Bruer J T
James S. McDonnell Foundation, St. Louis, MO 63117, USA.
Public Health Rep. 1998 Sep-Oct;113(5):388-97.
There is widespread interest in the claim that new breakthroughs in neuroscience have radical implications for early child care policy. Yet despite parents', educators', and policy makers' enthusiasm, there are good reasons to be skeptical. The neuroscience cited in the policy arguments is not new, depending primarily on three well-established neurobiological findings: rapid postnatal synapse formation, critical periods in development, and the effects of enriched rearing on brain connectivity in rats. Furthermore, this neuroscience is often oversimplified and misinterpreted. While child care advocates are enthusiastic about potential applications of brain science, for the most part neuroscientists are more cautious and skeptical. After reviewing the evidence and the arguments, the author suggests that in the interest of good science and sound policy, more of us might adopt a skeptical stance.
神经科学的新突破对幼儿保育政策具有根本性影响这一说法引发了广泛关注。然而，尽管家长、教育工作者和政策制定者热情高涨，但仍有充分理由持怀疑态度。政策论据中所引用的神经科学并非新内容，主要依赖于三个已被充分证实的神经生物学发现：出生后突触的快速形成、发育中的关键期以及丰富饲养对大鼠大脑连通性的影响。此外，这种神经科学常常被过度简化和误解。虽然儿童保育倡导者对脑科学的潜在应用充满热情，但在很大程度上，神经科学家更为谨慎和怀疑。在审视了证据和论据之后，作者建议，为了良好的科学和合理的政策，我们更多人或许应采取怀疑的立场。
