it comes to psychotherapy community.
In worms and nematodes, the evidence for epigenetic inheritance is much stronger (for example, see here), but these organisms are orders of magnitude simpler than humans, both for the body and the brain. Finding something true in a worm does not necessarily mean it will hold true for humans. Take a simple example: if you cut a worm in two, it can regenerate and survive under certain conditions, becoming two worms. As we know, the same does not happen with humans.
"Truth of Love or Love of Truth". And Meaning vs Chance.
While on the face of it, the conflict between two opposing points of view may appear to be a debate over facts and scientific theories, at a deeper level, I believe this battle is more ideological, or even ontological. The questions surrounding genetic and epigenetic mechanisms, the technicalities of DNA transmission, and how we react and adapt to stressors somehow end up chiming in with questions about the fundamental nature of human lives:
Are our lives pre-determined?
Does the chance govern our lives?
Does what happens to us have a meaning?
Can that meaning be changed?
Epigenetics, or at least its popularised interpretation, seems to offer the promise of a biological mechanism of how our experiences profoundly shape us, even down to the level of our "genetic blueprint" and also give the hope of change. This vision can appear in contrast to the seemingly rigid principles of Darwinian evolution, natural selection, and biological determinism, which can sometimes give off the impressions of the "Welcome to the Brave New World".
For therapists, this deterministic view clashes with a core belief in human agency and the potential for change. And if that sometimes means ignoring scientific facts, logic, and critical thinking, so be it.
In the "truth of love or the love of truth" dilemma, the therapists will, without fail, choose the truth of love.
Only, here is the thing: it is a false dichotomy. Genetics, along with the mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation, does not imply that we are predetermined. It certainly doesn’t equate to biological determinism. Instead, these genetic factors function more like loose templates, which are continuously shaped and reshaped by our experiences and the experiences of those around us.
And then, there is the question of meaning.
As therapists, I think we have an inherent bias toward explanations that provide meaning to experiences. Meaning provides not only a sense of control but also hope for change: change the meaning, and you change everything. In this light, the concept of epigenetic inheritance seems to offer a sense of meaning to why we are the way we are.
But searching for meaning, trying to light up the dark, as therapists, wouldn't you say we are doing a pretty job already? I don't think we need epicarnation, epigenetics or even science to do that for us. Unless it is very good science, of course.
As always, thank you for reading. For updates you can follow me on BlueSky or subscribe to my mailing list.
Some resources for developing critical thinking around epigenetic inheritance by geneticists and molecular biologists:
Comments