One of the main tenets of the neurodiversity movement is that the desire to cure autism and research in that direction will result in prenatal testing and wide scale abortion of autistic fetuses. They allege the goal of Autism Speaks, The Simon's Foundation and others is to use this to deliberately eliminate autistic people from the human race. Amanda Baggs and her friends on autistics.org have a tasteless cartoon showing an aborted fetus in a trashcan with the initials CAN embolded on it, indicating that Cure Autism Now, Autism's Speaks predecessor, had this goal in mind. For this reason, ASAN's leader and Obama appointee Ari Ne'eman has called for a moratorium on all genetic research in autism.
They cite a figure claiming that 92% of all fetuses with Down's syndrome are subsequently aborted. Where does this figure come from and how truly accurate is it? The main source for this statistic seems to be a study from King's college in London done by Mansfield et. al using figures from the 1980s. A few other studies have shown similar conclusions with percentages ranging from 80-92%.
According to one source I found, there have been regional variations in some of the other studies done trying to answer this question. The various studies have limitations in that they are done in just small areas in various parts of the world and may not be generalizable to all woman pregnant with Down's fetuses in the U.S.A.
However, the 80-92% rate was not all Down's fetuses but just those who actually underwent prenatal screening. The 80-92% rate is clearly a selective sample of woman who underwent testing because they would contemplated aborting the trisomy 21 child in the first place.
Bristol Palin, whose youngest brother has Down's, at one time also cited the same figure that activists in the neurodiversity movement use. She recently corrected the record thanks to Amy Julia Becker, the mother of a Down's daughter who states:
I just read Bristol’s post about babies who are born with DS being one of
the 8%. I love the poem she includes, and I think her point is an
important one. Still, I’ve learned recently that it’s an inaccurate
number. It’s widely cited by many people, but it’s based on a single
study from a single hospital in the 1980′s. Overall, it seems that about
70% of babies prenatally diagnosed with DS are aborted, and that the
abortion rates vary greatly from region to region across the US.
Moreover, lots of women don’t seek prenatal diagnosis, whether out of
ignorance or because they don’t want to risk an amnio or because they
don’t think the information is necessary. So out of all babies conceived
with DS, 50% are actually born.
So, this figure that ND activists routinely trot out to bolster their crusade against a cure for autism is questionable. I don't know the exact rate of all Down's syndromes babies that are actually aborted. However, it's clear that it's not the 90 percent or more who just get the prenatal testing. This is clearly a misrepresentation on Ne'eman's part and those who think as he does.
This is aside from the fact that autism is not Down's syndrome and they are two different conditions that prospective parents would likely take different attitudes toward. I doubt there is any way that the ND movement can extrapolate the true rate of abortion of autistics would be from whatever the number is for Down's is given the hypothetical that such a prenatal test for autism existed.
I realize that neurodiversity proponents will state that even a 50% abortion rate is high. This is not to say that I believe that even coin-flip rate of abortion for Down's syndrome is acceptable, only that ND's should use accurate information if they want to engage in propaganda and fear mongering tactics.
Bristol Palin corrected the record. Perhaps it's time that Ari Ne'eman, ASAN and other ND proponents do so also.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Monday, May 14, 2012
New study shows high unemployment among young autists
According to a recent study by Paul Shattuck, one out of every three young adults with autism has no paid employment or college or technical education seven years after high school. This contradicts what Joseph and"The autistic bitch from hell" have stated in the past where they claimed the Brugha study done in England showed there was no unemployment problem among autistics and they were employed in the same manner as non-handicapped people. As well as Joseph's projected rate of 70% employment among autistics. As well as other members of the neurodiversity movement who purport that autistics aren't a burden on the economy because autists Bill Gates and Stephen Spielberg are billionaires who contribute far more in taxes and revenue than most neurotypicals.
The study used data from the 2007-2008 period, before the financial crisis hit. Therefore, this study is likely a gross understatement of what the problem is today if current figures had been used.
Autism speaks apparently helped partially fund this study. Autism speaks executive Peter Bell weighed in as well. This person, if I am not mistaken has a 19-year-old son on the moderate and severe end of the spectrum and the family is spending money and time preparing him to face the cruel world. Peter Bell maintains a friendship with John and Jack Robison and Alex Plank and helped fund Autism talk TV. Plank has stated that it's a good thing Mr. Bell's son is crippled and sick, so I wonder why Bell would maintain a friendship with these people and help fund this endeavor that does nothing to help persons with autism.
Ari Ne'eman, an individual in his early 20's who has never had paid employment has stated the solution is to eliminate social pleasantry as a criteria for hiring people and evaluating their job performance.
