podcast (3)

The podcast discusses social epigenetics and its impact on early childhood through a case study on community resilience and intergenerational trauma among Indigenous families. It highlights how trauma and resilience are passed down through relational and epigenetic pathways, influenced by historical injustices like colonization and systemic racism. The discussion emphasizes the role of early childhood professionals in fostering resilience and addresses the biological mechanisms and environmental factors affecting children's development, stressing the importance of responsive care and cultural practices in promoting positive epigenetic changes and healing. Hello, everyone, and welcome to our podcast where I will discuss social epigenetics and its relationship to early childhood throughout a case study. I am your host, Darisha, and I will be guiding you through the podcast. I shall introduce you to the other podcast members, our researchers, Maggie, Sherbie, and Allison. We'll take a deep dive and provide a critical analysis. Our discussant is Ruth, who will summarize the content and connect ideas, including epigenetics, consequences, and the implications for practice among early childhood professionals. Today, we'll be discussing a case study that highlights community resilience and intergenerational trauma. This case study was selected because it highlights how trauma and resilience can coexist and how both are transmitted across generations through both relational and epigenetic pathways. The discussion really matters to early childhood professionals as alongside families and communities. They are key figures in children's ecosystem. Here how they view the experiences of a community and understand the role of epigenetics has a crucial influence on shifting the balance between risk and resilience towards opportunities for resilience in early childhood settings and the broader environment. Thank you for introducing our team and explaining why this case study is crucial in the context of the early childhood profession. I will briefly outline what our podcast will look like. First, we'll provide a brief introduction to the key stakeholders in the case study, including their experiences and the relational and epigenetic context. Second, we'll delve into a critical analysis of social and epigenetic processes and explore what resilience can look like for the children and families involved. Then we'll reflect on ethical dilemmas that arise from our discussion, considering questions such as, can epigenetics lead to stigmatization of those involved in the case study? Finally, we'll consider the implications for early childhood professionals, policymakers, and advocates. Our discussion will now begin narrating the case study. Today we are meeting with a community of Indigenous families in a small urban neighbourhood. Their story holds intergenerational transmission of trauma rooted in forced displacement, disrupted traditions, cultural loss, and systemic discrimination, alongside intergenerational transmission of cultural resilience fostered through strong kinship bonds and continuity of cultural practices. When we consider the background of those involved, we must acknowledge the Canadian government's harmful practices through colonization, systemic racism, and the resulting deprivation of their homes, culture, and language, which leaves a lasting impact on Indigenous people's lives. Examples of this are residential schools, the 60s group, and the creation of reservations, while also remembering that Indigenous children and families display strength and resilience through their cultural identity and unity by practicing traditional ways of being and knowing, including storytelling and language classes for youth. What are your thoughts on this discussion, Maggie, and what are the social and biological factors of this case? Acknowledging the historical injustices, Matheson et al., 2022, described the ongoing impact of systemic neglect experienced by Indigenous communities as soul-ruining. I would like to emphasize the importance of viewing the soul holistically, illustrating how adverse experiences can become an integral part of our being and potentially alter our epigenome. An example of what Ruth mentioned was noted in survivors of residential schools that the adults who had attended these oppressive institutions reported encountering adverse childhood experiences, known as ACEs, and trauma, which may be linked to possible epigenetic changes and relationally impacted their ability to care and interact with their own children, with manifestations still evident in third-generation survivors, which was cited by Matheson et al., 2022. From an environmental perspective, social determinants of health can directly compromise relational and epigenetic pathways. If family disruption, cultural genocide, and forced displacement can link to economic, political, and social hardships resulting in community dysfunction, Scorza et al., 2019, then along 1998, is cited in Barunda and Murray, 2019. For example, Matheson et al., 2022, highlighted adults on the Blackfeet Reserve who reported high levels of ACEs and low levels of community belonging showed epigenetic changes in circulating inflammatory markers, such as C-reactive protein, known as CRP, linked to protecting immunity and initiating repair of tissues as we heal from infection, Robles, 2021. These are protein markers that are measured through plasma and blood, and in some studies, not related to indigenous communities, have been linked to social environments of children from low socioeconomic family status, family history of mood disorders, and ACEs, Robles, 2021. This clearly demonstrates how the environment can influence and shape biological processes, when other biological function may be impacted in the community due to historical injustice. Okay, first, we must remember that the research we are using is meant to establish correlations, not causations, as much of it relies on data from other communities and animal models, as cited in Yehuda and Lehner, 2018. Like environmental processes, biological mechanisms do not work in isolation. For example, the stress hormone cortisol produced by the hypothalamic circulatory