Editor's Note
The Brains of Babes
Like most new parents, my wife and I were nervous. Overwhelmed by the details of feeding, diapering, and sleeping, we wanted to do everything right for our beautiful little girl. In 1977, crib toys had taken on a new meaning. They were more than a decoration or an idle infant plaything. Evidence then suggested that visual and aural stimulation even in those first days of life could mold mental development. Fearing that the wrong choice could condemn our daughter to a life of mediocre achievement, we shopped carefully. We opted for a mobile of simple plastic shapes that drifted gently in front of our baby, seemingly mesmerizing and entertaining her. But I often wondered whether we should have pushed the kid a little harder with floating letters or perhaps hanging differential equations. We actually did know a couple who put flash cards in front of their 2-month-old. Recently, that sense that the future person is shaped by inputs in the early days of life has gained confirmation from neuroscience. From birth to adulthood, the brain is fashioned by an as-yet incompletely defined interaction of environment and genes.
Ever since Benjamin Spock, M.D., published his best-selling book on baby and child care in 1946, parents have received counsel about what is “best” for their child. Whether such advice stemmed from controlled clinical studies or casual observation, recommendations for child-rearing, child-watching, and child-helping have waffled from fad to fad, seeming to spin through more cycles than a Maytag.
Perhaps we are in the midst of yet another misguided cycle, but the articles in this issue on the developing brain suggest that science is reaching some deeper truth about how our brains grow and what is good and bad for them. We see that breastfeeding is good. We see that seemingly mild head injuries and exposure to pesticides are bad. We have long known that elevated maternal blood sugars were bad for fetuses, but the interaction between glucose and fetal iron metabolism is a fascinating new insight.
Probing these deeper truths about the brain is technology that lets us see brain neurons metabolize (PET scanning) and brain blood flow get diverted to areas in use (functional MRI). No longer confined to the static architecture defined by CT or MRI, we can now watch ourselves think and feel. The ancient search for neurological roots of love or hate or even the soul seem a few baby steps closer when an fMRI scan lights up as a person views their loved one.
Emory University psychiatry and behavioral sciences professor Gregory Berns, M.D., Ph.D., in his book Satisfaction: The Science of Finding True Fulfillment explores the neurological basis for satisfaction, from solving crosswords to eating sushi. He cites fMRI evidence of a “satisfaction center” in the dopaminergic centers near the striatum and finds novelty as the common thread that fires up the striatum. Perhaps in the future brain science will help guide us to not only solve differential equations but also to live happier and more satisfied lives.
My baby girl is now a beautiful 28-year-old graphic designer who spins out gorgeous Web pages and greeting cards that appeal even to viewers who aren’t her dad. My wife and I will never know whether those colorful plastic shapes slowly rotating over her crib had any influence on who she became or what she can do. But science is reassuring me that they probably didn’t hurt.
Charles R. Meyer, M.D., editor in chief
Dr. Meyer can be reached at cmeyer1@fairview.org.