This is a problem that unfortunately leads to no quick and easy fix. I wish I had a solution myself, but unfortunately I don't. I had to struggle in the workplace myself and after nearly twenty-eight years of hell I had to retire at a young age.
How the ND movement can say autistic people are fine the way they are and how this is not a problem I don't have an inkling of a clue. I know. My authorship of this post proves that I am against human and civil rights for persons with autism, as are all other persons who oppose the neurodiversity movement and long for a cure. I realize I'm violating the civil and human rights of autistics by even writing this post. So it goes.
The study used data from the 2007-2008 period, before the financial crisis hit. Therefore, this study is likely a gross understatement of what the problem is today if current figures had been used.
Autism speaks apparently helped partially fund this study. Autism speaks executive Peter Bell weighed in as well. This person, if I am not mistaken has a 19-year-old son on the moderate and severe end of the spectrum and the family is spending money and time preparing him to face the cruel world. Peter Bell maintains a friendship with John and Jack Robison and Alex Plank and helped fund Autism talk TV. Plank has stated that it's a good thing Mr. Bell's son is crippled and sick, so I wonder why Bell would maintain a friendship with these people and help fund this endeavor that does nothing to help persons with autism.
Ari Ne'eman, an individual in his early 20's who has never had paid employment has stated the solution is to eliminate social pleasantry as a criteria for hiring people and evaluating their job performance.
This is a problem that unfortunately leads to no quick and easy fix. I wish I had a solution myself, but unfortunately I don't. I had to struggle in the workplace myself and after nearly twenty-eight years of hell I had to retire at a young age.
How the ND movement can say autistic people are fine the way they are and how this is not a problem I don't have an inkling of a clue. I know. My authorship of this post proves that I am against human and civil rights for persons with autism, as are all other persons who oppose the neurodiversity movement and long for a cure. I realize I'm violating the civil and human rights of autistics by even writing this post. So it goes.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Do I have too many Von Economo neurons
Today, I read an interesting post in the neurocritic's blog about a type of brain cell called a spindle cell or Von Economo cell. The blog entry stated that one of the areas these cells are located in is in the frontal area of the brain. Recent research has indicated an excessive number of neurons in the dorsofrontal cortex of some postmortem autistic brains. Also, apparently, there is destruction of these cells in frontotemporal dementia. In a recent post, I wrote about parallels between FTD and autism.
Naturally these made me wonder if these cells might somehow be involved in autism. I asked the neurocritic and he replied: jonathan - There have been speculations that VENs might be involved in autism, but conflicting studies have found greater, fewer, or the same number of VENs. Kind of hard to interpret that. Allman et al. said:
"There are many features of autism that suggest that the VENs may be involved in this disorder. An initial stereological study of the number of VENs in area FI in four autistic subjects plus controls did not confirm this conjecture. However, a second stereological study of VENs in dorsal ACC in nine autistic subjects plus controls found that the autistic subjects fell into two groups, one with significantly higher numbers of VENs than controls, and the other with significantly fewer VENs than controls. Thus the controls occupied a middle zone with little overlap with the high or low VEN autism groups."
When in doubt, postulate distinct subgroups.
Until recently, it was believed that these cells only existed only in humans along with a few other highly evolved primates. Neurocritic's post dealt with a recent finding of these cells in a lower primate, macaque monkeys. It has been subsequently discovered that these cells are also found in elephants and some whales, apparently only in larger mammals including at least some primates. These neurons develop late. They are small in number at the 35th week of gestation. At birth, a person only has 15% of their final total number of VENs. They continue to grow in the brain up until about age four, coincidentally during the time of the first onset of autism or the time during which at least a partial recovery from autism can be made (as was the case of myself around the age of four, when I regained my speech).
The fact that various findings from studies of these cells in autism is mixed, does not preclude the possibility that a problem with these cells, e.g. too few, too many or problems with formation and migration could be involved in at least some cases though not necessarily all. in an article by the courchesne group , mention is made of two different studies in which 53% and 58% more voneconomo neurons were found in autistic brains versus controls respectively.
John Allman of Cal Tech speculated that VEN's found in the frontoinsular cortex and the anterior cingulate relayed outputs to portions of the frontal and temporal cortex where theory of mind and other social decisions are made and propose the possibility that impairments in this area may be responsible for social deficits found in autism.
He reports an MRI study in which the area containing VENs in the anterior cingulate gyrus is reduced in volume compared to matched controls. tensor diffusion studies also showed white matter abnormalities in some autistic subjects. This also might be consistent with recent work of Courchesne showing excessive growth in the dorsofrontal cortex as well as the recent genetic study using this data. However, Courchesne stated in the above-linked paper that VEN's accounted for too low a percentage of all neurons in the frontal lobe to be totally responsible for all of the brain growth.