adrenal axis, known as HPA, binds to the glucocorticoid receptors, as cited in Robles, 2021, turning on or off gene transcription for inflammatory processes. However, prolonged toxic stress can increase allostatic load on glucocorticoid receptors, like NR3C1, which has been linked to a loss of hippocampal receptors and altered stress regulation, as cited in Matheson, et al., 2022. Together, these processes suggest how indigenous children and families who experienced ACEs and ongoing trauma may experience stress proliferation, potentially making them vulnerable to psychological and pathological challenges, as cited in Matheson, et al., 2022. Reassuringly, epigenetic mechanisms are responsive to the environment and can be reversed with responsive care, as cited by Toltz and Alish Wong, 2023. Transmission occurs not only through trauma, but also through resilience. Indigenous communities demonstrate resilience by reclaiming children's well-being through connection with elders, learning languages and practices that embed lessons and stories to guide future generations, thereby strengthening their collective identity, as cited by Burunda and Murray, 2019. Matheson, et al., 2022, asserts that holistic resilience in indigenous communities endures through collective solidarity, culturally supportive resources, self-affirmation, a sense of belonging and identity which can lead to positive epigenetic changes. Thus, Matheson, et al., 2022, suggests that intergenerational resilience coexists with cultural risks, in page 17, and the community in the case illuminates how epigenetic social and cultural processes can, together, foster healing and strength. Thank you for taking the time to illustrate how social and biological processes may work together. How may these shape children's development in the community? Yes, so Yehuda and Lerner highlight in their research that epigenetic changes can also ripple across generations. These include experiences from past generations, the relationships we form, and the surroundings in which we grow up and live in. Therefore, parents' experience with resilience or hardships can be passed down to their children through reproductive cells. By reproductive cells, we mean sperm and ova, and then these changes can also affect how body systems will function, right? So, for children, they may show up in their behavior, hormonal systems, brain development, and even how cells and systems communicate with each other in the body. This is insightful, so how can we expect to see interactions within the environment shaping the development of children in the case study? So, if you look at development, the first stage of our life where we experience our environment is with our biological parents, and that's in our mother's belly. So, on this matter, Scorza et al. report that during prenatal period, the mother and the offspring's hippocampus is highly attuned. The hippocampus is the body's nervous and hormonal systems working together, which control how the bodies respond to stress. The attunement of these processes shape the development of brain circuitry in the offspring, and this offers hope for recalibration during the prenatal and the postnatal periods. However, chronic stress inherited by caregivers due to historical or ongoing discriminations can limit these opportunities epigenetically and environmentally. Here, we can see how epigenetics and environments may interact, sometimes shaping risk and sometimes resilience. For instance, caregivers in the case study may have experienced toxic stress in their environment during prenatal and postnatal period, affecting their ability to provide attuned caregiving, limiting opportunities for secure attachment, and positive early language and brain development. This can impact a person's overall sense of belonging, and as we noted in the Black Feet Reserve, ACEs and low sense of belonging can impact biological pathways. So without intervention, children in the case study may face increased risk for inflammation and impaired brain functioning, impacting their immunity to illnesses, and trigger behavioral symptoms, such as social withdrawal, hyperactivity, and difficulty focusing on tasks. You mentioned that environmental and gene interactions sometimes shape risk and sometimes resilience. How is children's development shaped in context of resilience here? Yes, Teresha, it is important to highlight that epigenetic changes can also be positive. As in supportive environments, given the plasticity of development, these changes can offer opportunities for resilience in both social and biological dimensions at every stage of life, but particularly in early years. For example, the community in the case study fosters strong kinship networks through cultural programs that engage children and families. This creates a holding environment where families access care, including relationships with experts and community leaders, where they can access emotional and concrete supports. According to Robles, these community-specific spaces create a context in which children and families experience relational buffering, which supports caregivers and children in forming secure attachments and distributes the burden of risk across environments, which in turn reduces the stress in the family unit. Here, social relationships provide consistency and support children's autonomy, serving as safety cues for stress responses, supporting emotional regulation, and strengthening immunity. From this foundation of secure attachment, children who engage in language classes alongside peers and cultural mentors, from this foundation of secure attachment, then children who engage in language classes alongside peers and cultural mentors experience a strong sense of belonging and positive identity formation rather than role confusion, which then strengthens self-efficacy and agency, which is particularly important during adolescence when peer relationships become crucial to children. These supportive relationships then foster the social brain, enhancing one's capacity to represent their own emotions and the emotions of others. Over time, this perception of safety and predictability, fostered through relational pathways, operates epigenetically through