Deprivation and Disruption

An Interview with Council Member Charles A. Nelson

What does your research suggest about how we can close the gap between what science tells us and what we are doing for children?

In terms of U.S. policy, in the late 1990s, when there was a focus on the absolute importance of a child's first three years to the exclusion of later development, work on the plasticity of brain architecture helped to demonstrate that much of the information the public was getting was overstated or erroneous. A lot of that information is still out there, even though the science has advanced and disproved a lot of those misconceptions.

One example is the case of "enriched" experience. We know that adverse experiences and toxic stress early in development can derail the formation of brain architecture. Building on that fact, many people assumed that if the lack of certain positive experiences is bad, having more of them would be better. But we don't know that that's the case. The truth is, we know a lot about the impacts of deprivation but we know next to nothing about the effects of "enriched" experience on the brain itself. In fact, much of the information parents and policy makers continue to get about "enrichment," such as flash cards, exposure to classical music, or special "brain building" toys for very young children, has never been documented scientifically to actually enhance brain development. We do know that children need age-appropriate and developmentally appropriate experiences to learn and to develop healthy brain architecture. Most children will get the experiences they need in a normal, nurturing environment, without special equipment or lessons.

We need to be very careful when interpreting studies of deprivation and be sure to avoid over-simplistic or unwarranted conclusions about enrichment. Scientists have an obligation to help policy makers understand this difference so they can make good decisions based on sound science.

One of the most popular misunderstandings adopted recently by policy makers and parents was based on one study in adults that showed small, temporary improvements on some tests after subjects listened to a Mozart Recording. But that effect was never replicated and that study was never conducted with infants or children. Even so, policy makers and the public over-generalized the findings of that study and assumed that young children who were exposed to Mozart would be smarter. Based on that misconception of science, the state of Georgia sent a Mozart CD to every newborn's home and that was a waste of resources that could have been spent much more effectively. For example, the money could have been invested more wisely in improving the quality of child care by reducing child-caregiver ratios, had the science been better understood. So here is an example where public funds were ill-spent based on a shallow understanding of the science.

A lot happens in the first three years of life, in terms of developing brain architecture, and it's absolutely important to ensure that young children have a solid foundation in those first three years. But it's also important that we reassure parents that their interactions with their babies are far more important for early learning than the purchase of expensive educational toys. As we learn more about brain development in the earliest years, we are also learning how much development continues throughout life. Early intervention is absolutely more efficient, but it's never too late to try to put things back on track. This is a critical insight for good policymaking.

Finally, we know that many cases of premature birth can be prevented with good prenatal care, yet there's great reluctance on the part of some states to ensure that all mothers have access to such care. The costs involved in preventing premature births are minimal compared to the economic cost to society, and the emotional cost to families, of caring for a child with multiple disabilities due disrupted brain architecture.

The interviewer: Marcy Ray has worked with a number of interdisciplinary research networks on topics ranging from mind-brain-body interactions to youth mental health. She served as Administrator and Director of Communications for the Research Network on Early Experience and Brain Development for seven years. She holds an M.A. in Communication Studies from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

For information about commonly used terms in Council publications, see Definitions.