Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T10:55:20.534Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parental Responsibility in the Context of Neuroscience and Genetics, by Kristien Hens, Daniela Cutas, and Dorothee Horstkötter. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2017. 246 pp.

Review products

Parental Responsibility in the Context of Neuroscience and Genetics, by Kristien Hens, Daniela Cutas, and Dorothee Horstkötter. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2017. 246 pp.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2017

Arianna Manzini ,
Rose Mortimer  and
Ilina Singh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Departments and Columns
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 26 , Special Issue 4: Clinical Neuroethics , October 2017 , pp. 681 - 685
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Callard, F, Fitzgerald, D. Rethinking Interdisciplinarity Across the Social Sciences and Neurosciences. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2016.Google Scholar

2. Singh, I. Doing their jobs: Mothering with Ritalin in a culture of mother-blame. Social Science & Medicine 2004;59(6):1193–205.Google Scholar

3. Richardson, SS. Don’t blame the mothers: Careless discussion of epigenetic research on how early life affects health across generations could harm women, warn Sarah S. Richardson and colleagues. Nature. 2014;512(7513):131–3.Google Scholar

4. Gillies, V. Personalising poverty: Parental determinism and the big society agenda. In: Atkinson, W, Roberts, S, Savage, M, eds. Class Inequality in Austerity Britain. London: Palgrave MacMillan; 2013:90–110.Google Scholar

5. Wastell, D, White, S. Blinded by neuroscience: Social policy, the family and the infant brain. Families, Relationships and Societies 2012;1(3):397–414.Google Scholar

6. Wilson, H. Brain science, early intervention and ‘at risk’ families: Implications for parents, professionals and social policy. Social Policy and Society 2002;1(03):191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Wall, G. Is your child’s brain potential maximized?: Mothering in an age of new brain research. Atlantis: Critical Studies in Gender, Culture & Social Justice 2004;28(2):41–50.Google Scholar

8. Macvarish, J, Lee, E, Lowe, P. The ‘first three years’ movement and the infant brain: A review of critiques. Sociology Compass 2014;8(6):792–804.Google Scholar

9. Hedlund, M. Epigenetic responsibility. Medicine Studies 2012;3(3):171–83.Google Scholar