This chapter investigates possible future directions of the DOHaD framework. Specifically, it discusses options to translate the framework into the Anthropocene. In a first step, I outline how recent research on epigenetics, the human microbiome, and planetary boundaries challenges notions of origin and development embedded in DOHaD research. I then outline three distinct modes of interdisciplinary collaboration: subordination–service, integration–synthesis, and agonistic–antagonistic. I discuss how each of these modes offers the possibility to conduct research across the nature–culture divide and address human bodies and environments as anthropogenic due to their complex natural, social, and political histories. I conclude that the DOHaD framework needs to embrace the idea of anthropogenic biology to address the challenges of the Anthropocene and take responsibility for the knowledge that it produces in an attempt to shape a politics of habitability for our planet.

In this introduction to the Handbook of DOHaD and Society, we provide an overview of the biosocial research field of the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD). We first trace the evolution of this interdisciplinary field over the past two decades, charting the historical conditions that have brought DOHaD to a critical moment when the field is at a threshold of interdisciplinary innovation across both life and social sciences. We then discuss the biosocial perspective that DOHaD offers as its central premise and promise, allowing for questions of socio-environmental justice, discrimination, and equity to be centred in science and biomedicine. We explore the challenges that complicate this biosocial agenda in practice and attend to questions of research translation, interdisciplinary collaboration, and the socio-cultural dimensions of DOHaD-based health interventions. We end by highlighting the transformational potential of the DOHaD research paradigm and how this handbook offers a toolkit for robust interdisciplinary research in this field.

Embodiment is a key concept in the social sciences and has been particularly useful in discussions of the body, health, and disease. Embodiment allows us to connect the subjective experiences of the body, as well as its lived materiality, to broader social contexts. The concept also helps researchers make sense of the ways in which the body is inscribed with history, politics, and culture. This chapter explores the concept of embodiment in the social sciences and its potential use in DOHaD. We argue that it is important to integrate concepts/tools from the social sciences, in this case embodiment, as biosocial collaborations compel cross-disciplinary legibility and a shared vocabulary. Moreover, this integration of concepts and tools would allow DOHaD as a field to deepen awareness and understanding of the kind of influence environmental experiences can have on the development of health and disease over the lifecourse. We suggest that this deeper awareness and understanding achieved through employing the embodiment concept can make DOHaD research and interventions more socially just and socially sensitive.

The term ‘intergenerational trauma’ describes how trauma experienced in one generation can reverberate in the lives of descendants. The concept has been variously defined in relation to other disciplines and has overlaps with cognate concepts, including historical trauma, transgenerational trauma, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In this chapter, we provide a conceptual overview of intergenerational trauma in the interdisciplinary field of DOHaD research. Intergenerational trauma is of interest to many disciplines and frameworks in part because it lends itself to ’biosocial’ understandings of violence and discriminatory social contexts as physiologically embodied. Yet, intergenerational trauma also presents challenges for scientific study due to the difficulties inherent in stabilising it as a scientific object. Given the growing public interest in intergenerational trauma and its routinised clinical uptake for the care of marginalised communities, this chapter also considers a range of important questions related to policy translation, biopolitics, and social justice.

DOHaD research on preconception, prenatal, and early-life periods of human development can provide a critical resource for legal thinkers interrogating the lines of responsibility for environmental harms (both physical and psychosocial) that affect a child’s growth and development. DOHaD scholars who engage with epigenetic research offer an evidentiary narrative that traces the causal origin of early-life health harms to events that have occurred during pregnancy and prior to conception. Scientific research is increasingly providing evidence that those who suffer disadvantage throughout their lifecourse (in conditions of systemic oppression such as from racism, sexism, or poverty) may be disproportionately subject to molecular changes, creating harmed subgroups that are then intergenerationally reproduced as socially disadvantaged communities. Drawing examples from Australia, the United States, and Canada, this chapter asks what legal obligations, if any, should or can be imposed on contemporary society to ensure not just the future ’health’ of existing children (as they grow into adults) but also the generations of people yet to be born. It is argued that traditional common law legal responses that place responsibility on the individual rather than the community do not ensure intergenerational justice.

This chapter argues against the narrative that posits a pre-twentieth century past, where the mother and fetus were one, in contrast with the present, where the fetus is visible and autonomous. I complicate this narrative by showing that the maternal–fetal relationship was redrawn and reinterpreted multiple times in the twentieth century. The ‘fetal parasite’ era was informed by the hereditarianism of the early 1900s. The notion of a developing organism sensitive to external influences was replaced by a remarkably sheltered fetus. In contrast, concerns around the physical and psychological trauma following the Second World War supported the notion of ‘critical’ periods, responsive to external influences mediated by the mother. Yet soon thereafter, the language and imagery of an autonomous, self-sufficient fetus became prevalent amidst political battles over abortion. The notion of the autonomous fetus is linked to evolutionary biology’s 1970s concepts of the ‘selfish gene’ – with the ‘selfish’ fetus pitted against the mother in the struggle over scarce resources. By the 1990s, the rise of DOHaD and epigenetics signalled a return of the maternally mediated environment to the science of human development. While some interpreted this as a return to the pre-modern model, there is a significant difference. Here maternal experiences and surroundings have to be rendered accessible to an experimental, molecular approach and to show evidence of a quantifiable change in observed parameters.

