Strollerderby

On one hand, I agree with you.  Parents of low-birth-weight babies might take this on as one more worry about their child's future health, based just on the results from this one study, and nobody needs one more worry.

On the other hand, I'm not sure what you think the solution should be.  Should the studies *not* be done?  Or should the results be kept in the drawer until (if?) a definitive answer is found?  If we want to find the causes (and cure) for depression (or any other disorder), we've got to start somewhere.  It's an incremental process, and unfortunately it's probably going to take lots and lots of tiny little pieces of information before we can build any comprehensive picture of what's going on.

Where I see the real problem is not in the research, but in how it's publicized.  Popular media science reports are often quite simplistic, and go for the "News Flash!  X Causes Y!" line (although the BBC one was pretty good, I thought).  On the researchers' side, pressure at the institutional level can mean that the quality of a report is directly related to how much press coverage (read: publicity) it brings to the institution.  So researchers might be inclined to make a big deal about a preliminary or provisional result.

No easy solutions, I fear.  I guess for the average person, I'd hope we can appreciate the work being done, and take the "latest/greatest" results with a wait & see attitude.

Renee, I totally see what you're saying, and I agree.  The problem is, many of us (okay, me) can't help but put stock in the things we read or hear.  It's too easy to respond to new information with an "OMG!!  WHAT!?".  It's a little like putting out fires, well, it's a LOT like putting out fires.  The researchers themselves, ironically, note that their one little study is but a part of the bigger picture, that there are still almost endless variations that they didn't explore.  My complaint is that if they know that their information is flawed already, what's the point?  Why can't studies be designed to surround the issue and examine more than just one parameter?  Oh.  Wait.  Of course -- it's all about the money.  It must be hell to be a researcher and have your hands tied like that.

Well, I guess the point is that for any issue of even middling complexity, no single study ever *could* address all the possible factors at once.    It's not a matter of money, it's just practicality.

The best we can do is to specifically target certain factors in each study (gender, socioeconomic status, low birthweight, family history, etc), and then hope that by setting all those studies together we'll start to see a more comprehensive picture.  

I actually think that, if you're not looking for immediate gratification, it's pretty exciting to research these sorts of topics.  Yes, the issues are terribly complicated, but every new bit of information is chipping away at the problem, little by little.  The progress may be incremental, but it's progress nonetheless.

Most often I find these studies to be complete BS. The factual data is too broad to really hit home with anyone, and like you said, there is a new one every couple days. And why are they always negative? Can't we find out why good things happens so maybe we can make them happen more frequently?

Besides, everyone goes through various stages of depression in their lives, I doubt it has anything to do with how big you were as a baby.

Well, at least in the realm of child development (my field), we do know a lot about what kinds of things lead to good outcomes for children.  But sad to say, it's hard to get media excited about stories about "interactive synchrony" or "authoritative parenting."  

Also, we'd never have found a cure for polio if we didn't study "negative" things.  We'll never find the causes & cure for depression, autism, etc. if we don't look, right?