Diagnosed autism linked to maternal grandmother's smoking in pregnancy

[Fridgemagnetman]

Simply put, we are approaching the “world without work”

I remember Henry Ford,it is said,always priced his cars so that his workers could afford to buy them.
It seems to me,in the modern world, this lesson has been forgotten.

Most have been enslaved in a new way -partly as a result of tbe failure of government - the eord kleptocracy comes to mind.
Or the new one I came across :

Kakocracy - government by the worst of people.

 

[Mr Allen]

My maternal Granddad smoked a Pipe when he was alive, he's been dead 20 years, died in August 1997 of Cancer.

And my main carer has an 11 month old boy and smokes, but fortunately she says she doesn't smoke around the baby.

 

[Crossbreed]

I don't believe for a second that autism is caused by smoking (or vaccines). I believe that it is hereditary. That is the whole point of neuro-diversity. I am willing to entertain that such can cause co-morbid complications like the cognitive deficits exhibited in LFAs, but that isn't autism. It is a secondary condition. (The latter has a better correlation in that secondary condition, but that dialogue isn't allowed here.)

 

[Crossbreed]

Like someone mentioned before, autistic people have always been around, but I suppose it's possible that there are certain environmental factors that lead to it being more common today than it was in the past.

Not more common, but more visible due to the heretofore unexplained rise in severe co-morbid complications.

 

[Mr Allen]

I don't believe for a second that autism is caused by smoking (or vaccines). I believe that it is hereditary. That is the whole point of neuro-diversity. I am willing to entertain that such can cause co-morbid complications like the cognitive deficits exhibited in LFAs, but that isn't autism. It is a secondary condition. (The latter has a better correlation in that secondary condition, but that dialogue isn't allowed here.)

There are no known cases of Asperger's on either side of my Family, apart from my distant Cousin being Schizophrenic, he's in a Home at the moment, and my Dad's Uncle Les was possibly on the Spectrum, he had no social skills, hated the world and everybody in it and couldn't look after himself.

 

[AsheSkyler]

I felt a disturbance in the force as I read the mere suggestion my grandmother may have willingly touched tobacco. This theory is not a hard set rule by any means, if it's valid at all.

 

[xudo]

My maternal Grandmother never smoked. Maternal Grandfather smoked like a literal chimney though. Never a time when he didn't have a rollie in his hand - to the point that I wouldn't have been surprised if he smoked in his sleep.

 

[Ming of Mongo]

Seems to be a correlation vs causation thing. Is it more likely that smoking causes autism, or that smoking is a coping mechanism in an autistic person's autistic ancestors.

 

[psychgirl95]

I don't believe for a second that autism is caused by smoking (or vaccines). I believe that it is hereditary. That is the whole point of neuro-diversity.

Forgive me if I’m wrong, since I haven’t had a chance to fully read the OP, but I don’t believe that the article is actually saying that smoking causes autism; instead, it’s merely noting that there is a correlation between the two. Correlation doesn’t equal causation, and since every researcher knows this, I’m going to assume this is stated somewhere in the discussion of the paper.

And for those who were wondering/asked, it’s entirely possibly (as research has already shown in other situations) for your grandparents’ actions to affect the expression of your genes. This is called epigenetics: the interaction between genes and environment. It occurs because of the environment’s ability to alter gene expression (e.g., from exposure to a toxin). So it’s not so much that DNA has become damaged (which I think someone mentioned because one of the paper’s authors brought it up), but more like a spontaneous mutation. (I’m probably being nit-picky, but I just disagree with calling altered DNA “damaged,” especially since it’s possible that the altered DNA could have evolutionary advantages such as sickle cell and its protection against malaria.) It’s a very fascinating area of research and I encourage anyone who’s interested in genetics (and/or the genetics of ASD, like I am) to read up about it. (The molecular biology part can be kind of complicated, but if you’ve had college-level general biology you should be fine.)

The conclusion of the study isn’t surprising to me, since maternal smoking during pregnancy has already been linked to an increased chance of ADHD (and ADHD and ASD have genes in common, not to mention a similar presentation of symptoms). For the record, my maternal grandmother did smoke during pregnancy and my mom, brother and I all have ADHD. (They just refuse to admit it.) Not surprisingly, we also are the only ones in the family to have asthma, so it’s a perfect example of epigenetics.

