Last week, I had the moving honour and great pleasure of spending a few days on the road with Dr. Nils Bergman, a physician and advocate of skin-to-skin contact. He gave presentations in Turnhout, Antwerp, and Amsterdam, and I was his driver and conversation partner. Finally, I was also the interviewer for my podcast episode with him.
In 2011, I completed the Dutch translation of ‘Hold Your Prem’ (now ‘Koester je kleintje’, ‘Cherish Your Little One’), written by his wife, Jill Bergman, with an abundance of literature references supporting the advocated care for extremely premature babies. This means I have been aware and completely convinced of his vision for quite some time, and yet these days I listened and marvelled at his story with amazement again. His work is constantly deepening, and as I gain more knowledge myself, I see even more clearly how important his approach is and how far, as a society, we are still removed from achieving ‘zero separation’ as standard of care.
Anyone who has ever heard Nils speak knows that his presentation slides are chock-full of diagrams, quotes, terms, and countless arrows that illustrate the relationships between phenomena and that connect disciplines. For example, you could talk about ‘highly conserved neuroendocrine behaviour’ but you could also say ‘instinct’. The former is scientific, evidence-based terminology for mammalian behaviour; the latter is an easily term parents to understand their infant’s behaviour. They observe this instinct when their baby lies skin-to-skin, seeking and emptying the breast, when their child calms with closeness and a reassuring voice, and when they subsequently feel overwhelmed by love for their newborn. Skin-to-skin contact also awakens a very ancient behaviour in them: the instinct to hold and protect their child. Thus, protocolised science becomes tangible in loving parenting.

Nils Bergman has coined this unity of caregiving behaviour and science ‘nurturescience’, the science about the effect of the presence or absence of protective care. He also places toxic stress in this context: ‘strong and prolonged activation of the body’s stress management systems in the absence of buffering protection of adult support’. Toxic stress is harmful to the developing brain and therefore to all bodily functions. That is why it is important for a baby to be in the right place: the mother’s body. Nils repeatedly quotes a statement by James McKenna: “Nothing a baby can or cannot do makes sense except in light of the mother’s body.” When newborn babies are in that environment, it becomes clear how profoundly competent they are and how much beneficial reciprocity there is in mother-child interaction.
Babies make an ‘appraisal’ of the level of threat they experience. Is the threat far away and the mother nearby? Then crying is the best strategy. Is the threat nearby and the mother absent? Then freezing or dissociation offers the greatest chance of survival. What appears as ‘rest’ and ‘relaxation’ can in fact be a state of mortal fear. That is why we need the insights of nurturescience, so we can understand why proximity to the mother’s body is crucial. “Nurturescience is the physiology we have lost”, says Nils. “The right place determines the baby’s psychobiology”, the sense of security that ensures relaxation and homeostasis. “We don’t want self-regulation in newborns”, he says powerfully, “but coregulation!”

Occasionally, there were concerned questions from the audience: “How do we manage this? How do we organize that? How do we approach this? What does this mean for that?” One question was something like this: “What do you do when a mother is mentally distressed or almost psychotic? How do we get that right for the baby?” Nils turned it around: “A baby needs the mother’s body. Place the baby on the mother’s chest and the baby will fix the mother’s mind.” This answer brought tears to my eyes. What a paradigm shift this is, such confidence in the idea that a baby can restore what is often seen as a reason to separate mother and child!
Therefore, Nils approaches this from a salutogenetic perspective: not just preventing harm (primum non nocere, or non-maleficence, prevention), but proactively doing good (beneficence, amplition) and striving for everything that promotes well-being and health. Then the emphasis shifts from ‘avoiding out of fear’ to ‘pursuing out of motivation’ – a revolutionary change.
I am looking forward to the PDF of the presentations, with plenty of material to study and learn from even more! A deep bow to Nils and his passionate perseverance, often swimming against the current!










