Categories
Parenting

Is misused neuroscience defining early years and child protection policy?

The idea that a child’s brain is irrevocably shaped in the first three years increasingly drives government policy on adoption and early childhood intervention. But does the science stand up to scrutiny?

“Neuroscience can now explain why early conditions are so crucial,” wrote Graham Allen and Iain Duncan Smith in their 2010 collaboration, Early Intervention: Good Parents, Great Kids, Better Citizens. “The more positive stimuli a baby is given, the more brain cells and synapses it will be able to develop.” 

Neuroscience is huge in early years policy. This week, in what’s been characterised as the largest shake-up of family law in a generation, the 26-week time limit for adoption proceedings has come into force, much of it justified by the now-or-never urgency of this set of beliefs, that the first three years (or sometimes first 18 months) hardwire a baby’s brain, either give it or deny it the capacity for a full life. This is the engine of what is known as the First Three Years movement, which has transfixed politicians from across the spectrum. Allen and Duncan Smith’s report opened with an illustration of the “normal child’s” large brain and the shrivelled, walnut brain of the neglected child. With conferences such as Two Is Too Late (organised by Conservative MP Andrea Leadsom) and papers such as The 1,001 Critical Days, a set of claims are made that echo and reinforce those bold claims made by Allen: first, that we now have a set of scientific findings about the infant brain that can teach us new things about parenting. Second, that concrete events occur – from the production of synapses to the lighting up of areas of the brain on an MRI scanner – that can be interpreted in a straightforward way upon which all science is agreed. Third, with terms such as “critical periods” and “hardwiring”, the thesis is put forward that brains have a finite time window for learning certain things. Fourth, that we can distil the treatment of infants into a set of behaviours that will determine the networks in their brains, either equipping them to empathise, learn, engage and produce, or irreparably failing to equip them. The connections made are endless: babies who fail to make the right neural connections will do badly at school, lack empathy, succumb to criminality, have mental health problems, and end up in a cycle of deprivation themselves.  

Continue reading…

Read more: theguardian.com

Categories
Parenting

I avoid giving parenting advice – except on infant vaccines | Séamas O’Reilly

Ever since Rocky IV I’ve loved injections… which may be weird but I’ll fight any anti-vaccine parent

This week my son had his MMR vaccine, stressing us all. No one likes injections. Except me. I’ve always enjoyed them. I think it’s from watching Ivan Drago in Rocky IV when I was small, which made me think of them as power-ups. Each childhood needle-sting thrilled me a little. It was like I felt some ominous Soviet liquid coursing through my veins, allowing me to dish out, and eventually receive, a beating so hard it ended communism. I thought everyone felt this way at first but quickly learned that of the millions of people who watched that movie, I alone took home a feelgood message about needles, and how sweet it must feel to receive a Cold War dose of performance-enhancing drugs.

Even if you don’t share my fondness for the actual injections, I hope I can spread my enthusiasm for vaccines. I’ve been writing this column for a year, and have never proscribed any practice. There are a million other organs willing to make you feel bad about your parenting choices. But vaccines aren’t one of those choices, and I refuse to be anything but strident.

Continue reading…

Read more: theguardian.com