Paper short abstract:

This paper seeks to make preliminary explorations into the process through which a baby’s mind is ‘scanned’, assumed to be ‘hardwired’ and how that is translated into government policies on adoption.

Paper long abstract:

Research in developmental neuroscience has stressed the importance of the first three years of a child’s brain development and the importance of a stable family environment in this period. This evidence has been influential in UK child welfare policy. For example, there is an increase in early removal of children from their birth families into adoptive families. However, the use of such evidence by policy makers has been criticised by some academic disciplines. The experiences of adoptees and birth parents nonetheless remain absent from this debate.

This paper is a preliminary exploration as to how the mind was seen to be a ‘gap’ in government understandings and how that framework seemed to impact on policies relating to early years intervention. Through an examination of movements like ‘First Three Years movement’, ‘Two is Too Late’, ‘The 1001 Critical days’, the paper seeks to locate the biological, material and social aspects of the mind that come to determine these government policies. The paper will also bring into conversation bio-social debates relating to developmental psychology and cognitive neuroscience as well as engage with nature/culture debates relating to infant mind/brain, their well-being, ideas of loss and attachment. Through this we could draw out broad implications as to what this policy focus on the mind might have on the role of ‘hard’ science, ideas of parenting, social and material engineering.