Nurturescience versus neuroscience: A case for rethinking perinatal mother–infant behaviors and relationship

Abstract

Behavioral and emotional outcomes for babies who experienced maternal separation due to prematurity or birth defects have not improved significantly for the last 20\u2009years. Current theories and treatment paradigms based on neuroscience have not generated explanatory mechanisms that work, or provided testable hypotheses. This article proposes a new field of scientific investigation, “nurturescience” within which new hypotheses can be tested with novel instruments. Key distinctions between neuroscience and nurturescience are described. Our definition of nurturescience is based on the basic needs of all newborns and of the needs of mothers and their families. This understanding is drawn from biology, anthropology, sociology, physiological, and clinical research. Mechanisms are described from studies on microbiota, epigenetics, allostasis, brain imaging, and developmental origins of health and adult disease. The converging message from these and other fields is that the mother–infant dyad should not be separated. Ongoing emotional connection is the cornerstone of development, leading to life‐long resilience. This has implications for making the correct diagnosis (emotional disconnection vs. attachment disorder), providing the appropriate care (infant and family centered developmental care) in the biologically expected place (skin‐to‐skin contact), and potential for rehabilitation (calming cycle theory). Nurturescience has particular relevance to the care of “small and sick” infants, with profound potential for decreasing the “likelihood of developing developmental problems.”