So, in my desire to finally uncover the etiology of my problems and the reason for my immense suffering, Von Economo neurons may be yet another leaf to be unturned.
Naturally these made me wonder if these cells might somehow be involved in autism. I asked the neurocritic and he replied: jonathan - There have been speculations that VENs might be involved in autism, but conflicting studies have found greater, fewer, or the same number of VENs. Kind of hard to interpret that. Allman et al. said:
"There are many features of autism that suggest that the VENs may be involved in this disorder. An initial stereological study of the number of VENs in area FI in four autistic subjects plus controls did not confirm this conjecture. However, a second stereological study of VENs in dorsal ACC in nine autistic subjects plus controls found that the autistic subjects fell into two groups, one with significantly higher numbers of VENs than controls, and the other with significantly fewer VENs than controls. Thus the controls occupied a middle zone with little overlap with the high or low VEN autism groups."
When in doubt, postulate distinct subgroups.
Until recently, it was believed that these cells only existed only in humans along with a few other highly evolved primates. Neurocritic's post dealt with a recent finding of these cells in a lower primate, macaque monkeys. It has been subsequently discovered that these cells are also found in elephants and some whales, apparently only in larger mammals including at least some primates. These neurons develop late. They are small in number at the 35th week of gestation. At birth, a person only has 15% of their final total number of VENs. They continue to grow in the brain up until about age four, coincidentally during the time of the first onset of autism or the time during which at least a partial recovery from autism can be made (as was the case of myself around the age of four, when I regained my speech).
The fact that various findings from studies of these cells in autism is mixed, does not preclude the possibility that a problem with these cells, e.g. too few, too many or problems with formation and migration could be involved in at least some cases though not necessarily all. in an article by the courchesne group , mention is made of two different studies in which 53% and 58% more voneconomo neurons were found in autistic brains versus controls respectively.
John Allman of Cal Tech speculated that VEN's found in the frontoinsular cortex and the anterior cingulate relayed outputs to portions of the frontal and temporal cortex where theory of mind and other social decisions are made and propose the possibility that impairments in this area may be responsible for social deficits found in autism.
He reports an MRI study in which the area containing VENs in the anterior cingulate gyrus is reduced in volume compared to matched controls. tensor diffusion studies also showed white matter abnormalities in some autistic subjects. This also might be consistent with recent work of Courchesne showing excessive growth in the dorsofrontal cortex as well as the recent genetic study using this data. However, Courchesne stated in the above-linked paper that VEN's accounted for too low a percentage of all neurons in the frontal lobe to be totally responsible for all of the brain growth.
So, in my desire to finally uncover the etiology of my problems and the reason for my immense suffering, Von Economo neurons may be yet another leaf to be unturned.
Monday, April 2, 2012
IACC appointees: A sick April fools joke or ???
Ironically, right around the time of April Fools day,the federal government announced the names of the new appointees to the public membership of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee. This is the agency that was created under the combating autism act where members of the general public, along with federal government members are appointed to give input and vote on autism policy. In the past(though I'm not certain about now) the Federal members outnumbered the public members. They voted on what they wanted, and I doubt the public members actually had much power to make meaningful contributions.
Three of the appointees' names particularly stood out for me:
1. Matthew Carey
2. John Elder Robison
3. (Last but certainly not least) Scott Robertson.
The combating autism act was designed with the intent of actually curing and eradicating autism. I'd like to discuss the incredible incongruity of appointing these three individuals to this position.
Nearly three years ago, I wrote a blog post explaining why I did not believe that members of the neurodiversity movement should be allowed to be heard by the IACC. This was in response to a post one of the three aforementioned appointees wrote.
Now in what I hope was either an early April Fools joke or a nightmare from which I'll awake tomorrow morning, it's happened. We now have three individuals from this movement who are not only being heard by the IACC but are actually on the board themselves.
Matt Carey, AKA "Sullivan", is at least a somewhat pro neurodiversity blogger who has a propensity to make numerous factual errors in posts that try to rebut those of us who have an intense dislike for the neurodiversity movement. He has gotten it wrong on special education law, gotten it wrong on whether or not Ari Ne'eman said that autism was not a disability and gotten it wrong about a certain individual who does not like ND, falsely claiming this person threatened Ne'eman with death. Carey has consistently stated the strawman that those of us who don't like neurodiversity are against civil and human rights. As this is one of their standard lines, I won't bother to comment on the absurdity of this. Carey has been very pro special ed and the IDEA law, yet apparently is against curing autism. He apparently believes the taxpayers should foot the bill for his son's disability which he is opposed to curing.
