Aspies For Freedom

Nancy Adrieu of San Francisco has two sons, both diagnosed with autism.

"We're struggling along, trying to get them services, helping them overcome their disabilities and trying to find out why this happened," she says.

However, to date, no one knows what causes the baffling brain disorder. But Nancy and most experts suspect the answer lies deep within our DNA. Now, a high tech tool invented in the Bay Area may reveal some real answers.

The technology is called a "gene chip DNA array." The chip allows scientists to examine the DNA found in a blood sample on a much finer level and more rapidly than ever before. Thanks to the chip, and 1500 families hit hard by autism, a massive hunt looking for genetic clues is now underway.

"In order to find these genes, we need large sample sizes," says Dr. Joachim Hallmeyer of the Stanford School of Medicine, who is part of the international effort involved with the research. "The goal of all this is to treat autism better."

Hallmeyer believes autism may not involve one but many genes on different chromosomes. He hopes that with a better-detailed understanding of autism, scientists might come up with more effective treatments or even a cure.

While Nancy is grateful, she worries about the future.

"Who is going to take care of my kids when I'm not around?" she says.

That is a question the study can't answer, but one day, it may prevent it from ever being asked.

(© MMV, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

"That is a question the study can't answer, but one day, it may prevent it from ever being asked."


And we know what that prevention means....

What gives me the chills is how very calmly so many people discuss this issue, as if they were talking about getting rid of a litter of unwanted puppies.

Actually, they would probably have more empathy for puppies...

Quotes from article

The idea that genetic information could lead to the development of some "cure" or new "treatment" must be based on the presumption that the cause of autism is some simple chemical imbalance in the brain or some simple difference that can be "corrected" or altered by pharmaceuticals. But this presumption is a load bunkum, and any credible scientist should know this. Scientists have found stacks of different parts of the brain that are different in structure or size in autistics compared with ordinary people, and obviously numerous structural brain differences cannot be altered to resemble "normal" with just one or a few drug treatments. When scientists make statements saying stuff like "Genetic research might/will lead to a cure/treatment for autism" I would like to see someone to challenge the scientist to explain exactly how this could be possible. I bet that would be one of those questions that they can't answer.

Please dont post the stuff that comes from news organizations... PLEASE.  The stuff news corporations churn out is an affront to real science.  That stuff is so heavily spun, stirred and rinsed that it means about as much to autism research as wet laundry.

Nem, other people read it, we have the right to post it and read it too.

Please keep in perspective that we are writing a scientific journal here, we are posting articles and opinions to share our views.

Sorry...  Im just sick of manufactured and/or misreported science.  Between the right-wing types here in the US and the news media, I'm liable to completely insane if I hear the words 'sound science' one more time.

:?

I disagree with you when you request that these articles shouldn't be published here.

I think it's helpful to know what is being (mis)reported.  Unless we know what is being said, we're not going to be in a position to challenge it.

You might want to stick your head, ostrich-like, in the sand or stick your fingers in your ears and sing loudly "LALALALALALA I can't hear you!" but what does that achieve?  Those who are researching and campaigning for our extermination from society will continue.

There is a lot of prejudice because of ignorance.  Isn't it better to educate instead of ignore?

We can make a difference.  Check the other threads, for example, someone contacting a news organisation and saying: 'hey, you know that story where you reported the school stabbing and you described that the alleged perpetrator is autistic', that's not really relevant to the crime, and it's prejudicial to autistics', might change how stories concerning autistics are reported by that news organisation in the future.  

We can either let NTs continue with their ignorance, or challenge and correct them.  I think that means something positive can come from highlighting negative media representations.

That is all entirely valid and a good point.
However that is something that in my opinion is better suited to the AS in the news forum.  Its why the forum exists, right?  To discuss ASD related news topics.  The genetics forum is (only my opinion) not the best place to discuss the potential impact of a given news article.

To explain my feeling on the matter, allow me to describe how scientific research is actually reviewed.  First, an article is sent to a journal and is sent out to other researchers to look at.  They chek it out for flaws in the research, particularly confounding variables, meaning anything in the study that the researcher missed which could skew the results.

Also, if other labs try to conduct the same experiment and repeatedly get different results, then the original study is suspect and might even be disavowed by the journal.

the news media doesnt do ANY of this, and their conclusions are influenced heavily by the personal leanings of the individual editors, as well as what they think will sell best.

THAT is why I think news media reports are better off being discussed in the news forum.

Nemidaelius has made a very good point. Any media report of some new study needs to be regarded with a high degree of scepticism, because one study does not conclusively prove a thing in the world of real science. How many times over have scientists discovered the "genes for" homosexuality or schizophrenia?

We all know that so much news reporting of scientific and medical research is drug company PR or silly attention-grabbing fluff. One could argue though that if government policy or personal decisions are going to be based on bad or flawed science, then we need to know about that science regardless of its value. Do we need a special section for suspect science and suspect science reporting?

Dont forget the time Dean Hamer (the same guy who found the 'gay gene' Lili mentioned) also discovered a gene for religious tendencies XD

I have a copy of "The God gene" by Dean Hamer in my hot little hand at the moment. I haven't read it yet, but a quick look at the references section at the end of the book suggests that a lot of the conclusions in the book will be based on research into personality and temperament, which is not the most scientific science that I can think of.

If theres anything I cn agree with behavioralists about, its that studying the inner workings of the mind by talking to people aint exactly a science.  Peeking at someone's brain by MRI, however, appears more promising.

MRI shows very little, it certainly doesn't show if someone is autistic or not.
It can show a brain tumour, but can't show if you are depressed, happy, have prosopagnosia, phobias, things which talking to a patient can reveal.