TIME Nutrition

The Pros and Cons of Food Stamps At Farmers’ Markets

83758247
Ben Bloom—Getty Images

We know we should be eating more fruits and vegetables, but they can be expensive. How do families on the WIC program find the best deal on fresh produce?

As part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), low-income moms are provided with vouchers to purchase healthy, nutritious food for their families. Farmers’ markets have become part of this program as well, in order to expand the fresh produce options that low-income families have.

But the latest study of WIC families in Illinois highlights the fact that the exact benefits of farmers’ market vouchers are hard to figure out. The latest research finds that the amounts of farmers’ market vouchers don’t contribute to a meaningful increase in fruit and vegetable intake, and that prices for produce were lower at grocery stores than at the markets. But price isn’t everything.

“Where farmers’ markets really shine is getting people more interested and having a more positive attitude about fruits and vegetables,” says Karen Chapman-Novakofski, senior author of the paper, published in the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior.. “Those are positive psychosocial values associated with healthy eating that we want to promote.”

And price seems to vary from place to place. In a Seattle study, products were cheaper, pound for pound, at the farmers’ markets than at grocery stores—ditto in North Carolina and California, which has the longest growing season. In the Midwest, where the current study was conducted, the decreased access to fresh produce and the shorter growing season may contribute to higher prices at the markets over the stores, which can take advantage of volume pricing.

The amount of the vouchers also may not be enough to make a difference in how much nutritional benefit the families get from the food. Most mothers come in for WIC appointments once every three months and receive two vouchers, each worth about $6. That results in about six cups of vegetables or fruits over three months. According to the USDA, children should be eating up to 2.5 or 3 cups of vegetables a day, while women should be consuming up to 2 cups daily. “Now you know why it didn’t have an impact [on their nutrition],” she says.

But Chapman-Novakofski isn’t ready to ditch the farmers’ market vouchers yet. She found that the farmers’ markets have additional benefits such as seeding more long-term healthy eating habits that could eventually lead to better nutrition. In her study, half of participants went to farmers’ markets to use their vouchers, while half did not. Those that went ended up eating a wider variety of fruits and vegetables, and were more likely to have them as snacks. The mothers also reported being more open to incorporating fresh fruits and vegetables into their daily meals, and being more confident in their ability to do so.

The fact that the prices of produce was cheaper at grocery stores in Illinois is also a lesson, she says, for WIC programs to increase the allowances for purchasing these foods at stores. In February, the USDA finalized changes to the WIC program that increased by more than 30% the dollar amount for fruit and vegetable purchases for children, to encourage families to purchase more than canned or frozen produce.

That could be especially helpful in Midwestern states with shorter growing seasons, says Chapman-Novakofski, so that eating habits begun during the summer, possibly at farmers’ markets, can continue in the winter. She is planning more research into the farmers’ market effect. “It would be nice to know what’s contributing to people going to farmers’ markets, and to replicate that during the winter months or at the grocery store.” “As a nutritionist,” she says, “I don’t care if they get fruits and vegetables at the farmers’ market or at the grocery store, as long as they get them.”

TIME Nutrition

41 Superfoods, Ranked By How Healthy They Are

171350186
Alasdair Thomson—Getty Images

We know that dark green vegetables and citrus fruits are good for us, but if we had to choose among them, which ones pack more of a nutritious punch?

Jennifer Di Noia, associate professor of sociology at William Paterson University, did the work for us and reported her results in the Centers for Disease Control’s Preventing Chronic Disease. We’re told to add powerhouse fruits and vegetables to our diet, but we don’t have much guidance on which ones are really potent and which are coasting by on their color alone. Nutritionists point us toward anything dark green and leafy, for example, but it turns out that they can vary by as much as 70 points on how many nutrients they contain.

Di Noia focused on 17 nutrients considered by the food experts at the United Nations and the Institute of Medicine to be important to good health and to lowering risk of heart disease and cancer: potassium, fiber, protein, calcium, iron, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, folate, zinc, and vitamins A, B6, B12, C, D, E, and K.

She then combed the scientific literature to calculate how many nutrients they contained per calorie of energy they provided (based on a 2,000-calorie-per-day diet); the higher the value, the more of a powerhouse food it was. “It gives people a way of thinking how to maximize the nutrients per calorie,” she says.