John Robison is another individual who has stated there is no need for a cure for autism. To his credit, he has acknowledged that autism is a disability that needs research for remediation. Though quite wealthy, he has accepted funding from autism speaks for his son's and Alex Plank's autism talk TV, while most persons with autism are crippled and sick and languish in poverty. He has suggested studying geek success as a legitimate scientific endeavor. He seems to either not understand that a newborn has a nearly equal chance of being a boy or a girl or comes up with some strange theory that parents of autistic children are at least four times more likely to have a son as their firstborn and then an equal chance of either sex with subsequent children. Though he has not even completed the tenth grade in school, he serves on scientific advisory boards with M.D. and Ph.D. scientists. Most notable of all, his friend, Alex Plank, whom he has helped secure funding for, has stated that autism is a good thing. So, though Robison has stated that many facets of autism are disabling and need research for remediation, I wonder if we can judge him by the company he keeps.
As I said before, last but not least is Scott Robertson, one of the top executives in the autistic self-advocacy network, second-in-command to Ari Ne'eman. Though ASAN has publically opposed the combating autism act, they apparently feel it is okay to be the beneficiaries of tax dollars paid for created out of a law that they disagree with. They have stated that curing autism (the purpose for which the combating autism act and the IACC which they now have a seat on was enacted) would be morally rephrensible. ASAN or their representatives have used murder of autistic children as a political tool, they have stated that autism and Asperger's are not disabilities, and they have implied that autistic people who are unable to hold jobs who disagree with what they are doing are welfare bums who in their words should be strangled to death and turned into cat food or taken out, lined up against a wall and be shot.
To date, not a single person on the spectrum who favors curing autism has been appointed as a public member of the IACC. Though it would seem we are the primary individuals for whom the CAA was passed by congress and signed into law by two different presidents. I wonder why Kathleen Sebelius and other powers that be, think that these individuals are better suited for the job than we are. Guess because of my disability, there are just some mysteries that I'm not sophisticated enough to understand.
Three of the appointees' names particularly stood out for me:
1. Matthew Carey
2. John Elder Robison
3. (Last but certainly not least) Scott Robertson.
The combating autism act was designed with the intent of actually curing and eradicating autism. I'd like to discuss the incredible incongruity of appointing these three individuals to this position.
Nearly three years ago, I wrote a blog post explaining why I did not believe that members of the neurodiversity movement should be allowed to be heard by the IACC. This was in response to a post one of the three aforementioned appointees wrote.
Now in what I hope was either an early April Fools joke or a nightmare from which I'll awake tomorrow morning, it's happened. We now have three individuals from this movement who are not only being heard by the IACC but are actually on the board themselves.
Matt Carey, AKA "Sullivan", is at least a somewhat pro neurodiversity blogger who has a propensity to make numerous factual errors in posts that try to rebut those of us who have an intense dislike for the neurodiversity movement. He has gotten it wrong on special education law, gotten it wrong on whether or not Ari Ne'eman said that autism was not a disability and gotten it wrong about a certain individual who does not like ND, falsely claiming this person threatened Ne'eman with death. Carey has consistently stated the strawman that those of us who don't like neurodiversity are against civil and human rights. As this is one of their standard lines, I won't bother to comment on the absurdity of this. Carey has been very pro special ed and the IDEA law, yet apparently is against curing autism. He apparently believes the taxpayers should foot the bill for his son's disability which he is opposed to curing.
John Robison is another individual who has stated there is no need for a cure for autism. To his credit, he has acknowledged that autism is a disability that needs research for remediation. Though quite wealthy, he has accepted funding from autism speaks for his son's and Alex Plank's autism talk TV, while most persons with autism are crippled and sick and languish in poverty. He has suggested studying geek success as a legitimate scientific endeavor. He seems to either not understand that a newborn has a nearly equal chance of being a boy or a girl or comes up with some strange theory that parents of autistic children are at least four times more likely to have a son as their firstborn and then an equal chance of either sex with subsequent children. Though he has not even completed the tenth grade in school, he serves on scientific advisory boards with M.D. and Ph.D. scientists. Most notable of all, his friend, Alex Plank, whom he has helped secure funding for, has stated that autism is a good thing. So, though Robison has stated that many facets of autism are disabling and need research for remediation, I wonder if we can judge him by the company he keeps.
As I said before, last but not least is Scott Robertson, one of the top executives in the autistic self-advocacy network, second-in-command to Ari Ne'eman. Though ASAN has publically opposed the combating autism act, they apparently feel it is okay to be the beneficiaries of tax dollars paid for created out of a law that they disagree with. They have stated that curing autism (the purpose for which the combating autism act and the IACC which they now have a seat on was enacted) would be morally rephrensible. ASAN or their representatives have used murder of autistic children as a political tool, they have stated that autism and Asperger's are not disabilities, and they have implied that autistic people who are unable to hold jobs who disagree with what they are doing are welfare bums who in their words should be strangled to death and turned into cat food or taken out, lined up against a wall and be shot.
To date, not a single person on the spectrum who favors curing autism has been appointed as a public member of the IACC. Though it would seem we are the primary individuals for whom the CAA was passed by congress and signed into law by two different presidents. I wonder why Kathleen Sebelius and other powers that be, think that these individuals are better suited for the job than we are. Guess because of my disability, there are just some mysteries that I'm not sophisticated enough to understand.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Software company stereotypes those with autism and says it's okay to exploit them
As originally reported on the autism jabberwocky blog, The Los Angeles software company, Square One, is in the process of trying to help three different autistic people find employment as software testers. They have a pilot program in which these three people will be trained.
This has been reported in a business week article.
The article starts out with the annoying stereotype of all autistic people having intellectual superpowers and having savant skills and memorizing train tables and having Jerry Newport type calendar skills where they can tell you the day of the week you were born on.
Square One's efforts, however, are not unprecedented. The Danish company Specialisterne has also trained autistic people to be software testers. Another company in Chicago, Aspiritech, has employed persons with autism to test smartphone applications.
The difference lies in the fact that in socialist Denmark, which enjoys high revenue from Northern sea oil drilling, the funds were provided for this company. It is improbable that the U.S. government would fund an upstart like this. Aspiritech is currently a nonprofit company.
Square one aspires to be the first company to make a profit from the labor of exclusively ASD software testers. Is anything wrong with this? After all, it's the American way we're told. This is what happens in a capitalistic society such as the U.S.A.
However, CEO Chad Hahn states:
A lot of software testing is done overseas by workers in India. The case Hahn makes is that his software testers will work for $15 to $20 an hour—pay comparable to, or even lower than, that of software testers in India, but right here in the U.S. After all, he points out, people with autism don’t have a lot of alternatives—when they do find work, it’s usually bagging groceries or sweeping hospital floors at the minimum wage.
When Hahn was asked if he sees this as exploitive the article states:
he doesn’t see it that way. For one thing, he says, Indian software testers aren’t exactly sweatshop labor; they make about $25 an hour. And if paying less makes the company able to hire the developmentally disabled in the first place, he doesn’t see a problem with it.
“I haven’t had one parent of an autistic child come to me and say this isn’t going to work,” he says. “They say, ‘This is a way for my child to make more money than they would have made otherwise, and allow them to be more independent.’ They worry, what is my child going to do when I’m gone? And this is kind of a way out.”
The comparison between Indian software testers and American autistics who do the same thing is moot. The standard of living in India is lower than in the U.S. The Indian making $25/hour can probably live like the $75-100/hour American.
It's these kind of bigoted stereotypes and attitudes that it's okay to exploit people that help make things worse for those of us on the spectrum.
As a person on the spectrum with no intellectual superpowers or savant skills, I find the stereotypes from the article offensive.
The article stated that Hahn's wife does some sort of work with developmentally disabled people. Are the Hahns doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, or do they see some easy way to make money off the backs of those less fortunate than themselves?
I wonder how much they understand about the problems of the developmentally disabled in the workplace. Are non-handicapped employees going to put up with bad behavior and social skills. Or maybe this is a test of Ari Ne'eman's theory that social skills in the workplace don't matter.
Time will tell if this plan pans out for Square One.
This has been reported in a business week article.
The article starts out with the annoying stereotype of all autistic people having intellectual superpowers and having savant skills and memorizing train tables and having Jerry Newport type calendar skills where they can tell you the day of the week you were born on.
Square One's efforts, however, are not unprecedented. The Danish company Specialisterne has also trained autistic people to be software testers. Another company in Chicago, Aspiritech, has employed persons with autism to test smartphone applications.
The difference lies in the fact that in socialist Denmark, which enjoys high revenue from Northern sea oil drilling, the funds were provided for this company. It is improbable that the U.S. government would fund an upstart like this. Aspiritech is currently a nonprofit company.
Square one aspires to be the first company to make a profit from the labor of exclusively ASD software testers. Is anything wrong with this? After all, it's the American way we're told. This is what happens in a capitalistic society such as the U.S.A.
However, CEO Chad Hahn states:
A lot of software testing is done overseas by workers in India. The case Hahn makes is that his software testers will work for $15 to $20 an hour—pay comparable to, or even lower than, that of software testers in India, but right here in the U.S. After all, he points out, people with autism don’t have a lot of alternatives—when they do find work, it’s usually bagging groceries or sweeping hospital floors at the minimum wage.
