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
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS