Practical, Economic, and Policy Implications of the Leve et al. Paper.

This commentary responds to the paper recently published in Prevention Science, entitled "The Promise and Challenges of Integrating Biological and Prevention Sciences: A Community-Engaged Model for the Next Generation of Translational Research" by Leve and colleagues (2024). A framework is advanced to provide a rationale for and facilitate the difficult and oft-avoided task of integrating concepts, techniques, methods, and datasets from diverse disciplines. The unfortunate reality is that disciplines germane to prevention continue to be highly siloed. The field of prevention science stands to benefit from knowledge that leads to greater precision-based-and thereby more effective-approaches to intervention. What is particularly underappreciated is the potential for this information to also guide policymaking based on what we could learn about the social-ecological conditions that impact child and youth brain and behavioral development and are alterable in response to evidence-informed public health policies. In this commentary, we offer some context for and appraisal of the paper and provide additional rationale for a precision-based approach with appropriate precautions for the research and utility of findings. Discussion ensues on the economic pros and cons and the policy implications of this integrative "neuroprevention" strategy should the field of prevention science accept the challenge.