When Hahn was asked if he sees this as exploitive the article states:
he doesn’t see it that way. For one thing, he says, Indian software testers aren’t exactly sweatshop labor; they make about $25 an hour. And if paying less makes the company able to hire the developmentally disabled in the first place, he doesn’t see a problem with it.
“I haven’t had one parent of an autistic child come to me and say this isn’t going to work,” he says. “They say, ‘This is a way for my child to make more money than they would have made otherwise, and allow them to be more independent.’ They worry, what is my child going to do when I’m gone? And this is kind of a way out.”
The comparison between Indian software testers and American autistics who do the same thing is moot. The standard of living in India is lower than in the U.S. The Indian making $25/hour can probably live like the $75-100/hour American.
It's these kind of bigoted stereotypes and attitudes that it's okay to exploit people that help make things worse for those of us on the spectrum.
As a person on the spectrum with no intellectual superpowers or savant skills, I find the stereotypes from the article offensive.
The article stated that Hahn's wife does some sort of work with developmentally disabled people. Are the Hahns doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, or do they see some easy way to make money off the backs of those less fortunate than themselves?
I wonder how much they understand about the problems of the developmentally disabled in the workplace. Are non-handicapped employees going to put up with bad behavior and social skills. Or maybe this is a test of Ari Ne'eman's theory that social skills in the workplace don't matter.
Time will tell if this plan pans out for Square One.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
New autism genetic brain growth study may refute some urban legends
I read with interest (albeit admittedly with limited understand)
the new article that demonstrates evidence for a genetic etiology for the abnormal brain growth and other anomalies in autism. Scientific American has published an overview of this work that's more understandable to the lay person (myself included) than the primary source, which I've also linked to above.
One finding that I think at least some labs have replicated is abnormal brain growth in autism. Eric Courchesne recently published a study demonstrating abnormal brain growth in the prefrontal cortex of postmortem autistic subjects and finding autistic brains have 67% more neurons in this area than normal controls. I've written about this elsewhere.
This study examined genetic pathways and defects in postmortem brains of both autistic children and adults as compared to age-matched controls.
One of the striking findings of this work was the fact that the genetic defects and how they affected the brain were qualitatively different in the adult group than in children.
The last sentence in the conclusion section of the article is particularly compelling: Further knowledge of the specific developmental neurobiological mechanisms behind the age-dependent anomalies reported here could point to distinct early developmental processes that lead to autism, uncover mechanisms that respond to early pathologies in the mature brain and suggest novel molecular targets for prevention strategies and treatment over the course of the disorder .
This study may have relevance to two well-known tenets in the autism community: 1. Early intervention makes a difference in the outcome of autistic children. The earlier the treatment is started the better the prognosis. 2. One of the main arguments of the neurodiversity movement that the term "prevention" is in reality a codeword for abortion and that genetic research in autism will only lead to widespread termination of pregnancies involving autistic fetuses. The ND movement gives the oft-cited statistic of a more than 90% abortion rate of Down's syndrome children as evidence for this. There are probably a number of problems with this argument, but that may be the subject of a future gadfly blog post.
Though the "early intervention" mantra is repeatedly chanted to parents of small autistic children by entrepeneurs financed by the IDEA law (ABA practitioners and others), to the best of my knowledge, no studies have been done linking age of intake to a more favorable prognosis or outcome.
As I've written before, I underwent psychoanalysis beginning the late 1950s. This was the intervention of choice in those days. I went from nonverbal feces smearing to mildly impaired autistic during this time period. Was it the psychoanalysis that helped me? Have ABA and other more contemporary interventions been responsible for at least partial recovery of those with autism? I believe the differences between the postmortem brains in the children versus adults as well as different genetic pathways may account for recovery in some cases. Some persons who had certain types of genetic defects as children, may not have had the as adults. Perhaps the adults without certain deficiencies did not have genes that interfered with patterns repairing neurons etc. Perhaps that accounts for recoveries rather than early intervention. Though admittedly it is speculation, I don't believe this hypothesis is farfetched.
ASAN and other neurodiversity organizations have repeatedly claimed that all research funded by Autism speaks, the Simons foundation, etc. has a goal of finding a way abort autistic fetuses. This includes fMRI studies and studies of TMS and mu wave suppression which do not appear to have any relevance to genetic research to a reasonable person. This paper may be the start of empirical evidence, that in fact, genetic research is our ace in the hole for preventing autism. No, not aborting the autistic fetus, but perhaps finding the genetic mechanisms prenatally that cause this brain overgrowth and possibly other problems the autistic may have. For this reason, I believe studies like this should be funded and it may have promising implications of being able to prevent the fetus from becoming autistic in the first place or even possibly helping those already born.
the new article that demonstrates evidence for a genetic etiology for the abnormal brain growth and other anomalies in autism. Scientific American has published an overview of this work that's more understandable to the lay person (myself included) than the primary source, which I've also linked to above.