She admits that the list doesn’t include all the phytochemicals, or compounds that could add to a food’s nutritional profile but, she says, “now that we have a list of foods it can help consumers know what are the powerhouse fruits and vegetables, and maybe choose the more nutrient-dense foods over less nutrient dense ones.”

Here’s the list. And since this list is all fruits and veggies, it stands to remind you that you can’t really go wrong with anything listed here. That said: Who knew watercress was such a power-veggie?

Item Nutrient Density Score
Watercress 100.00
Chinese cabbage 91.99
Chard 89.27
Beet green 87.08
Spinach 86.43
Chicory 73.36
Leaf lettuce 70.73
Parsley 65.59
Romaine lettuce 63.48
Collard green 62.49
Turnip green 62.12
Mustard green 61.39
Endive 60.44
Chive 54.80
Kale 49.07
Dandelion green 46.34
Red pepper 41.26
Arugula 37.65
Broccoli 34.89
Pumpkin 33.82
Brussels sprout 32.23
Scallion 27.35
Kohlrabi 25.92
Cauliflower 25.13
Cabbage 24.51
Carrot 22.60
Tomato 20.37
Lemon 18.72
Iceberg lettuce 18.28
Strawberry 17.59
Radish 16.91
Winter squash (all varieties) 13.89
Orange 12.91
Lime 12.23
Grapefruit (pink and red) 11.64
Rutabaga 11.58
Turnip 11.43
Blackberry 11.39
Leek 10.69
Sweet potato 10.51
Grapefruit (white) 10.47

 

TIME

Sleep Helps You Remember Things If You’re a Mouse

That’s the technique that worked best for mice in an intriguing study on how sleep helps the brain to create and store memories

It’s hard to tell how much a mouse remembers, but by peering at the activity of nerve cells in animals’ brains while they sleep, researchers have found some clues. That’s how Wen-Biao Gan, a neuroscientist and physiologist at New York University, learned some interesting things about what happens when mice snooze.

By tagging nerves cells in their brains, Gan and his colleagues report in the journal Science that sleep is actually a very active time for the brain, in which connections between buzzing nerve cells are made in order to consolidate memories. The researchers had mice run on a rotating and accelerating rod, then allowed them to sleep. Some of the mice got to slumber undisturbed, while others were handled to keep them from getting quality sleep. The animals who slept undisturbed showed signs of new neural connections forming during just the first phases of sleep, known as non REM sleep.

“My feeling is that sleep is important to the process of forming long term memory,” says Gan. During REM, not only are the same nerve connections that the mice made while they ran reactivated, but new connections were also made. When he blocked the reactivation of nerves, no new connections were made, suggesting that learning, or making long term memories, is a two part process in which sleep plays an important role.

How applicable are these findings to helping people? Hopefully some of same principles apply, says Gan, although more studies will be needed to confirm that. So don’t underestimate how much work your brain is doing while you catch some z’s. Most of what you remember could be thanks to getting a good night’s sleep.

TIME Soda

There’s Even More Sugar In Soda Than You Think

99560143
Jennifer Smith—Getty Images/Flickr RF

And you’d never know, because sugars aren’t broken down on food labels like fats are. The latest study shows just how much sweet stuff is hiding in sodas and fruit juices

Sucrose, glucose, fructose, maltose, dextrose—can you tell the difference? Probably not, even if you’re a careful reader of food labels. Unlike fats, which are broken down on nutritional labels as saturated, trans, polyunsaturated and monounsaturated, sugars are listed as “sugar.” If you read the full ingredient list you may find clues as to what kind of sweetener is in there, such as high fructose corn syrup or dextrose or maltose. But when it comes to figuring out exactly how much of each is there, you’re on your own.

Michael Goran, professor of preventive medicine and the director of the childhood obesity center at the Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, analyzed popular sodas and found that they contained more fructose—a form of sugar that essentially behaves like fat in the body and has been linked to obesity and type 2 diabetes—than their labels suggest. In Goran’s analysis, Dr. Pepper, Pepsi, Sprite, Mountain Dew, Coca-Cola, Arizona Iced Tea and 7-Up contained more than 58% fructose. These results were consistent across three different ways of analyzing their chemical makeup. “What was surprising was the consistency across the methods and the consistency across beverages,” he says. “We saw a consistent ratio of fructose to glucose of 60-40.”

