• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Autism Is Mostly Genetic!

Interesting study thanks for sharing. :)
I don't think they mean "faulty" genes as in 'wrong', but it is in reference to a deviation from the norm / the average. A faulty gene isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just different.
 
Interesting read. I think the terminology 'faulty' is a bit contentious. I like to think of us being as in the plant world, where a genetic mutation is called a sport. :)
 
This highlights once again the importance of language.
Labeling the genetic difference as 'faulty' leads to the interpretation by the reader that autistic people are 'faulty'. This is the message that will be retained.

I gather that it is the article author, the journalist or blogger that used that word in the title, perhaps reiterating the stereotype about autism he received.

The scientists in the research articles linked within do not use such language.
They are just saying there are complex genetic mechanism that lead to that difference.
One conclusion states "In summary, our data support the conclusion that exonic postzygotic mosaicism contributes to the overall genetic architecture of ASD, in potentially 3%-4% of all ASD simplex cases, and that future studies of mosaicism in ASD and related disorders are warranted"

I don't begin, or attempt to understand what it means, apart from the big picture that they just scratched the surface of a complex genetic mosaic and began to figure out some aspects of less that 4% of autistic cases.

Perhaps scientist and journalists should be compelled not to use such words, because of the judgement they convey.
 
In America the general view is that journalism is "the easy major" in universities, chosen mainly by kids who are too stupid to hack it in something more challenging. Of course, this then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that stupid kids gravitate towards journalism, and therefore professors have to teach accordingly. Ideally journalists should be aware of the nuances of the meanings of words. In reality, at least in the US, they just use whatever comes to mind, ignorant of what the word might mean to others. There are a couple elite journalism schools where the cream of the crop learn, the ones who get the eight figure contracts at the big name outlets. Then you have the rest. Internet news outlets, sadly, are the bottom of the bottom of the barrel in most cases, and they tend to be staffed by the "journalists" who spent their college years getting drunk.
 
So since the genes for ginger hair are of similar rarity to those for autism, would they report on them as having "faulty" genes? Somehow I doubt it ;)
 
In America the general view is that journalism is "the easy major" in universities, chosen mainly by kids who are too stupid to hack it in something more challenging. Of course, this then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that stupid kids gravitate towards journalism, and therefore professors have to teach accordingly. Ideally journalists should be aware of the nuances of the meanings of words. In reality, at least in the US, they just use whatever comes to mind, ignorant of what the word might mean to others. There are a couple elite journalism schools where the cream of the crop learn, the ones who get the eight figure contracts at the big name outlets. Then you have the rest. Internet news outlets, sadly, are the bottom of the bottom of the barrel in most cases, and they tend to be staffed by the "journalists" who spent their college years getting drunk.

Journalists often use language aimed at generating a reaction and basically get more hits and sell more papers. Their language reflects the prevailing prejudices in society.

However, there are guidelines for journalists which should evolve to reflect new emerging issues, such as genes:
http://cdrnys.org/disability-writing-journalism-guidelineI

I suppose pointing out such guidelines to the author could change attitudes.
 
Journalists often use language aimed at generating a reaction and basically get more hits and sell more papers. Their language reflects the prevailing prejudices in society.

However, there are guidelines for journalists which should evolve to reflect new emerging issues, such as genes:
http://cdrnys.org/disability-writing-journalism-guidelineI

I suppose pointing out such guidelines to the author could change attitudes.


That's really all this is. It gives absolutely no insight to the actual scientific approach or explains the conclusions in any meaningful manner. Pretty pointless overall.
 
"We're still a long way off mapping and understanding the role genes play in how our brains interact socially. And for all of this research, the environment can't be ruled out completely.

The more we discover, however, the clearer it is that ASD isn't a condition we can easily prevent by simply making the right choices as a parent."

People actually get paid to write this stuff.
 

New Threads

Top Bottom