Chicken Pox and Human Development

Experiencing the chicken pox as a parent, I've had the opportunity to consider the role of disease in the human rearing experience. It is our natural, almost undeniable urge and sense obligation to alleviate pain and suffering from the experience of our progeny. It is a very primal instinct that has a central role in our species' uncanny ability to grow our population. Yet what role does the experience of dis-ease have on the child's' development as a person with perseverance and will? To shelter ones child from malaise is currently quite comprehensive. With the prevalence of antibiotics and vaccinations in the parents "tool box", it is now possible to eliminate nearly all communicable disease of early childhood. But does sheltering our children from the pain of illness come at a cost to the development of the individual or our species?

It has been shown that without the invasion of Earth's earliest organisms by early pathogens, multicellular life would not exist as we know it. Furthermore, without these early bacterial infections, life would not have left the primordial soup Earth's early oceans. This view of the development of life is commonly referred to as the "endo-symbiosis" theory. Which, in all honesty, is theory as much as evolution is a theory. It goes something like this: Earth's earliest living creatures where single celled chemo-autotrophic bacteria (bacteria that get energy from harnessing chemical reactions driven by inorganic mineral matter). These bugs were doing just fine, thank you very much, until one bug decided "this is just too boring". Chemoautotriphism is the equivalent of the minimum wage job in the land of the microbes. Hours of work for very little gain. So one innovative bug decided, "hey, I don't want to do this anymore, I'll let the others do the work and them eat them". So this big brute of a bug when around happily engulfing other bugs until one day when a particularly tenacious bug fought back. It held on, fending off the attacker, until they both gave up. And one with bug inside the other they found that it wasn't such a bad deal. The little eaten bug had a sheltered home inside the eater and in trade the eaten imparted new skills and abilities to his host.

This was the beginnings of multicellular life, photosynthesis, and all life on land. Without this "infection" all of us would not be here. What does this say about the role of infections in human health? What proportion of biochemical, physiological, neurological abilities we take for granted are the result of systemic infections that were later incorporated into our makeup?


In further support of this theory, is the tendency for bacteria and viruses to share genetic information with others. They contain what have been labeled "mobile genetic elements" which are small packages of DNA that can be released into the environment for anyone, or anything to absorb and incorporate into their own DNA. One can easily imagine a scenario where the passing of these bits of information between species leads to a rapid evolution of those that take advantage of all the work done by others to evolve certain capabilities. Were our ancestors those "receptive" creatures? Did a case of hyper-infection lead to the complex and adaptable physiology we enjoy today?

Next time you sterilize your body with antibiotics, or subject your children to an arsenal of vaccinations, consider the potential benefits of antagonistic relationships that may (or may not) lead to symbiosis.