What if political leaders around the world could improve school achievement and job readiness, reduce crime and extend healthy life expectancy — but the results would not be seen until after they left public office? Would they have the political courage to act now in the best long-term interest of their people? Or would they become mired in ineffective, poorly funded attempts to obtain quick results and then say it couldn’t be done?
Thanks to a remarkable convergence of new scientific knowledge about the developing brain, the human genome and the effects of early experiences on later learning, behavior and health, these are not hypothetical questions. We have the knowledge to secure our future by improving the life prospects of all our young children. What is needed now is political vision and leadership.
Scientists can now credibly say that the early childhood years — from birth to age 5 — lay the foundation for later economic productivity, responsible citizenship and a lifetime of sound physical and mental health. Conversely, deep poverty, abuse, neglect, and exposure to violence in early childhood can all lead to toxic stress.
In contrast to normal or tolerable stress, which can build resilience and properly calibrate a child’s stress-response system, toxic stress is caused by extreme, prolonged adversity in the absence of a supportive network of adults to help the child adapt. When it occurs, toxic stress can actually damage the architecture of the developing brain, leading to disrupted circuits and a weakened foundation for future learning and health.
The lasting, neurobiological effect on young children who experience toxic stress leads to a far greater likelihood of anti-social behavior, lower achievement in school and at work, and poor physical and mental health — all of which society addresses at great cost. Deep poverty is but one risk factor for toxic stress and its long-term consequences.
The greatest harm comes from the cumulative burden of multiple risk factors, including neglect, abuse, parental substance abuse or mental illness and exposure to violence. With each additional risk factor, the odds of long-term damage to brain architecture increase.
BUILT-IN ADVERSITY
Neuroscience and the biology of stress help us to begin to understand how poverty and other adversities are literally built into our bodies. Prolonged activation of the body’s stress system during early development can damage the formation of the neural connections that comprise our brain architecture and set our stress-response system at a hair-trigger level. We can thus comprehend why children born into such circumstances have more problems in school, are more likely to commit crimes and are more prone to heart disease, diabetes and a host of other physical and mental illnesses later in life.
By addressing the circumstances that can produce toxic stress — always asking “How can we best protect our children?” — local, national, and global leaders would improve not only the life prospects of their youngest citizens, but also outcomes for their societies. A wide range of policies and practices that support positive relationships and quality learning experiences — at home, in early care and education programs and through targeted interventions — can have a positive impact if based on solid evidence and matched to the specific needs they are expected to address.
FINANCIAL BENEFITS
Beyond their short-term benefits to individuals, extensive economic analysis also has demonstrated significant financial benefits to society for years to come. Science points to three things that we can do to level the playing field:
● Make basic medical services and early care and education available to all young children
● Provide greater financial support and rich learning experiences for young children living in poverty
● Offer specialized services for young children experiencing toxic stress from difficult life circumstances.
The scientific principles of early childhood development do not vary by family income, program type or funding source. In advanced countries, programs that screen for adversity and respond to the specific health and developmental needs of individual children and families can yield benefits that far exceed their costs. In developing countries, shifting the focus of international investments from an exclusive focus on child survival to an integrated approach to early childhood health and development offers greater promise than addressing either domain alone.
Children burdened by significant economic insecurity, discrimination or maltreatment benefit most from effective interventions. Neuroscience, child development and the economics of human capital formation all point to the same conclusion: Creating the right conditions for early childhood development is far more effective than trying to fix problems later.
Finally, leadership is about more than smart economic decisions. It is also about moral responsibility, wisdom, judgment and courage — and about leveraging knowledge to promote positive social change.
The negative consequences of poverty and other forms of adversity are not inevitable. The gap between what we know and what we do is growing and increasingly unconscionable. The time for leadership on behalf of vulnerable children is now.
Jack Shonkoff is a professor of Child Health and Development and Director of the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS