An infamous chemical has been strongly linked to Autism

Post Reply New Topic

A prerequisite of that is, as Bea pointed out, that those of us who do want to read the sources actually can. I always want to read the original papers too, and I get very frustrated when they are stuck behind paywalls. As a layman citizen, the cost of subscriptions is more than I can either afford or justify for the amount of content that I would want to access.

A few of us who are scientifically literate, aware of the distortions of mass media, and able to translate research findings into colloquial language could at least be a catalyst, encouraging people around us to be more critical. But without knowing what the actual findings are, our arguments can stumble when we're asked to give clear, concrete examples to back up our generic criticisms. People like certainty; but we can be left sometimes only able to argue with our doubts rather than with any clear alternative explanations, making our position less appealing than it might be otherwise.

It is not helpful for us to get into an argument over what readers of WP should and shouldn’t be reading in their spare time. The advantage of WP is that brings together people of different backgrounds. If everyone here had the exact same interests and expertise, there wouldn’t be much to discuss. It *does* feel reasonable—and in keeping in the spirit of WP—to discuss the quality of websites and publications that raise awareness of scientific findings. But I am placing my emphasis on the producers of such writing, not the consumers. Science journalism plays an important role in communication because it expands the audience familiar with research findings (in line with what goldfish is saying). However, that role comes with important responsibilities because the journalist may influence popular perceptions of science (in line with what BeaArthur is saying).

When executed well, good science journalism will have done the work of figuring out how best to distill findings and make them understandable to an audience not versed in a field. The journalist will also have identified the potential weak points in a study’s findings and shared them with the audience. That allows a lay reader to fully appreciate the value—and the limitations—of a study without having to get an advanced degree in the subject matter. Unfortunately, a site like IFLscience does not always achieve these ideals. As Bea notes, its articles and headlines sometimes shade what is presented in order to create shock value. That isn’t science journalism. It’s click bate dressed up to look like science journalism. And it has the potential to do a disservice to all who might benefit from research because a reader may come away with the wrong impression of scientific studies.

All I'm saying is that I don't have much respect for iflscience. If I see an article at the New York Times or Washington Post or even HuffPo websites, I have slightly more respect. I'm sorry if that offends you or makes me look snooty, but I can't change the fact that I have studied a lot of science and a fair amount of journalism. I also have quite a lot of psychology under my belt, and want people to know that Psychology Today is not respectable in the field.

Right, I'm questioning the paper but I'm wondering if I'm in the wrong or if the paper is just lax with its findings. I'm kind of just radio silence right now because I don't have a clue what is and is not true. I always believed autism was deeper than this for it to be a chemical catalytic birth defect, or whatever actual real term that it would be. Maybe I'm wrong but I'm doubting it somewhat. I mean, isn't autism hereditary? How can it be if it's brought on by chemicals? Or does the paper just claim this is a cause but not THE cause?

I agree with you, anyway. I rely on respectable journals. If I haven't heard of it before, and it looks even remotely tabloid, I oftentimes dismiss it.

The study has been covered in actual mainstream publications like Scientific American but it's a single study that specifically states that there isn't any reason to believe that this correlation indicates causation. While there's a large sample size, there are many reasons for these findings (parents with higher exposure to DDT may be in areas more likely to get an actual diagnosis, etc - note: they may have accounted for this but I'm sure there are many things they did not account for). The study doesn't really seem very interesting to me to be honest.

But I wouldn't trust the Huffington Post for science news, it's one of the worst. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HuffPost# ... ontroversy

ASPartOfMe also reported this news in the News and Current Events section, in a WebMD article titled "Research Links Banned Insecticide DDT to Autism." The article is fair and balanced and does mention various limits to the research. Notice the difference in the titles between the WebMD article and the iflscience article.

I think someone has posted humorously that autism has been linked to pretty near everything. That works for me.

Fair enough about HuffPo. I admit I am not a regular HuffPo reader.

I think there may be subtypes of autism, but not necessarily correlating directly to the causative factor.

This because I read somewhere (can't remember where, I need to look for it if anyone's interested), that the development of autism is a natural reaction to adverse conditions during brain development. Summarising in my own words from what I remember, the paper said that the adverse conditions may have multiple genetic and environmental causes, which together affect the way the synapses work and neuronal pathways develop. To compensate for synaptic issues, the brain adopts an alternative wiring arrangement. The commonalities in this arrangement are the traits that are generally recognised as being autistic.

Variation in autism traits between individuals occur, but are not necessarily related to the identity of the particular environmental toxin that caused the initial impact on synaptic function. But they might be related to the severity of that impact, genetic factors, and whether the particular toxin also had other effects such as physical or cognitive disabilities.

To me, this explanation seems to fit best, helping to explain why autism is so complex, and especially why multiple risk factors can be at play and yet produce a recognisable category of disorder, i.e. autism.

I remember reading similar stuff. You may be bang on as toxins/environmental factors influence brain wiring which in turn dictates traits & symptoms.

However, we also know there’s a whole lot more going on in the majority of ASD cases besides brain wiring, so I still think there will be some sort of subtype/classification grouping.

There already has been with high functioning vs low, or Asperger’s vs classic autism etc. At the moment the label is simply “ASD,” and lumps everyone together on a spectrum. Nothing wrong with this as in the grand scheme labels and categories or classifications or subgroups etc don’t change any one of us one iota, so it’s all just blah blah alphabet soup on paper stuff unless (IMO) they’re able to figure out different treatments based on subtypes/causes etc, as then it might become important to differentiate & accurately identify each person’s particular autism.

Yes, in general I agree, I think there will be more and more recognition of either subclasses or particular shades of autism manifestation.
My point was only that there might not be a simple linkage between a particular environmental toxin and a particular subclass.
Autism is way too complex for that - we'll be keeping the boffins busy for a few decades yet!

This statement just reminded me of a moment I had in my final year of business school when I was 19 years old and one of my colleagues (she was from Hong Kong but studied in England & then moved here to Canada) told me I was a "boffin," and I asked her what that meant.. she tried to define it but couldn't quite explain it in terms I understood. So, when I went home that night I googled it and read up on the definition.. and when I went back to class the next day I told her I thought she was mistaken, that I wasn't that guy (her label felt like pressure to seriously perform academically & professionally and I certainly didn't feel like I had the potential she seemed to believe I did).. and she just looked at me kinda like and said "You Are," and left it at that.

It would be another decade before I learned my diagnosis. I do wonder if her statement back then wasn't just based on my IQ, but also very nerdy AS traits. Probably some combination of everything about who I am - including AS traits I didn't even know I had.

When my son was a young child, he had the nickname 'professor'. I think it was from a combination of an emotionless and very pedantic way of speaking, and a high forehead. (That was before we knew he was aspie).
He's a teenager now and the funny thing is, he's crazy interested in science, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was to become a real professor one day. Not sure if the nickname influenced him that way!

The article mentions epigenetics, though not quite how this relates to the noted male hormonal effects. This might significantly blur the distinction between chemical and hereditary causes, as it might for other chemical or biological factors.

Very briefly, not all of your DNA is actually used for anything, an awful lot of genes are turned off by chemical markers so that they are ignored. Epigenetics is the study of how genes can be turned on or off, not by DNA changes during reproduction or mutation, but by the biological environment of our cells during our lifetime (more explanation on Wikipedia). For example, DDT might cause a greater likelihood of autism, but only if a particular gene is present to be activated (or deactivated) epigenetically by the chemical.

However, the markers which determine which genes get expressed may be heritable once this change has happened, so that the expression of that gene is passed to later generations which don't experience the environmental exposure. There is some evidence that even factors such as the hormones released by stressful experiences can have epigenetic effects, so they seriously compound the problem of discovering discrete causes for autism and many other conditions - a person might be autistic not because they were exposed to DDT, but because a grandparent was, for example.

Interesting. This is an area I know next to nothing about, so this whole post was good stuff - thx.

Agreed - given that it can’t be traced to a single gene it can be hard to catch.

On the other hand I’m guessing when there’s a chromosomal mutation that’s responsible for severe autism - that’s the kind widely known as hereditary in autism.

Maybe Maynard James Keenan got it right and it's the "and Two?"



..coooould be the next evolution of another pair of chromosomes vs. the mutation of one.. (probably not, but great track.)