<Table> <Tr> <Td> </Td> <Td> This article or section possibly contains synthesis of material which does not verifiably mention or relate to the main topic . Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page . (October 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) </Td> </Tr> </Table> <Tr> <Td> </Td> <Td> This article or section possibly contains synthesis of material which does not verifiably mention or relate to the main topic . Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page . (October 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) </Td> </Tr> <P> Despite optimism from many who believe that neuroscience can make a meaningful contribution to education and that the potential exists for the establishment of a research field of educational neuroscience, some researchers believe that the differences between the two disciplines are too great for them to ever be directly linked in a practically meaningful way . In 1997 John Bruer published a major critique of what he called the "Neuroscience and education argument". </P> <P> The' neuroscience and education argument' as Bruer defines it, stems from three major findings in developmental neurobiology . </P>

Describe five links between neuroscience and the traditions of early childhood education