He also found that some drinks that don’t list fructose as an ingredient also contained detectable amounts of the sweet stuff. Pepsi Throwback and Sierra Mist, which do not list HFCS as an ingredient, still contained 37% and 7% of fructose, respectively. Mexican Coca-Cola, which lists only sucrose, also showed higher concentrations of fructose than glucose; sucrose, even if it’s broken down, should lead to equal contributions from both. “If fructose is damaging, then we need to know how much fructose is in our food and beverages,” says Goran.

MORE: 7 Not-So-Sweet Lessons About Sugar

There’s a lot that scientists still don’t know about how the various forms of sugar work in the body, but here’s what they do know. Sucrose, or table sugar, is made up of two carbohydrate molecules paired together: glucose and fructose. Once in the body, the couple splits up and goes two very separate ways. Glucose is the body’s main form of energy, so those molecules are immediately used by cells or stored as fuel for later.

Fructose, on the other hand, can only be processed by the liver, where it behaves like fat. High fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a staple of processed foods and drinks, is glucose that is treated with enzymes so it produces various proportions of fructose; the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows for HFCS42 and HFCS55, which contain 42% and 55% fructose, respectively, with the remainder made up of other sugars, primarily glucose.

MORE: 12 Breakfast Cereals That Are More Than 50% Sugar

Why does all this matter? Since fructose isn’t used by the body for energy, it simply contributes to weight gain and diabetes—not exactly a desired effect. Dr. Robert Lustig, a professor of pediatrics in the division of endocrinology at University of California San Francisco, admits that there aren’t any studies showing how higher ratios of fructose greater than 50% may influence health. Still, that doesn’t mean that people should continue to be in the dark about how much fructose they’re consuming. Fats are more clearly labeled, and since research links trans fats to unhealthy outcomes, people can now see on labels how much trans fat foods contain. Likewise, he says, sugars should be broken down into fructose and glucose, so consumers have a better sense of how much of those sugars can potentially be burned off as energy, and how much will turn immediately into fat.

In response to TIME’s questions about the report, PepsiCo referred us to the International Society of Beverage Technologists (ISBT), a technical group of beverage industry professionals, which happened to publish a report on their own analysis of the fructose content of sweetened beverages on the same day. Not surprisingly, in their analysis of the same drinks, the results were very different. HFCS content in their analysis was right around 55%.

MORE: This Is What Happens When You Give Up Sugar for One Year

So who’s right? Larry Hobbs, co-author of the ISBT study, says that the method Goran and his team used is more appropriate for assessing honey, and not HFCS. Bela Buslig, a former research scientist with the Florida department of citrus who was not involved in either study, says that isn’t necessarily true—and that Goran’s methods were suitable to determine actual fructose content in these drinks. The fact that Goran’s group consistently found 60-40 ratios of fructose to glucose using three different analytical methods, Buslig says, suggests that the results are reliable.

MORE: WHO: Only 5% of Your Daily Calories Should Come From Sugar

Still confused? Until the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture start mandating labeling requirements for sugar as they do for fats, you might stay that way. “My advice to consumers is to reject anything with HFCS,” says Goran. “That would be the first line of defense.” And as Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University adds, “The bottom line: everyone would be healthier eating less sugars of any kind.”

TIME Aging

Centenarians Don’t Die for the Same Reasons We Do

133981931
Howard Kingsnorth—Getty Images

Those who survive to see their second century are indeed different from the rest of us, according to the latest research

Researchers in the UK say that people who live to be 100 or more are less likely to die of the chronic conditions that are the leading causes of death, such as heart disease can cancer, but more likely to die of sudden declines in their health caused by infections or frailty.

VIDEO: Watch: The Island That Holds the Secret to Long Life

After reviewing death certificates of 35,867 centenarians who died between 2001 and 2010 in England, the scientists found that around a third died in assisted care homes. The most common cause of death was frailty or old age (28%), followed by pneumonia (18%). Only 8.6% of those over 100 years died of heart disease, and only 4.4% died of cancer, which remain the leading killers in industrialized nations. By comparison, among those between ages 80 to 85, 19% died of heart disease and 24% died of cancer.

