From Bloomberg:
Doctors have long known autism runs in families. Now, scientists have scanned DNA from 1,168 families with multiple cases, the largest such group ever assembled, and identified gene variants that could one day spur treatments for a disorder that leaves about 1 in 150 U.S. children uncommunicative, cut off emotionally from the world around them.
The findings, announced [yesterday], include a deleted gene, called neurexin 1, that enables communication between neurons, the nerve cells in the brain that transmit information to the body through chemical and electrical signals. The researchers also found variants in two chromosomes that have never before been linked with the spectrum of similar disorders that includes autism and Asperger’s Syndrome.
“This is the most ambitious effort yet to find the locations of genes that may confer vulnerability to autism, revealing clues that will likely influence the direction of autism research for years to come,’’ said Elias Zerhouni, director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, in a statement [Feb 18].
This is great news on two fronts—first, that genetic study continues to yield promising pathways that will eventually result in the early detection and treatment of diseases once thought only manageable; and second, that the scientists and researchers involved in this particular study didn’t blame autism on blowback, George Bush, or global warming.
Which, it seems to me, is a step in the right direction, scientifically speaking.
*****
update: And speaking of politically-motivated scientists—if this guy frames his own research as dishonestly as he frames his blog posts (see Dan’s rejoinder in the comments ), we’ll soon be looking at fossil records that “prove” that Republicans evolved from Titi monkeys, while “progressives” evolved from an ancient race of supersmart dolphins who, in addition to giving the world fire, tools, and scuba gear blueprints, actually were the first creatures to pen uplifting folk music and ban smoking in bars and restaurants.
I don’t know, Jeff. While it is one step closer to “early detection and treatment’ it’s also one step closer to pre-screening and elimination of ‘undesirable’ fetuses. And we’ll get that if we buy into ‘universal health care’. When the government starts having to manage the bottom line, the shit hits the fan. Think NHS in Great Britain.
Even if we avoid the socialist health care fiasco, watch for the insurance companies to create incredible pressure to terminate such lives. I suspect that, one of these days, a fetus carrying certain diseases will have zero chance of ever growing up to become a physician.
Give it some time yet.
You left out Halliburton.
Depending what’s missing in an autistic child, it may not be possible to treat them. It’s almost certainly more efficient to abort suspected autistic fetuses and have the parents take another shot at conception.
There will be less emphasis on treating and managing autism if there are fewer autistic children.
ahem —
Why would they need to be eliminated? Along with early detection would come gene therapy, would it not?
With the deaf getting overheated about cochlear transplants, and gays worrying about abortions aimed at culling them . . . I doubt that the autistic will be able to get a word in edgewise. I think that this does mark an important step, but that we are going to have to insist especially on the sanctity of these lives, since they haven’t the same kind of natural advocacy.
Having said that, and admitting that ahem makes an important point, I think that we should, maybe, just bracket that portion of the discussion until Melissa’s had her say. But that’s just a suggestion, of course.
I’m happy to hear this. Like I said in an earlier thread, I have a nephew who is slightly autistic, Asperger’s. He is connected to the world, knows who everyone is, and can talk, etc., but he’s about three years behind, developmentally. If this can help fix this problem before it becomes a problem, then I’m for it.
Ask the folks who suffer from Huntington’s Chorea how that works. Still no cure yet that I’m aware of.
Now, off to important related stuff. While you folks are tracking autism genes, I gotta chase down celiac disease and selective immune deficiency genes. Good fun for family and friends, particularly if you’re “incentivized” as it were.
Best of luck, on behalf of my … uh, stepsister-in-law, who suffers from celiac disease.
I simply don’t get these arguments, to be honest with you. It’s almost as if people want to argue that, because scientific discovery can be misused, we should avoid the discovery itself.
But all science is a potential slippery slope.
Hate the player, not the game—as no kid at all really says today.
We don’t have to eliminate them. We can make them research monkeys.
They would be perfect human analogs.
Except for the social thing, which I think you will have to admit makes them pretty good research monkey analogs.
And now we begin to see that the slippery slope starts with “scientists”.
OK, you call it tomato,
I call it brilliant satire.
I couldn’t help but notice that nobody stepped up to defend said graduate progressive scientist and Rightwingsparkle had to take on the Rev. who thinks that it’s OK to summarily execute abortion doctors to … wait for it … SAVE LIVES!
*sigh* Sometimes it’s hard to be a Christian.
BTW: Having completely misrepresented Dan’s views on the hate mail our budding scientist should take some time and re-examine the concept of critical thinking skills.
Jeff: I think that the point is not to handcuff scientific gene study but to have a constant understanding and awareness of the potential ethical situations. We pro-lifers tend to be a little nervous about things like embryonic stem cells, gene therepy and cloning because of the potential for creating a disposal life culture. We’re also leery of ideas to create different “catagories” of life, facilitating the disposability. those of us who are fairly reasonable want to be heard and assure ourselves that science is listening and pondering, so to speak.
That is, when we are not writhing on our backs speaking in tongues while twirling asps …
This “Rev. Spitz”, he would be a minister ordained by which church?
There is a danger of throwing the fetus out with the bathwater if we start screening for Autism and Asperger’s Syndrome. Some of the smartest geeks in the world are borderline autistic and a quick check of genes in Silicon Valley might give the screeners pause.
I’ve occasionally imagined some kid stuck in the camp who, while his normal peers were out hunting and gathering, is obssesively rubbing sticks together until he starts a fire, or another kid at the back of the cave banging rocks together until he had a decent flint blade, or maybe playing with bits of reed or grass till he’d woven a basket.
Of course, if he’s mumbling political manifestos then cull the little bastard.
furiskey:
First Congregational Church of the Loon
He’s the one with the Puritan costume and tinfoil hat…
People like him and that hatemongering “God Hates Fags” lunatic in Kansas annoy me to no end. Christians get enough static just for being, well, Christians without having to feed the magazines of the Marcotte’s of the world with those kinds of lunacies.
Jest ticks me off, is all.
I think we used to have fairly savage penalties to deter frauds from masquerading as ministers of God.
I will try to find out what happened to them.
I don’t mean to be so pessimistic, Jeff. Yes, there are great wonders yet to be worked. It is exciting technology and I hope that a more hope-filled and painless future for humanity results. You’re absolutely right: slippery slope arguments are no justification to stop promising research. I would never advocate that.
My concern is this: one of the unintended consequences of legalizing abortion–and I’m not saying it should be illegal–is the legitimization of the utilitarian argument. Once you buy into the idea that some births are just inconvenient for one reason or another, then it’s easy to expand the scope of the argument to include other cases. Our problem is to be vigilant against dehumanizing abuses.
Society’s power and willingness to insert itself into what have traditionally been personal decisions is rising markedly. Look at the employer out east who fired every employee who smoked in order to limit his health insurance premiums. 10 years ago, such a thing would have been laughed out of the room. Where were the civil libertarians on that? How big a leap is it to imagine insurance companies refusing payment for certain expensive gene therapy treatments?
I guess I’m a natural pessimist.
I’m w/ you ahem, I get a little nervous about what may come-about from a culture that embraces botox & breast augmentation for 13 year olds. However, I am in favor of these genetic based discoveries because of the new & more effective treatments & screenings that they offer. It is always that precarious balance that technology & knowledge bring about, coupled w/ the declining teaching of basic ethics that scares me to death.
Is it just me, or does Dr. Science’s “examples of death threats” link suffer from a severe lack of examples of death threats?
ahem,
[url=”http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2006/01/10/girl_deficit_grows_in_india/” target=”_blank”]
Case in point. [/url] You don’t hear our favorite feminists talking about that choice much, do you?
Well that sucked.
Linky.
You know you’ve hung out at Free Republic too long when you read a thread about autism and are very relieved to not see the words vaccine, thimerosal, or mercury.
