Doctor Aric Sigman has made the headlines with a recent article in the Biologist entitled, Mother superior: the biological effects of daycare. Sigman drew attention to research showing that levels of cortisol, a hormone that is released in response to stress, increases during the day in children who attend daycare. He linked this observation a range of studies showing detrimental effects of cortisol on mental and physical health, with a particular emphasis on brain function. The Daily Mail reported his conclusions thus: "Sending babies and toddlers to daycare could do untold damage to the development of their brains and their future health."
Before parents and policy-makers act on this information, they have to ask themselves several questions. First, who is Aric Sigman and what are his credentials? Second, have his views been accurately represented? Third, has he accurately represented the scientific research on this topic?
On the first point, Googling reveals that Sigman has a track record of drawing attention to a range of dangers facing our children, including the internet, indulgent parents and television. He does not appear to have an academic affiliation and there is no CV on his website. To look at his research track record, I tried Web of Knowledge, a database that lists publications in the peer-reviewed literature. This drew a blank: just a couple of conference abstracts on hypnotism dating back to the 1980s.His reputation is not helped by the fact that he lists himself as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine. Quite simply, this sounds like an honour, but it isn't: it's a title available to those with a doctorate who pay an annual fee.
Were Sigman's views accurately represented by the media? A day before his paper came out he posted a pre-emptive statement, noting that his emphasis on negative consequences was to redress a balance that had slipped too far in the direction of regarding daycare as an accepted healthy practice. The potential damage, he maintained, meant that academics who relied exclusively on evidence-based judgments were dangerous.Indeed, "it should be incumbent on those with an open mind on this matter to provide overwhelming evidence that paid daycare workers can elicit the same intimate and often unique interactions that occur between mothers and babies". It would seem, then, that there are grounds for the media to portray him as someone who argues that daycare poses a risk to children's health. His comments about the potential long-term damage to health are similar to his earlier statements about television and the internet.
We abandon evidence at our peril. The world is full of potential threats and dangers, and it's not always easy to anticipate what new developments are going to be beneficial, harmful or neutral. In the debate around daycare, cortisol and brain function, there are a few facts that nearly everyone would agree on. Yes, there is an increase in cortisol during the day among children attending daycare. And yes, unremitting long-term increases in cortisol, as are sometimes found in depressed adults, are detrimental to health. But there are other findings. One study of primates reported that increased cortisol that was caused by episodes of separation of an infant monkey from its mother was associated with better outcomes in terms of brain function. Studies of animals and humans suggest that in some settings experiences of moderate stress can be adaptive and enhance resilience. Yet, as I note on my blog, Sigman ignores or selectively reports evidence for this more nuanced position. He justifies his one-sided approach to the evidence on the basis that "while open-mindedness has its place in academia, it is a luxury children can't afford".
I disagree: what we can't afford is a presumption that we know all the answers, and it is wrong to selectively present the evidence to suit a preferred position, however well intentioned.
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment