This is the previous study that was cited in the article: <a href="http://phobias.about.com/od/research/a/snakeandspidpho.htm" rel="nofollow">http://phobias.about.com/od/research/a/snakeandspidpho.htm</a><p>(I'm sure I read it in the dead-tree version on the New Scientist but can't find it now).<p>What's interesting is that the children simply paid more attention to spider/snake-like shapes rather than actually fear them. This seems to have been the case with both of my children who have been fascinated by spiders from an early age and will spot them from across the room. I encourage the curiosity and discourage the fear (we're in Ireland after all).<p>For some reason, I think it's more plausible that we have a genetic predisposition to pay attention to spiders/snakes rather than the emotional fear response. Perhaps that distinction isn't present in crickets?
This is awesome stuff, esp. in regards to epigenetics.<p>wiki: "In biology, and specifically genetics, epigenetics is the study of inherited changes in phenotype (appearance) or gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence, hence the name epi- (Greek: επί- over, above) -genetics. These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life and may also last for multiple generations. However, there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism;[1] instead, non-genetic factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently.[2]"
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics</a><p>A further round of study would be exposure to a spider of female crickets and male crickets before pregnancy, and another would be to see if there are any lasting changes passed in successive generations.
a). They didn't link to the study. Or if they did, not anywhere I could see. Inexcusable in 'science' journalism!<p>b). Any control group on the babies to see if it's actually fear of spiders they learnt, or just fear?