One finding that I think at least some labs have replicated is abnormal brain growth in autism. Eric Courchesne recently published a study demonstrating abnormal brain growth in the prefrontal cortex of postmortem autistic subjects and finding autistic brains have 67% more neurons in this area than normal controls. I've written about this elsewhere.
This study examined genetic pathways and defects in postmortem brains of both autistic children and adults as compared to age-matched controls.
One of the striking findings of this work was the fact that the genetic defects and how they affected the brain were qualitatively different in the adult group than in children.
The last sentence in the conclusion section of the article is particularly compelling: Further knowledge of the specific developmental neurobiological mechanisms behind the age-dependent anomalies reported here could point to distinct early developmental processes that lead to autism, uncover mechanisms that respond to early pathologies in the mature brain and suggest novel molecular targets for prevention strategies and treatment over the course of the disorder .
This study may have relevance to two well-known tenets in the autism community: 1. Early intervention makes a difference in the outcome of autistic children. The earlier the treatment is started the better the prognosis. 2. One of the main arguments of the neurodiversity movement that the term "prevention" is in reality a codeword for abortion and that genetic research in autism will only lead to widespread termination of pregnancies involving autistic fetuses. The ND movement gives the oft-cited statistic of a more than 90% abortion rate of Down's syndrome children as evidence for this. There are probably a number of problems with this argument, but that may be the subject of a future gadfly blog post.
Though the "early intervention" mantra is repeatedly chanted to parents of small autistic children by entrepeneurs financed by the IDEA law (ABA practitioners and others), to the best of my knowledge, no studies have been done linking age of intake to a more favorable prognosis or outcome.
As I've written before, I underwent psychoanalysis beginning the late 1950s. This was the intervention of choice in those days. I went from nonverbal feces smearing to mildly impaired autistic during this time period. Was it the psychoanalysis that helped me? Have ABA and other more contemporary interventions been responsible for at least partial recovery of those with autism? I believe the differences between the postmortem brains in the children versus adults as well as different genetic pathways may account for recovery in some cases. Some persons who had certain types of genetic defects as children, may not have had the as adults. Perhaps the adults without certain deficiencies did not have genes that interfered with patterns repairing neurons etc. Perhaps that accounts for recoveries rather than early intervention. Though admittedly it is speculation, I don't believe this hypothesis is farfetched.
ASAN and other neurodiversity organizations have repeatedly claimed that all research funded by Autism speaks, the Simons foundation, etc. has a goal of finding a way abort autistic fetuses. This includes fMRI studies and studies of TMS and mu wave suppression which do not appear to have any relevance to genetic research to a reasonable person. This paper may be the start of empirical evidence, that in fact, genetic research is our ace in the hole for preventing autism. No, not aborting the autistic fetus, but perhaps finding the genetic mechanisms prenatally that cause this brain overgrowth and possibly other problems the autistic may have. For this reason, I believe studies like this should be funded and it may have promising implications of being able to prevent the fetus from becoming autistic in the first place or even possibly helping those already born.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Does an autistic's higher perceptual capacity translate into a lucrative IT career?
I've just read an interesting post on one of my favorite autism blogs, "M.J's" Autism Jabberwocky. MJ writes about an article that appeared online in Science Daily. Cognitive neuroscience Nilli Lavie has claimed that her recent study has demonstrated that autistics have superior perceptual processing capacity. She goes further in claiming that these strengths can be capitalized on and help autistics in their life activities and possibly be the stepping stone into a lucrative career in the IT industry. She goes further to claim that the findings of her research may demonstrate why so many persons with autism are successful computer programmers, network administrators, etc.
I haven't read the primary source, i.e. Lavie's actual article published in the journal of abnormal psychology, so I won't comment on the validity of her research or even whether or not it has the clinical applications that she's claiming. I'm still awaiting a single example of an autistic person who was helped by this type of research and any studies showing a benefit. This is particularly true of rogue physician and scientist Laurent Mottron who has made similar claims yet has provided no evidence of persons who have been helped by treatments based on this research, particularly an autist who made it in the IT biz. This is particularly germane given the fact this was the rationale given for Mottron's half a million dollar research grant from Autism Speaks.
I am curious as to exactly how many individuals with a bonafide autism diagnosis actually have been successful in careers in IT. I'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that though there may actually be some individuals who fit the bill, they are very few and far between. I still remember my unsuccessful attempts to get into this profession, but more about that later.
