I don't know enough about the science to make an informed comment about how accurate the research is. I do note that the study, like far too many autism studies, assumes a universal norm--be it for behavior or brain regulation--when in fact there tends to be a great deal of variability among humans. I appreciate the fact that the researchers warn against inducing fevers as autism "treatment," but that isn't going to stop charlatans of autism research and "treatment" from using this study as a justification.
"On a positive note, we are talking about a brain region that is not irrevocably altered. It gives us hope that, with novel therapies, we will eventually be able to help people with autism," says theory co-author Mark F. Mehler, M.D., chairman of neurology and director of the Institute for Brain Disorders and Neural Regeneration at Einstein.
I don't understand why Dr. Mehler is saying that autism doesn't involve "a brain region that is not irrevocably altered" when it seems pretty clear to me that the brain chemistry is, in fact, not alterable with current technology even if you accept this theory. It's nice to know that Dr. Mehler thinks he can eventually "help" us by altering our brain chemistries and genes involuntarily, though. Mehler has, apparently, not considered the fact that methodologies other than tinkering with people's bodies could help improve the quality of life for autistic people.
In the meantime, this study (allegedly) indicates that prenatal stress during the later months of pregnancy is a cause of autism. That may well be true, but what does that mean? Is fear-mongering pregnant women into "resting" and not engaging in any potentially stressful activities during the later months of pregnancy going to become a new "autism prevention" tactic? It wouldn't surprise me, especially as it fits well with an outlook of the world which demonizes working mothers.
"The message here is one of hope but also one of caution," Dr. Mehler adds. "You can't take a complex neuropsychiatric disease that has escaped our understanding for 50 years and in one fell swoop have a therapy that is going to reverse it — that's folly. On the other hand, we now have clues to the neurobiology, the genetics, and the epigenetics of autism. To move forward, we need to invest more money in basic science to look at the genome and the epigenome in a more focused way."
Well, at least Mehler understands that the biology of autism is complicated, though he seems rather confused about what autism actually is. (not a "neuropsychiatric disease.") The idea that "autism is reversible" has certainly already been sensationalized by Science Daily, and no doubt will be by other publications. But I think it's pretty clear that we don't yet know how to re-program people's genes and/or brains, and won't for a while yet. I, unlike Mehler, think it's folly to attempt such a thing. My ethical concerns with such attempts are partially assuaged only by my belief that they are inevitably doomed.
Posts
