\n<\/p>\n
It\u2019s a question on every new parent\u2019s exhausted mind: Why are babies born so helpless? In 1960, an American anthropologist laid out an influential explanation rooted in human evolution.<\/p>\n
As our early ancestors began walking upright, Sherwood Washburn argued<\/a> in 1960, they evolved a narrower pelvis to make walking long distances more efficient. At the same time, those hominins were evolving larger brains. And babies with big heads could get stuck in a tight birth canal during delivery, threatening the lives of mothers and babies alike.<\/p>\n According to Dr. Washburn, evolution dealt with this \u201cobstetrical dilemma,\u201d as he called it, by shortening pregnancies, so that women delivered babies before the infant brain was done growing.<\/p>\n Dr. Washburn\u2019s theory was hugely influential and became a common lesson in biology classes. \u201cSapiens: A Brief History of Humankind,\u201d a 2011 best-selling book<\/a>, presented the obstetrical dilemma as fact. Many researchers still embrace it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n But a detailed review of the evidence, slated to be published soon in the journal Evolutionary Anthropology, threw cold water on the idea. In the review, Anna Warrener, a biological anthropologist at the University of Colorado Denver, argued that the evidence to date did not offer strong support for the obstetrical dilemma, and that scientists had not paid enough attention to possible alternatives. What\u2019s more, the scientist said, the idea sends a pernicious message to women that pregnancy is inherently dangerous.<\/p>\n \u201cIt perpetuates a narrative of bodily incompetence,\u201d Dr. Warrener said.<\/p>\n In graduate school, Dr. Warrener did not see any reason to doubt the obstetrical dilemma. For her dissertation, she investigated one of Dr. Washburn\u2019s key assumptions \u2014 that women walk less efficiently than men do because their pelvis is wider for childbirth. But in 2015, after studying volunteers walking on treadmills, Dr. Warrener found<\/a> that having a wider pelvis did not create a bigger demand for oxygen.<\/p>\n \u201cThe data came in, and I was like, Wait a minute \u2014 I may have gotten some of the story wrong,\u201d she recalled.<\/p>\n Holly Dunsworth, a biological anthropologist now at the University of Rhode Island, also became disenchanted with the obstetrical dilemma when she took a close look at the evidence. \u201cI was scandalized,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n In 2012, she and her colleagues published a study<\/a> on the length of pregnancies in humans and other primates. They found that, in general, bigger primates tended to have longer pregnancies than smaller ones. For their size, humans don\u2019t have shortened pregnancies. If anything, human pregnancies are longer than one would predict for a primate of their size.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Since then, Dr. Dunsworth has become a strong critic of the obstetrical dilemma, arguing that the timing of childbirth is determined by the size of babies\u2019 bodies, not their heads. The birthing process begins when a fetus demands more energy than a mother\u2019s body can provide, she proposes. \u201cWe\u2019re giving birth to massive babies,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Other scientists, however, have come to the theory\u2019s defense, while admitting that its original conception was overly simplistic.<\/p>\n In a study published last month<\/a>, a team of researchers argued that the difference between the male and female pelvis shows signs of natural selection acting in different directions. While human males are bigger and taller on average than human females, certain parts of their pelvises are relatively smaller. The biggest differences are in the bones that surround the birth canals in human females.<\/p>\n Despite these differences, the female pelvis still creates a tight fit between a baby\u2019s head and the birth canal, sometimes putting both the baby and mother in peril.<\/p>\n \u201cSo why did natural selection not manage to kind of resolve this situation and make birth a little less risky?\u201d asked Nicole Grunstra, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Vienna and one of the study\u2019s authors. \u201cIt has evolved to be an evolutionary compromise between competing demands,\u201d she said \u2014 in other words, to solve an obstetrical dilemma.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n But Dr. Grunstra acknowledged flaws in Dr. Washburn\u2019s original version of the theory. She suspected that walking may not have been the most important factor in the evolution of the pelvis. Merely standing upright, she said, might have put pressure on the pelvic floor, preventing the evolution of a more spacious birth canal.<\/p>\n The skeptics aren\u2019t convinced by these arguments. In her new review, Dr. Warrener questioned whether babies getting stuck in birth canals have posed a major threat to women\u2019s lives. It is far more common, she noted, for new mothers to die from blood loss or infections.<\/p>\n She also criticized the way in which Dr. Grunstra and other defenders of the obstetrical dilemma make the case for their hypothesis. In her view, they assume that every piece of human anatomy has been fine-tuned by natural selection for a specific job.<\/p>\n Sometimes, Dr. Warrener said, adaptations are flukes. For example, some of the genes that build the pelvis are also active in the development of other parts of the skeleton. If another bone in our body were to evolve into a new shape, the pelvis might change simply as a byproduct \u2014 not because it was evolving for walking or childbirth.<\/p>\n \u201cI think sex differences in the pelvis have been somewhat of a red herring,\u201d Dr. Dunsworth said. Like other bones, the pelvis does not have a fixed shape encoded in a genetic blueprint. Its development is influenced by the tissues around it, including the uterus, the ovaries and other organs. The proportions of the female pelvis may result in part from all the organs that grow inside it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Both Dr. Dunsworth and Dr. Warrener worry that the obstetrical dilemma leads to a widespread notion of the female body as inescapably defective.<\/p>\n \u201cThat just makes us feel like problems that need to be solved by medicine,\u201d Dr. Dunsworth said. That narrative may play a part in the medicalization of childbirth in recent decades, she added.<\/p>\n The World Health Organization has warned<\/a> that doctors are increasingly performing unnecessary medical intervention on mothers, while chronic disorders that can threaten maternal health \u2014 such as high blood pressure, obesity and diabetes \u2014 get little attention.<\/p>\n \u201cThe way we live now probably doesn\u2019t lead us to meet the challenge of childbirth as well as our bodies did when they developed differently in the past,\u201d Dr. Dunsworth said.<\/p>\n But recognizing the over-medicalization of modern pregnancy doesn\u2019t end the debate about its origins, Dr. Grunstra said. \u201cThat does not in itself mean that evolutionary explanations are wrong,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n