Considering intersectionality and interacting levels of early intervention on early brain development—a commentary on Nelson et al. (2023).

It has long been recognized that an individual's experiences can metaphorically 'get under the skin' and become biologically embedded, thus affecting behavior and life outcomes (Hertzman, 2012). While this term is most often used to describe how adverse experiences influence biological process, it is rarely discussed how the same can be said of positive experiences, such as intervention to prevent or treat negative outcomes. In their annual review, Nelson et al. (2023) provide a timely and comprehensive review of how early intervention capitalizes on the neuroplasticity of the postnatal years, turning periods of 'vulnerability' to ones of 'opportunity'. Drawing on decades of expertise, they discuss the neurobiological mechanisms of intervention in two contexts: caregiving interventions for children growing up in disadvantaged environments, and therapeutic interventions for children at elevated risk of neurodevelopmental disorders such as Autism. They thought‐provokingly describe both how early intervention operates through mechanisms of neural plasticity and how this can and should inform policy decisions to provide the greatest benefit to children. Here, I aim to underscore the importance of this review by addressing the intersection of these topics; specifically, I muse on how the scientific discovery of biological processes and the ethical imperative to support vulnerable children's development are intimately intertwined, and how this highlights both critical lines of future inquiry as well as policy implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]