 

[Crossbreed]

Forgive me if I’m wrong, since I haven’t had a chance to fully read the OP, but I don’t believe that the article is actually saying that smoking causes autism; instead, it’s merely noting that there is a correlation between the two. Correlation doesn’t equal causation, and since every researcher knows this, I’m going to assume this is stated somewhere in the discussion of the paper.

I'm pretty sure that the article is proposing tobacco/nicotine as an environmental cause for the occurrence of autism. While there is always the disclaimer that "Correlation doesn't equal causation," the reverse is not equally true. Causation always exhibits correlation. And finding such always encourages one's hypothesis (even if it doesn't constitute absolute proof).

There is more evidence for neuro-diversity which doesn't require an environmental insult (like tobacco or vaccines). It is the rise of severe co-morbid complications (like Autistic Cognitive Deficit), en masse, that demands such a cause. Either cause is plausible for ACD, but an allergic reaction to certain vaccines has shown more correlation.

 

[psychgirl95]

I'm pretty sure that the article is proposing tobacco/nicotine as an environmental cause for the occurrence of autism. While there is always the disclaimer that "Correlation doesn't equal causation," the reverse is not equally true. Causation always exhibits correlation. And finding such always encourages one's hypothesis (even if it doesn't constitute absolute proof).

There is more evidence for neuro-diversity which doesn't require an environmental insult (like tobacco or vaccines). It is the rise of severe co-morbid complications (like Autistic Cognitive Deficit), en masse, that demands such a cause. Either cause is plausible for ACD, but an allergic reaction to certain vaccines has shown more correlation.

I mostly agree with you that causation can exhibit correlation, but not necessarily always (e.g., in situations of cofounding variables, falsified or altered data, etc...), but I’m not sure what that has to do with this article since it wasn’t an experimental study (and thus could never prove causation). Unless that’s what you’re saying - that it couldn’t possibly prove that smoking causes autism?

As far as the article’s conclusion, perhaps we’re just interpreting it differently. I found the article and this is what the abstract says:

We find an association between maternal grandmother smoking in pregnancy and grand daughters having adverse scores in Social Communication and Repetitive Behaviour measures that are independently predictive of diagnosed autism. In line with this, we show an association with actual diagnosis of autism in her grandchildren. Paternal grandmothers smoking in pregnancy showed no associations.​

From what I’ve read, they’re only reporting a correlation and aren’t attempting to find causation. You could be right (in the sense that the authors personally believe that smoking contributes to autism), but it’s just not actually stated in the article. To be honest, I highly doubt that a peer-reviewed journal, especially one that Nature has put their name on, would publish an article that said so, since such a statement goes against basic research methods. In fact, in the discussion they specifically point out how the associations only lend support for the hypothesis of smoking inducing epigenetic changes in fetal DNA:

Whilst the above associations lend support for the idea that smoking may induce (directly or indirectly) epigenetic changes in fetal genes relevant to ASD risk, they do little to clarify the nature of the positive association with ASD risk in the subsequent generation. The epigenetic response is likely to be complex. Smoking is associated with DNA damage and this in turn may induce the production of non-coding (micro) RNAs that can be transmitted to subsequent generations to target several genes relevant to ASD for silencing.​

 

[Crossbreed]

...for silencing.

I am not familiar with that phrase,

 

[psychgirl95]

@Crossbreed: silencing basically refers to the ability of one allele to dominate over the other, in effect “silencing” the other (presumably “normal”) gene. So it just means that the gene isn’t being expressed.

It’s very interesting, and I think particularly to ASD. I’m really hoping it can lead to research into how higher functioning forms of ASD (apologies if such terms offend anyone reading this) are inherited (and in fact seem to be quite heritable) compared to more severe forms of ASD (some of which are associated with mutations of genes, I believe). Or maybe it could expand neuroimaging research and we could finally be able to identify biomarkers for ASD (that’s my personal area of research), so more proof for it being genetic (and hopefully less believers unsubstantiated claims).