Jeff:
That’s exactly the point that many who would call for “people’s science” are heading.
I well remember graduate school when folks argued that any scientific advance that might be misused by the military-industrial complex should be discouraged, if not outright banned.
Of course, when you get down to it, food preservation skills were given a big impetus during the Napoleonic and then the American Civil Wars, in order to support the massive armies that were being fielded. Pointing that out, scarily, got some nods from progressives—after all, it would also have forestalled overpopulation.
As Dan Collins notes, there’d be autistic folks arguing that Autism (deliberately capitalized) is as much a culture as Deaf.
TW: felt75, By 2075, what was felt will be as much a basis for science as what is known.
I simply don’t get these arguments, to be honest with you. It’s almost as if people want to argue that, because scientific discovery can be misused, we should avoid the discovery itself.
I’m sure, Jeff, that Alfred Nobel would commiserate. He just wanted to make explosives safe to use, but – darn those humans!
(BTW, I’m not attacking you.)
Who knew Titi monkeys ate paste?
Sigh. You could say the exact same thing about Lucianne.com anymore as well. The place has become a hole.
Thanks, McG. I got to get this nailed down before it finishes me off.
Late to the party–busy day with sick kids.
I am interested in the genetic aspect of Autism but not for reasons you might expect. Genes are very sensitive to the environment. For example, a person might have the gene for a certain kind of cancer, but it must be switched on by an environmental trigger to express itself. So what is in an autistic person’s environment that switches the genes?
Some women with a terrible genetic variant are having mastectomies to protect against a lethal cancer which gets expressed approximately 50-75% of the time.
I am also cautious about this genetic identification. So many brilliant people have extraordinary gifts because of weird genetics–abnormal genetics. And I do worry about a bland Barbie Doll society where everyone is not normal, but “above average”. Who gets to pick that ideal?
Autistic people themselves worry about genetic advances because they think they are good enough just the way they are. In fact, I inadvertently got in the cross-hairs of this guy, first for giving credence to research he thought was garbage and second, for wanting to “improve” my son.
My argument was thus, and I still believe this: Autistic people themselves often do not know, because of limited social awareness, what a pain in the ass they are to be around. They never intentionally hurt someone emotionally, but the effect of their obtuseness can be just as hurtful. Likewise, because they express themselves immaturely, they might find it perfectly acceptable to punch you in the head should you interfere with, say, a favorite TV show about Thomas the Tank Engine. This means, and they don’t know this, that they can be a danger to themselves, their siblings and anyone who cares for them. And much as some autistics cry oppression at being “changed”, it is their mothers that must change their diapers at 30. So, call me selfish, I think the mom gets a say in the “cure”.
All that is to say, I have worked very hard to get my son “normal”. Why? Because he is more connected and deeply desires this even when he can’t always express it. Because he has an awareness that he is different and some things shame him (even though we have done our darnedest to not project any shame on him)–like wetting the bed or having trouble with his buttons. Because he is capable of so much greatness but his fears and/or communication ability inhibit his use of those gifts.
And with our hard work he is coming around. In fact, we had an ARD today and he is going to begin being included fully in the regular classroom on Wednesday!! Parenting my autistic son has been a non-stop, never-ending fight. He is smart but because he is socially awkward, people assume he’s stupid. He’s not stupid and I don’t want him to believe it.
So, if a gene could be suppressed or expressed that would counter-act the worst aspects, sure I’d be interested, but I’m still skeptical. Genetics are so complicated and therapies can have so many unintended consequences. Should the research be done? Yes.
Is the fear of using the information to give families a choice, i.e. abortion valid? Yes. It is already done for these reasons and I find it appalling. And I say this as a mom who has never had one easy day mothering. A friend of mine said, “It never ends with H. does it? It just goes on and on and on.” Yes, it does. But my life is better for him and has a richness that defies explanation.
Did Titi monkeys have implants?