neural, hormonal, and cognitive pathways, which then supports holistic well-being and resilience well into later years. Given the importance of addressing systematic injustices in the environment while also being mindful of the impact of intergenerational trauma, it poses an ethical question. If risk is not balanced with resilience, how can it lead to stigma or labeling? So, addressing systemic injustices and intergenerational trauma requires a careful, ethical balance, because when risk is emphasized without equal attention to resilience, it can lead to harmful labeling and surveillance, particularly of families, children, and communities that are already vulnerable. As Yehuda and Lerner note, epigenetic changes are not fixed traits but a reflection of the environmental conditions. Yet, when research is interpreted uncritically, it can reinforce deficit-based narratives, suggesting that families are biologically destined for dysfunction. This framing risks apologizing individuals for conditions like anxiety, addiction, PTSD, or obesity, rather than recognizing the social structures that shape these very outcomes. And then, due to the perpetuation of stigmatizing narratives in the environment, children who have experienced trauma may be excluded or misunderstood due to behavioral expression of distress. The fear of stigma then can silence families who need relational and emotional support the most, deepening isolation, shame, and moving them towards risk. On the other hand, ethical application of epigenetic research calls for humility, justice, and relational responsibility, because when we see individuals as concrete selves shaped by the social context of their environment, we shift our focus from blaming them as individuals to interrogating the systems that constrain their resilience at the very root. And ultimately, it's important to note that many individuals and communities are actively speaking out to highlight the strength in positive experiences. For example, Syrins and Elk highlights that healing practices rooted in language, nature, cultural continuity, and family relationships are crucial for communities, as these practices nurture voices, connections, and strengths in every child, family, and community. Hence, when scientific methods aim for objectivity, data on systemic racism, such as peer-relaunched findings on colonial impact of indigenous communities, must be interpreted with care. This is because Penn's LSP cautions that data can shape the lens of the researcher, and therefore must be contextualized within lived experiences. So, ultimately, balancing risk with resilience means resisting simplistic narratives. It means honoring complexity, building ethical relationships, and advocating for systems that nurture, not surveil, those who have been impacted by the trauma. So, what would that mean for early childhood professionals? Well, this means many things for early childhood professionals. It means that their work is crucial in creating relationships and acting as a buffer by establishing an environment and fostering a secure attachment for children who are building resilience and have backgrounds that intersect with the trauma of colonization. As we work toward rebuilding these systems to make them more accessible to indigenous students and families, educators must understand the reason for possible hesitation from the children and families with relation to their historical and continued experiences with systematic racism, colonial violence, and toxic stress, which, as we mentioned, can influence gene expression throughout generations and how that plays into their roles as educators, which we can view from the lens of the relational ethics framework. As relationships are interconnected, relationships between educators, the children, families, and communities they serve, as well as relationships in the form of engagement, using an empathetic approach coming from a place of compassion, humility, and collaboration. Those are critical considerations for educators. Now, I'm wondering what approaches align with the strength-based and ethical frameworks. So, approaches that align with strength-based and ethical frameworks honor indigenous knowledge, promote self-determination, and resist deficit-based narratives. They include community-led, culturally grounded research that respects indigenous ways of knowing and avoids unethical comparisons. As Halstead and Greenwood highlight in their foundational report on indigenous child well-being in Canada and by Matheson and colleagues who caution against the dangers of generalizing trauma across communities and by Yuda and Lehner who remind us that much of what we know about trauma transmission comes from animal models and other populations. All of this points to a deeper truth. If we want to honor indigenous knowledge and avoid harm, our policies need to reflect those same values. This involves creating and revising policies that reduce barriers to quality child care. The application of precautionary principles is relevant here as there is a crucial need for an appropriate understanding of the historical context and current landscape of how trauma, intergenerational, and otherwise affects these situations. Before using these frameworks or even discussing them with others, however well-attentioned, there is a risk of causing harm if the full context isn't understood. Miscommunications may arise from not having all the information or enough of it and from accidentally overgeneralizing the links to trauma as a genetic, this can lead to placing individualized blame or accidental use of tone that implies these children are damaged because of their history. Ensuring proper understanding of the epigenetic factors also applies to policies. When policies overgeneralize concepts like education, they risk applying a one-size-fits-all model that raises complexity and undermines equity. These policies should increase funding and support culturally appropriate curriculum and educator training. We also look at building programs that foster resilience, belonging, and cultural pride, shifting the focus from trauma to identity, continuity, and strength while incorporating relational practices that support Indigenous children and