![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 6 of 6. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by pseudoname on October 13, 2006, at 11:11:42
[very sad news, via MindHacks.com]
“It’s just as you might think: being poor can damage your brain”
London Times Science Notebook (Oct 9, 2006) by Anjana Ahuja
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20909-2394956,00.html
POOR KIDS tend to fare badly at school. Rich children tend to do better. Poverty seems to run, like an oppressive thread, through the generations. Affluence also knits generations together, although that thread has a silkier sheen. No great revelation, this. But one thesis about why poverty is so often paired with low intellectual attainment could prove seismic. Martha Farah, the director of the Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania, has raised the possibility that a deprived childhood may affect the physical development of the brain and render its owner less intellectually capable. For this reason, Professor Farah says, poverty deserves to be considered alongside such behaviour-altering drugs as Ritalin as an agent that can change the fundamentals of who you are.To go a step further. If poverty wrecks the brain, then it is plausible that, generally, poor people make “worse” decisions than rich people. And if they do, do they bear the same level of responsibility for their actions? Is it fair, say, for the NHS to blame cancer-ridden smokers and obese burger-munchers — both disproportionately represented among the impoverished — for their condition?
Farah became interested in the link between socioeconomic status (SES) and children’s cognitive achievement when she started employing baby-sitters, who tended to be poorer and less educated than herself. “Their daughters and sons and nieces and nephews began life with the same evident promise as my daughter and her friends,” Farah writes in the book Neuroethics (OUP). “Yet as the years went on, I saw their paths diverge.”
While the children on Farah’s side of the tracks learnt how to read newspaper headlines, the kids on the other side showed a “sad precocity” with grittier topics — jail, the sound of gunshots. “It seemed to me that children’s experience of the world is very different in low- and middle-SES environments,” Farah noted. This led Farah to do some experiments testing cognitive functions — language, memory and visual processing — in children of low- and middle-SES. She discovered that the “most robust neurocognitive correlates of SES” were language, memory and cognitive control (such as planning tricky tasks). In other words, low-SES children consistently performed worse than middle-SES children on tests involving memory, language and task-planning. It is not hard to see how this results in a less starry future.
It could be the case, of course, that instead of poverty wrecking the brain, a pre-wrecked brain perpetuates poverty. Twin studies in low SES families suggest that IQ — an imperfect but useful gauge of intellectual ability — is at least as, if not more, dependent on environment as on genetics.
Interestingly, another study indicates that even brief periods of poverty can harm a child’s cognitive development. Younger siblings are hit harder, suggesting that poverty exerts real influence on early mental development.
Further, all the other problems associated with an underprivileged life — iron deficiency, malnutrition, exposure to lead (in peeling paint), mothers who take drugs, smoke and drink during pregnancy — all lower school achievement, as do a lack of toys and books. These strengthen the idea that a poor (in every sense) environment dulls the brain.
Now, consider that those in good financial health enjoy better physical health — and longer lives — than those lower down the social pecking order. It is not far-fetched to believe that any physiological processes underpinning this disparity may also give rise to differences in the brain.
In which case, poverty harms children in a very concrete way — by altering their brains. Professor Farah concludes that “neuroscience may recast the disadvantages of childhood poverty as a bioethical issue rather than merely one of economic opportunity”.
Posted by Racer on October 14, 2006, at 13:45:18
In reply to poor kids: poor brain development?, posted by pseudoname on October 13, 2006, at 11:11:42
I read a study many, many years ago which showed that a middle class family falling below the poverty line didn't recover fully for three generations. The children of that first generation could achieve great improvement in their own lives and their children's early environment, but it was only their children's children who really got back to solid socioeconomic ground in terms of health, school achievement, etc. It's been too many years now for me to tell you where this was published, but it was a real eye-opener for me.
What this article kinda dances around, though, is epigenetics -- the environment has such an impact on development, and not only in early childhood. We here at PsychoBabble certainly know the damage stress can have on us, right? Well, think about the stress of pregnancy added to the stress of poverty? When that researcher says that her children start off level with the lower SES children she's studying, she's being a bit naive -- her children start off several rungs up, because she was not suffering nearly as much stress as the mothers of her subjects. Maybe those stress hormones effect the development of the language and task planning centers of the embryonic brains?
Studies like this one worry me, though. While this sort of study brings to my mind thoughts like, "Well, in that case, it's vital that we create effective programs to support pregnant poor women," I think there's also another view that some people may take: "Good. In that case, I don't have to worry about the poor anymore -- they deserve it."
Oh, well -- when I rule the universe, I'll fix this problem, too...
Thanks for posting this, PseudoName. It's very interesting.
Posted by pseudoname on October 14, 2006, at 14:39:08
In reply to Unfortunately, this isn't news..., posted by Racer on October 14, 2006, at 13:45:18
Hey, Racer.
I think you're quite right about the epigenetic influences; hormones & other prenatal stuff should be very important factors.
I also think the article dismisses the genetic component too easily, saying that "twin studies" show environment as much or more important. I thought the twin studies showed exactly the opposite: most of the variation in intelligence is genetic. That fact, plus these findings, would suggest that in our increasingly technically-demanding economic culture, a sort of economic genetic sorting may be taking place. This is a very depressing thought, and even more worrying for the possible policy implications.
> Oh, well -- when I rule the universe, I'll fix this problem, too...
You've got my vote. ;-)
Posted by Racer on October 14, 2006, at 17:57:26
In reply to Re: Unfortunately, this isn't news... » Racer, posted by pseudoname on October 14, 2006, at 14:39:08
>
> I also think the article dismisses the genetic component too easily, saying that "twin studies" show environment as much or more important. I thought the twin studies showed exactly the opposite: most of the variation in intelligence is genetic.Actually, I thought the more recent studies were more ambiguous, but did show a higher than expected influence of environment.
Oh, well -- what I do know is that my cousins who grew up behind the Iron Curtain look the same as my cousins who grew up in America. Except they're much thinner, and about a foot shorter... Environment is important...
> > Oh, well -- when I rule the universe, I'll fix this problem, too...
>
> You've got my vote. ;-)
Posted by alexandra_k on October 14, 2006, at 19:17:50
In reply to poor kids: poor brain development?, posted by pseudoname on October 13, 2006, at 11:11:42
Er...
I think the study is good because it is putting the focus on biological intervention (that means HEALTH FUNDING) to help prevent a preventable developmental trajectory.
Much better than saying 'their genes made them do it' (and of course there is a hell of a lot less we can do about their genes)
They have done studies on deprivation already. Mice. Monkeys. Etc. And there... Are the people.
I guess it would be nice if they had evidence that the environmental effects on brain development were significantly affected by environmental intervantion.
I just don't see...
Much changing.
Pills pills pills magical pills...
Sigh
Posted by zazenducky on October 15, 2006, at 15:45:41
In reply to Re: poor kids: poor brain development?, posted by alexandra_k on October 14, 2006, at 19:17:50
> Er...
>
> I think the study is good because it is putting the focus on biological intervention (that means HEALTH FUNDING) to help prevent a preventable developmental trajectory.
Yes there was research done in the US in the early sixties that led to WIC (women infant childred) nutritional programs for prenatal and infant care and Headstart which was designed to enrich the environment of poor children so they could start school on an even footing.But poverty is hugely stressful. And I don't think the environment and hopelessness are as easily managed.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.