MORE: How to Live 100 Years

Understanding that most of the oldest old, among the fastest growing proportions of western populations, are more vulnerable to sudden events such as infections that can land them in the hospital and on a downward health spiral, should help countries to better prepare for the ever-growing proportion of longer-lived individuals, say the authors. Globally, centenarians are expected to grow from 317,000 to more than 3.2 million by 2050.

TIME Research

How Men and Women Feel Pain Differently

Understanding how men and women feel feel pain is clouded by conflicting results and murky interpretations. While some work suggests that women feel more pain than men, other studies have found the opposite to be true. So which gender has the higher threshold? That depends on what’s hurting and how.

Dr. Andreas Sander-Kiesling, in the department of anesthesiology and intensive care at the Medical University of Graz in Austria, reviewed records of more than 10,000 patients undergoing various surgeries over a two year period who were asked to rate their pain within 24 hours of their procedure. The men were 27% more likely to report feeling more pain after major operations such as heart and shoulder surgery, while women were more likely to show higher pain readings after relatively minor or routine ones such as biopsies and even abortions. Interestingly, women reported less pain after invasive procedures. Because the average age of the women was 58—post-menopause when estrogen, which can increase pain sensitivity, drops—that might in part explain the finding.

MORE: Men vs. Women on Pain: Who Hurts More?

Another factor could be psychological. Biopsies, for instance, are done to determine if suspicious growths are cancerous, or life-threatening, says Sandner-Kiesling, so the anxiety of worrying about cancer may be playing a role in how women perceive the relatively minor procedure. The same may apply to abortion, which can be fraught with emotional and psychological implications.

“We were hoping we could answer more about gender and pain,” says Sandner-Kiesling, “and in certain ways we did, and certain ways we did not. We found a [gender] difference but the difference may depend on the procedure. So the whole picture is still completely fuzzy and confusing.” Which means for the time being, at least, there won’t be male or female versions of pain-killing treatments, but if research continues to tease apart how and why men and women perceive pain in different ways, that may not be so far off.

TIME Nutrition

3 Ways to Lose Weight Without Dieting

174412338
Peter Cade—Getty Images

Cutting back on calories sounds good in theory, but not in practice. Here’s what science says about other tricks to bring weight down

No one needs to be told that if they eat less, they’ll probably weigh less. But if it were that simple, we wouldn’t be staring down a national crisis of overweight and obesity, and those at a healthy weight wouldn’t have a hard time tamping down temptation.

Researchers are building the case for unusual approaches to weight loss and while none of these strategies alone are a bull’s-eye, as anyone who’s tried a diet knows, every little bit helps.

Be mindful.

It’s the latest buzzword in health and wellness because it’s an effective way to direct potentially negative behaviors toward more positive, healthy habits. In a review of 21 studies published in the International Association for the Study of Obesity that used mindfulness-based strategies, most showed that the techniques helped to curb binge eating, emotional eating and over-eating in response to outside cues. For weight purposes, it’s based on non-judgmental ways of analyzing why overweight and obese people eat—whether it’s because of stress or other negative emotions, or because you’re responding unconsciously to cues such as the sight or smell of food.

The mindfulness interventions included things such as figuring out the difference between actually feeling hungry and eating to satisfy emotional needs such as stress, anger or depression. The strategies also helped overweight and obese people to find other outlets, not involving food, for their negative feelings.

MORE: The Mindful Revolution

Slow down.

How you eat can also affect how much you eat, according to a recent study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Scientists analyzed 22 studies in which participants were asked to eat either slowly or more quickly, and found that those who took longer to finish a meal tended to eat less than those who wolfed down their food. That’s not so surprising, but the more encouraging part of the study hinted that getting people to slow down may help them to feel full after eating less. People who changed their eating rate to eat more slowly did not report feeling more hungry up to 3.5 hours later. The researchers admit that most of the participants knew the study involved how eating rates affected hunger so the results might have been biased by their thinking that eating more slowly was better for reducing obesity, but the findings still hint that our bodies may process food differently depending on how quickly it comes in.

Drink…vinegar?

Nausea is a good way to make almost any food unappetizing but it’s not necessarily a healthy strategy for weight control. While a study in the International Journal of Obesity found that adding vinegar to milkshakes had the desired effect – the unpleasant taste was enough to quell any hunger people may have felt, and even made them nauseous – the researchers don’t see such deterrents as being an effective way to control eating, at least on a lasting basis. Studies show that negative reinforcement, such as depriving children of things they really want, like toys and treats, doesn’t help to reshape their behavior to like these things less.

Eating, as all of these studies show, is a complex combination of physical need and psychological reaction. Diets may address the physical part of what goes into the body, but any effective, and lasting weight loss program should address how that food is consumed, and why.

TIME

BRCA Gene Can Be A Cancer Triple Whammy, Study Finds

113477174
Ingram Publishing—Getty Images/Vetta

BRCA already boosts risks of breast and ovarian cancer, and now there’s evidence that it may contribute to lung tumors too

In research published in Nature Genetics, scientists report that a version of the BRCA2 gene, which, when mutated, can increase the risk of developing breast and ovarian cancers, also raises the risk of lung cancer.

Led by Dr. Christopher Amos, professor of community and family medicine at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, the study included genetic data from 75,750 lung cancer patients and controls. Those with a relatively rare version of BRCA2 found in about 2% of the population, had a 26% increased risk of developing breast cancer, but an 85% higher chance of getting any type of lung cancer, and a 2.5-fold increased risk of developing an aggressive, hard-to-treat lung cancer known as squamous cell carcinoma. The lung cancer risk, says Amos, appears to an independent effect of BRCA on lung tissue, apart from its influence on the breast.

MORE: Lessons From the Woman Who Discovered the BRCA Cancer Gene

“We didn’t see an association to lung cancer with other BRCA2 variants, only this particular one,” says Amos. “What we found is a new effect of BRCA2 on lung cancer.”

Current tests for the BRCA 1 or 2 mutations, which account for about 5% of breast cancer cases in the U.S., already include this variant, so most women will know from their results whether they are at higher risk of developing lung cancer, much in the same way that BRCA mutations confer a higher risk of ovarian cancer.

MORE: The Angelina Effect

For now, however, there aren’t any effective treatments for squamous cell lung cancer. Smokers with the variant have twice the risk of getting lung cancer than those with the BRCA2 version who don’t smoke, so kicking the habit is one way to lower risk. But there are promising studies involving a class of drugs called PARP inhibitors, which is currently being studied to treat BRCA-related breast cancers. These drugs work by preventing tumor cells from repairing damage to their DNA, and given the newly discovered connection between BRCA2 and lung cancers, they might also be effective in treating squamous lung tumors. “It raises the question about how we can do a better job of allocating people to screening, and if [this variant] should become part of a panel for screening,” says Amos. Because squamous cell cancers are so hard to treat, such early detection of potential tumors might become a life-saver.

TIME Cancer

Lessons From the Woman Who Discovered the BRCA Cancer Gene

Mary Claire King presents at World Science Festival 2014 in New York City Courtesy of the World Science Festival

The legendary researcher on work-life balance, the importance of trusting hunches, and her stunning scientific discovery

Sometimes the most stunning advances in science are based on a hunch that a dedicated investigator just can’t shake.

That was the case with Mary-Claire King, professor of genome sciences and of medicine at University of Washington. King discovered the region on the genome that eventually became known as BRCA1, the first gene linked to a higher than average chance of developing breast cancer and ovarian cancer. While it seems obvious now that genes can be tied to cancer, at the time King conducted her studies, the idea was too radical to have many supporters.

MORE: Angelina Jolie’s Double Mastectomy: What We Know About BRCA Mutations and Breast Cancer

But King was used to being unusual. As a graduate student at the University of California Berkeley, where she first studied mathematics and then switched to genetics, she petitioned the university protesting the U.S.’s invasion of Cambodia during the Vietnam War. When the National Guard removed demonstrating students, King dropped out and helped consumer rights advocate Ralph Nader to study how pesticides affected farm workers.

She returned to Berkeley and contributed to groundbreaking genetic work that showed humans and chimps shared 99% of the same DNA.

Today, BRCA1 and the related BRCA2 are responsible for about 5% of breast cancer cases in the U.S., or up to 25% of inherited breast cancer, and screening for changes in the genes can help steer women toward potentially lifesaving treatments. The Supreme Court recently ruled that BRCA1 and BRCA2 are not patentable, since they are products of nature, a decision that King supports so that more companies can now devise tests for the cancer-causing mutation.