families in ways that reflect who they are and where they come from. Promoting developmental safety and cultural affirmation, these approaches move beyond simplified views of trauma and instead support healing, growth, and thriving across generations. Now let's talk about advocacy and policy. How might broader policies affect the case? For example, access to food, housing, or child care supports. I mean, these things might seem basic, but they really could change the way children grow up and the kind of support families can provide. That is a really great question. Policies really shape the day-to-day lives of children and families. If families lack stable housing or access to healthy food, it adds stress that can affect children both socially and biologically. Again, viewing from the lens of the precautionary principle here, knowing the full context of how various systems interact to shape human experience is crucial, as this would be the foundation for these types of policies to be built from to ensure the needs of those on the receiving end of the policies created are, in fact, met. For Indigenous communities, these issues are tied to long-standing inequalities from colonial practices, which still impact health, education, and overall well-being today. What role can early childhood professionals play in shaping fair and ethical responses? I'm curious because it seems like there is a lot more they can do beyond just following the rules. The most important thing is listening to families and putting their voices first. Professionals can work with elders, support culturally grounded practices, and help remove barriers to quality early learning. Getting involved in policy discussions, joining advocacy groups, and promoting funding that reflects reconciliation values are ways to make a real impact. It is about turning systems that have caused harm into ones that actually support resilience, culture, and healing across generations. And how can professionals ensure their advocacy is both meaningful and ethical? It seems tricky because you want to help but you do not want to impose anything on them. Early childhood professionals can do a lot more than just follow the rules. They can help make them better. Using frameworks like the Child Care and Early Years Act, educators can push for programs that are culturally safe and support Indigenous-led initiatives. Initiatives such as language programs, cultural activities, or funding that generally address the community's needs can make a significant difference. Adding balance among the four principles of bioethics in ways that acknowledge and respect choices emerging from Indigenous-led initiatives can benefit children in ways that improve their well-being, as seen in our case studies such as elder-led language sessions. It is also about learning how to do this without causing more harm to the relationship between Indigenous peoples and colonial systems like education. Bioethics can help disrupt the current context and create justice, including informed consent when discussing education in all forms. This aligns with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action, working to close the educational gap between Indigenous Canadians and non-Indigenous Canadians. This may begin with programs adopting and implementing Indigenous frameworks, such as the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework, which can be found on the federal government's website as a downloadable PDF. So, professionals are not passive recipients of science, they are active decision makers shaping policies and practices to support children and families in a meaningful way. Exactly that. I cannot have said it any better. Today, we spoke about topics of historical and current sufferings that are being faced by Indigenous communities rooted in systemic racism and colonial violence. These issues continue to affect access to appropriate support. At the same time, we emphasized the importance of cultural continuity, support that centers on foundational and holistic well-being, while building resilience and fostering agency. While building resilience and fostering agency, through this, Indigenous communities continue to strengthen their identity. This discussion challenges early childhood professionals to reflect on their roles as allies who empower children and families' voices and identities, thereby promoting high-quality practice. This is important for early childhood professionals because utilizing a strengths-based approach while remaining trauma-informed can help build responsive relationships with children and families without reinforcing harmful narratives such as stereotypes. Throughout our podcast, we explored how trauma can be inherited and passed through generations. However, we also focused on shifting away from the use of harmful labels and stigma towards strengths-based approaches that center on holistic well-being and the building of resilience. This is where advocacy and policy play a role. Access to food, housing, and culturally safe child care are not extras. They are essential. Early childhood professionals are not passive recipients of policy. They are active participants by shaping it. By listening to families, supporting Indigenous-led narratives, and advocating for systems that reflect reconciliation values, we can help transform structures of harm into systems of healing. So, here is a question we want to leave you with. What can we do as educators, community members, and allies to transform the passing of trauma into the passing of resilience to future generations? Take a moment to think about how this might look in your own practice, whether you work directly with Indigenous communities or not. As we conclude today's podcast, we'd like to extend a heartfelt thank you to our guests for sharing their knowledge on this important topic, and to our listeners who have been requesting this kind of educational and foundational exploration of complex issues. Research says Indigenous peoples are one of the youngest and fastest-growing populations in Canada, yet many professionals remain unsure of what steps to take when working with Indigenous communities. Thank you to our guests today for helping us embark on our journey.