Despite the promise of a post-racial science, debates over the meaning and implications of race and population differences have persisted, albeit in transformed terms. Given that they eschew fixed genetic differences, ‘biosocial’ perspectives on race have brought with them a renewed focus on the social, historical, and political bases of contemporary health disparities. However, the move away from reference to fixed genes in describing how racial health disparities emerge or are maintained is not without problems. In this chapter, we first challenge the notion that the embrace of environmentally driven effects is inherently progressive, through an examination of the longue durée of pre-modern racial typologies. Second, we review recent research within DOHaD and environmental epigenetics that addresses racial health disparities. Our review reflects our concern that postgenomics has the potential to catalyse new forms of essentialism and typological thinking. Studies in our review hew closely to essentialist forms of racial thought, albeit now marked by methylation differences and adverse early life conditions. To avoid the return of racialised typological thinking, we suggest methodological interventions and various research orientations, such as interdisciplinarity, that can prevent a return to notions of fixed racial difference

The environment represents a central research object in the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD) and related fields such as epigenetics. This chapter discusses how DOHaD researchers operationalise and measure environments in and through their research practices to produce knowledge on how environmental experiences relate to health outcomes over the lifecourse. While DOHaD researchers discursively acknowledge the complexity of lived environments, we identify some of the current challenges to put this complexity into research practice, often resulting in reductionist accounts of the dynamic nature of human experiences. By proposing the term ’doing environments,’ we emphasise how practices to enact environments for scientific inquiry are products of decisions and negotiation processes that need careful consideration on what social and political consequences these ’doings’ might have and for whom. To that end, we aim to lay the ground for interdisciplinary conversations to engage in critical reflections about the social and political dimensions of doing environments in DOHaD research.

DOHaD and epigenetic research that investigates causal mechanisms and predictive biomarkers has often occurred in the absence of discussion of ethical, legal, and social implications or engagement with disability communities. These implications include maternal blaming, labelling, stigmatisation, and ableism. Considering the debate on different models of disability by disability activists and social scientists, this is a timely opportunity to optimise the design of epigenetic research into conditions labelled as disabilities. Research aims should address the needs of disability communities, acknowledge diversity, and move away from medical to social models of disability. Here we focus on the autistic community as an example. We argue that there is a need to work with autistic people and their supporters to co-design studies that facilitate a better understanding of autism’s challenges and assets and to use this knowledge to assist these individuals and communities. We also stress the importance of autonomy and information provision in relation to autistic individuals’ engagement with epigenetics tests. We conclude by urging researchers planning DOHaD and epigenetics research to listen to and engage with disability communities when they say, ‘nothing about us without us’.

Mood disorders, including bipolar disorder (BD) and major depressive disorder (MDD), are known to have a significant genetic component based on familial and twin studies. Tremendous efforts from the scientific community and technical advancements have led to the discovery of multiple genes associated with the heritability of these disorders over the last years. Nonetheless, our knowledge of the exact genetic basis of BD and MDD is still fairly limited. Recent genome-wide association studies with massive sample sizes have started to characterize the polygenicity of these disorders, although future studies have yet to explore how genetic variants may interact with the environment to modulate one’s risk of disease. As our understanding of the genetics of mood disorders increases (with increasing sample sizes, a more significant shift from candidate gene studies to microarray and sequencing strategies, and integration of findings with environmental measures), many clinical opportunities may arise. This may include the future use of polygenic risk scores for risk assessment, predicting response to medications based on genotype, among others.

Human behavioral ecology traditionally examines ultimate questions while “black boxing” physiological mechanisms and modes of inheritance. This chapter addresses how the intersection between human biology and behavioral ecology allows researchers to open these black boxes and how an examination of mechanisms can help to answer ultimate questions. First, the chapter discusses how physiological systems are intertwined with behavioral ones through chemical messengers, such as hormones, which broadcast information throughout the organism and coordinate actions inside the body with those outside the body. Next, the chapter looks inside the “black box of inheritance” to consider how mechanisms of inheritance beyond genes and culture, such as epigenetic inheritance, are relevant for behavioral ecology. The chapter concludes by discussing how studies of biology and behavioral ecology can complement and inform one another, leading to general insights that would be missed if both biology and behavior had not been considered in concert.

This chapter delves into the age-old nature versus nurture debate, exploring the factors that mold our individuality. As Margaret Mead observed, our distinctiveness arises from a blend of life experiences and inherent traits. Even identical twins exhibit subtle distinctions. We scrutinize whether our abilities stem from innate brain maturation or learned experiences, with nativists and empiricists offering opposing perspectives. The chapter introduces two key concepts for understanding human development. First, we explore genes – their nature, role in development, and contribution to human diversity. We delve into the intricate mechanisms governing gene expression, including the impact of epigenetics. Second, we examine how the mature brain evolves from prenatal origins, shaped by genetics and epigenetics. We challenge the notion that genes alone dictate our identities, emphasizing the dynamic interplay between genes and the environment. We avoid the term innate, recognizing the remarkable adaptability of the human brain–gene system. Our aim is to embrace the intricate interplay of genetics and environment, unveiling the path from genotype to phenotype – the observable expression of our genetic makeup.