Eg the article says: "Proponents of sleep training may want to find a new day job."
I feel the author of the article has set the scene incorrectly. Yes the study says the 'type of sleeper' a baby is, is genetic. Tick. I absolutely 100% agree.
However the study isn't saying as the article author implies that sleep training is fruitless at all, it just says that the babies sleep habits are genetic ie. both parents are quite wakeful so therefore their children are likely to be wakeful. I agree.
But it doesn't really say that those children (in the scenario I've made up above) can't become 'better sleepers'. The reason I am saying this is because in the research they constantly refer to "Consolidated nighttime sleep duration." It's all about how wakeful a child is. It doesn't say whether that child is able to wake up, wriggle around a bit, get comfy and fall back asleep on it's own. It also doesn't say that because they do wake often that they can't be sleep trained (correct me if I'm wrong or I've missed something in the study) But I further think this because what it does say in the Conclusions section is that...."Results need to be replicated with objective sleep measures and more studies are needed to identify the biological mechanisms contributing to short-persistent night time sleep duration in early childhood. Future studies will be needed to understand which family settings seem to play a role in day time sleep duration during early childhood.
Future investigations will also be needed to identify the genetic mechanisms contributing to short-persistent night time sleep duration in early childhood and beyond to promote the development of adequate treatment modalities."
Development of adequate treatment modalities to me says development of suitable ways to treat the short "consolidated nighttime sleep duration". Ie suitable sleep training methods (should a parent be struggling and need their child to sleep better of course!)