In the last chapter, we argued that there is a consensus across the left and right of the political spectrum that ‘early intervention’ is imperative to safeguard children's health and development. In this context, the neuroscientific arguments, however transformed and traduced, may be seen as part of a progressive, ethical project to make the world a better place. The very same arguments, however, can be marshalled in support of the more coercive activities of the State (Featherstone et al, 2014b). For instance, alongside the attention to primary prevention, the UK has a policy allowing the permanent removal and placement for adoption of children without parental consent, pejoratively dubbed by its critics ‘forced adoption’. Early intervention and nonconsensual adoption may seem polar ends of a spectrum of State intervention in family life, but they are often closely related in terms of their legitimating narratives.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron, on 11 January 2016 in a speech on ‘life chances’, exemplifies the prevailing policy thought style:

And: ‘We also know – it's common sense – how a safe, stimulating, loving family environment can make such a positive difference. … So mums and dads literally build babies’ brains. We serve, they respond.’

The tennis trope is an interesting one: we note in passing that it owes its provenance to the proselytising work of Shonkoff alluded to in the first extract.