ext_13509 ([identity profile] nmg.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] baratron 2008-11-25 10:45 am (UTC)

and I was trying to explain how it was thought to be a developmental defect rather than a mutation [...] it could just as easily be the chemical environment in the uterus at fault

Isn't that the definition of a developmental defect? In the absence of structural chromosomal abnormalities or monosomy/polysomy/polyploidy, you're only really left with environmental factors in utero as an explanation.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting