Neuroscience insights on actions for the poorest after the pandemic
The human right to have basic needs met is hindered by poverty, which limits learning opportunities for any child. The United Nations’ first Goal for Sustainable Development (ending poverty in all its forms everywhere) seems to be much further away after increases in poverty rates due to the pandemic, as well as the objective of obtaining a quality education, which is considered crucial to end poverty and build a more equal world (UN, 2022). According to the World Bank (2021), about 97 million more people are living on less than $1.90 a day because of the pandemic, increasing the global poverty rate from 7.8 to 9.1 percent; 163 million more are living on less than $5.50 a day. Globally, three to four years of progress toward ending extreme poverty are estimated to have been lost (World Bank, 2021).
In this context, the main point is what are the possible actions we can take to end poverty and to what extent those actions might work. Although there is no agreement on actions because this issue is enormously complex and full of conflicts of interest, I would like to draw your attention to a usually ignored facet of this debate: human biology.
Neuroscience research has shown that living in a context of poverty can affect cognition and change the functioning of the brain (Olson et al., 2021). It has become increasingly clear that one of the mechanisms through which poverty affects child well-being is through the toxic effects of stress on the brain (Blair & Raver, 2016). Several studies show that cortisol and other biological markers of stress are higher in children living in poverty (e.g.Blair et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2010, Brown et al., 2021). The dysregulation of the endocrine system as a result of constant stress can alter some brain mechanisms necessary for learning (Blair & Raver, 2016). That alteration does not necessarily represent dysfunction, but rather, an expected adjustment to the environment through adaptive but costly strategies for optimizing biological fitness under scarce conditions. In Blair and Raver’s (2016) words:
“In the context of poverty, in which resources are scarce and the future unpredictable, stress physiology is hypothesized to shape brain development in ways that promote fast reactive and automatic responses to stimulation. In contrast, in high-resource, supportive environments, experience is hypothesized to shape brain development in ways that promote executive function and the intentional, thoughtful regulation of behavior.”
The good news is that our central nervous system is very plastic. Our brains are constantly adapting to the context, and that capacity of adaptation is called “neural plasticity.” Neuroscience has a long tradition showing how the brain changes as a function of context (e.g., socioeconomic status, education, etc.) through reorganizing pathways, creating new connections among neurons, and even generating new neurons (Noble et al., 2021). Because our brains are constantly modified by experience, what happens to them is potentially modifiable, as long as there are changes in the context. So, what can we do to improve conditions for learning in young children?
Neuroscience has provided some insight into that. A recent study (Troller Renfee, 2022) of the program called “Baby’s First Years”, carried out in the US, showed that the mere monthly cash transfer to low socioeconomic status mothers of a significant amount of money (USD 333), after one year, changed their babies’ brains functioning, in comparison with babies whose mothers did not receive the money. This is neuroplasticity following a reduction of the economic side of poverty, modified babies’ brains in ways that in other studies have been linked to language, cognition, and socioemotional skills. In other words, in the context of greater economic resources, children’s experiences changed, and neuroplasticity adapted their brains. However, we do not yet know which experiences weight more in those neuroplastic changes (it could have been through family stress reduction, through changes in material conditions, or through other variated mechanisms. More research is needed to know that.
But economic improvement may not be the only way of modifying the brains of children living in poverty. In another study also conducted in the US and led by Helen Neville (2013), low socioeconomic status children and their parents were trained in attention (filtering information in a sustained way and not being distracted) and emotion regulation (for example stress management) techniques. Children who participated in the training program showed improvements in language and intelligence and also showed changes in brain functioning patterns associated with attention, in comparison with children that did not receive that. Those results showed neuroplasticity as a result of an educative parent and child intervention in poor children. Importantly, neuroplasticity was demonstrated for attention, a brain process that is vulnerable to socioeconomic status; also, parents in the program reported less stress, which was hypothesized as one of the mechanisms for intervention success (although further research is needed to conclude that).
In sum, changing a family’s economic or educational context can modify poor children’s brain functioning in cognitive processes particularly influenced by socioeconomic status and in ways that resemble the changes produced by development. Why can this be important for educators? Because, although we do not know the exact limits of plasticity, we do know that the extent of malleability is greater than we thought years ago (Berman et al., 2019). Thus, although the neuroscientific evidence of the brain’s potential to change is just a modest contribution (Farah, 2018) to inform poverty reduction policies, neuroplasticity gives us a huge opportunity for change; and that is especially important in times of high poverty and inequality produced by the pandemic.
Referencias
- Sánchez-Páramo, C., Hill, R., Gerszon Mahler, D., Narayan, A. & Yonzan, N. COVID-19 leaves a legacy of rising poverty and widening inequality. World Bank Blogs https://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/covid-19-leaves-legacy-rising-poverty-and-widening-inequality#:~:text=About%2097%20million%20more%20people,less%20than%20%245.50%20a%20day (2021).Farah, M. J. Socioeconomic status and the brain: prospects for neuroscience-informed policy. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 19, 428-438. doi: 10.1038/s41583-018-0023-2 (2018).
Olson, L., Chen, B. & Fishman, I. Neural correlates of socioeconomic status in early childhood: a systematic review of the literature. Child Neuropsychol. 27, 390-423 (2021).
Blair, C. & Raver, C. C. Poverty, Stress, and Brain Development: New Directions for Prevention and Intervention. Acad. Pediatr. 16, S30-S36 (2016).
Noble, K. G., Hart, E. R. & Sperber, J. F. Socioeconomic disparities and neuroplasticity: Moving toward adaptation, intersectionality, and inclusion. Am. Psychol. 76, 1486-1495 (2021).
Troller-Renfree, S. V. et al. The impact of a poverty reduction intervention on infant brain activity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 119, e2115649119 (2022).
Neville, H. J. et al. Family-based training program improves brain function, cognition, and behavior in lower socioeconomic status preschoolers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110, 12138-12143 (2013).
United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/poverty/#:~:text=Eradicating%20extreme%20poverty%20for%20all,8.6%20per%20cent%20in%202018 (2022).
Chen, E., Cohen, S. & Miller, G. E. How low socioeconomic status affects 2-year hormonal trajectories in children. Psychol. Sci. 21, 31–37 (2010).
Blair, C. et al. Allostasis and allostatic load in the context of poverty in early childhood. Dev. Psychopathol. 23, 845–857 (2011).
Brown, E. D., Holochwost, S. J., Laurenceau, J. P., Garnett, M. L. & Anderson, K. E.
Deconstructing Cumulative Risk: Poverty and Aspects of Instability Relate Uniquely to Young Children’s Basal Cortisol. Child Dev. 92, 1067-1082 (2021).