We spoke with King when she was in New York for the World Science Festival. Here’s what we learned:

On how she discovered BRCA1, and the importance of believing in your gut instincts:

“If we cast our minds back to the 1970s, when my work [on BRCA] began, the mainstream theory was that breast cancer was viral. And some cancers are, so it wasn’t a crazy theory.

My thinking—and, believe me, this was not a theory in the field but just a notion I had—was that there was good evidence that there were some families in which breast cancer was especially common. There was no evidence of a smoking gun. That opened the possibility that there was something else. That went side by side in my mind with the logical way of thinking about cancer, that all cancer is genetic in the sense that it’s a consequence of changes in DNA. That also was not mainstream thinking at the time. But that was the basis of my own thinking, and I’m a stubborn person, so it allowed me to keep pushing my little idea in a very quiet way.”

MORE: 4 Ways The Supreme Court Gene Patent Decision Will Change Medicine

On seeing her little idea become a big one:

“I was absolutely convinced that cancer had to be genetic. I did not see any other way the relationship between a tumor and host could possibly persist. But I honestly didn’t appreciate at all how important and directly useful the inherited component would be. The idea that oncologists and medical geneticists would take that information and systematically be able to put into place screening programs that enable women to learn that they had mutations, and do something about it to save their lives, wasn’t the way I thought. If somebody had said that this was possible, I would have said, ‘Golly, maybe it was.’ But nobody said that to me.”

 

On whether every woman 30-plus should have a BRCA1 and BRCA2 screening:

“I am increasingly convinced that it is both feasible and a good idea to offer a blood test, a sequencing test for BRCA1 and BRCA2 and some of their sister genes for every woman after about age 30. Once a young woman reaches 30 or so, if she has a mutation in one of the genes, she should know about it. … These mutations are inherited from fathers half the time, and from mothers half the time. Because families in America are so small, we did a study that showed that in exactly half of women who had BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, there was no family history that would have led them or anyone in their family to think they carried the mutation. All of these women inherited the mutation from their father, and their fathers either didn’t have sisters or had sister who didn’t inherit the mutation.

Sequencing is now cheap, prices are coming down and the quality is going up. So there’s no reason not to do this. The point is to have a process that is benign enough to the individual—a blood draw—and inexpensive enough to identify people who are really at high genetic risk and then move them into very good screening programs to enable them to make a plan about preventive surgery or other options.”

On how being a woman in science has changed, and remained the same:

“I always assumed I would be an assistant to someone else, because there have always been women in those roles. I always assumed I would work for someone else. And I assumed implicitly that ‘someone else’ would be a man. There are obviously many more women in the field now. Acceptance in principle of women in the field is completely different and that’s absolutely fabulous; it’s just splendid.

The thing that hasn’t changed is the number of hours in a day. The coincidence of one’s child-bearing years with exactly the time one needs to build a career—that’s challenging. Science is also a very demanding child—you can’t just walk away from either. That hasn’t changed. It’s not realistic to say one can drop out of science and drop back in.

Really good child care is incredibly important. Creating a context in which young women scientists have child care they can rely on, and can afford, and that’s close enough to where they work, is enormously difficult, and institutions are working on it. One thing I try to do is run a family-friendly lab. I think it’s the responsibility of those of us whose children are now grown to remember what it was like, and to run family-friendly labs. When women in my lab get pregnant, we know they simply will not be there for a while. But you need the infrastructure in place so their experiments won’t rot when they’re not there, and so they can come back when they are ready.”

On being a mother and being a scientist:

“You never get over the guilt. My daughter would come into the lab when she was six or seven, and she had an area in my office with books, picture books and toys. She made posters that went on the door to my office. One was the First Mommy to Walk on Land. Another was the Sister of the First Mommy to Walk on Land. And there was the Brother of the First Mommy to Walk on Land. When I asked her why she was making the posters, she said, ‘They are to keep people happy while they have to wait for you.’

You have to have an environment in which it’s clear that having children is a part of life, and welcomed. You have to recognize that a scientific career can be very long, and you need to go into the business of being there for your child when you have a child. It’s possible. It’s not possible to do and get enough sleep, but it’s possible to do.”

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 46,439 other followers