One striking statement in the science daily article was that the numbers of autism diagnoses tripled in the silicone valley during the 1990s. The author of this article quotes Steve Silberman's wired piece as a source. As I said, I haven't read Lavie's article so I don't know if she herself wrote it to bolster her case and it's been a few years or more since I read Silberman's piece so I don't remember exactly what he said either. Even if there were significant increases in the rates of autism in the silicone valley, were they unique as compared to other parts of California. According to figures from the CDDS The answer would appear to be no. Though between July of 1992 and July of 2007 the number of autsitic clients the San Andreas regional center served increased from 213 to 1,798, a 8.4 fold increase, rates in some other parts of the state were no different or significantly larger. The Frank Lanterman center's number went from 209 to 1,962, a more than 9.3 fold increase. North Los Angeles Regional Center's numbers were 437 to 3,708-a fractionally greater increase than San Andreas. East Los Angeles, a relatively poor area with no IT industry went from 150 to 2,040 clients, a 13.6 fold increase. This is more than 1.5 times higher than San Andreas. Valley Mountain regional center went from 68 to 1,178 for a 17.3 fold increase or more than double San Andreas. It would appear, compared to other parts of the state the Silicone valley was hardly a bastion of growth due to IT genes or any other factor. I believe this sort of puts a gaping hole in the argument purported by those who want to use autism prevalence figures to argue for autism increases being caused by an aptitude for computer programming.
I still remember my own failed attempts to become a computer programmer. I took a variety of computer programming courses on and off in the 1980's and 1990s. Though I did learn a bit, it was nowhere near enough to become a professional programmer. Unlike the autistics in Dr. Lavie's and Mottron's studies, I was unable to concentrate or pay attention to details at anywhere near the level of a neurotypical person. Though I worked intermittently in other professions, I was fired from multiple jobs and had to quit working early on in my life.
Therefore, I don't think it's helpful for Drs. Lavie and Mottron to put up simplistic solutions to difficult problems such as that of the many autistics' inability to make a living.
I haven't read the primary source, i.e. Lavie's actual article published in the journal of abnormal psychology, so I won't comment on the validity of her research or even whether or not it has the clinical applications that she's claiming. I'm still awaiting a single example of an autistic person who was helped by this type of research and any studies showing a benefit. This is particularly true of rogue physician and scientist Laurent Mottron who has made similar claims yet has provided no evidence of persons who have been helped by treatments based on this research, particularly an autist who made it in the IT biz. This is particularly germane given the fact this was the rationale given for Mottron's half a million dollar research grant from Autism Speaks.
I am curious as to exactly how many individuals with a bonafide autism diagnosis actually have been successful in careers in IT. I'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that though there may actually be some individuals who fit the bill, they are very few and far between. I still remember my unsuccessful attempts to get into this profession, but more about that later.
One striking statement in the science daily article was that the numbers of autism diagnoses tripled in the silicone valley during the 1990s. The author of this article quotes Steve Silberman's wired piece as a source. As I said, I haven't read Lavie's article so I don't know if she herself wrote it to bolster her case and it's been a few years or more since I read Silberman's piece so I don't remember exactly what he said either. Even if there were significant increases in the rates of autism in the silicone valley, were they unique as compared to other parts of California. According to figures from the CDDS The answer would appear to be no. Though between July of 1992 and July of 2007 the number of autsitic clients the San Andreas regional center served increased from 213 to 1,798, a 8.4 fold increase, rates in some other parts of the state were no different or significantly larger. The Frank Lanterman center's number went from 209 to 1,962, a more than 9.3 fold increase. North Los Angeles Regional Center's numbers were 437 to 3,708-a fractionally greater increase than San Andreas. East Los Angeles, a relatively poor area with no IT industry went from 150 to 2,040 clients, a 13.6 fold increase. This is more than 1.5 times higher than San Andreas. Valley Mountain regional center went from 68 to 1,178 for a 17.3 fold increase or more than double San Andreas. It would appear, compared to other parts of the state the Silicone valley was hardly a bastion of growth due to IT genes or any other factor. I believe this sort of puts a gaping hole in the argument purported by those who want to use autism prevalence figures to argue for autism increases being caused by an aptitude for computer programming.
I still remember my own failed attempts to become a computer programmer. I took a variety of computer programming courses on and off in the 1980's and 1990s. Though I did learn a bit, it was nowhere near enough to become a professional programmer. Unlike the autistics in Dr. Lavie's and Mottron's studies, I was unable to concentrate or pay attention to details at anywhere near the level of a neurotypical person. Though I worked intermittently in other professions, I was fired from multiple jobs and had to quit working early on in my life.
Therefore, I don't think it's helpful for Drs. Lavie and Mottron to put up simplistic solutions to difficult problems such as that of the many autistics' inability to make a living.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
