Autistic Monkeys Created by Science

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/54 ... -in-china/

Received this link from my husband just now.

Um...

Okay so as some of you know, I have a neurological disorder. It's called spinocerebellar ataxia. There are many genes "associated" with ataxia, and there are many different subtypes of ataxia. Big subtypes, and subtypes that are slightly different from each other. For example, I have cousins 10 generations removed with a slightly different subtype, same general disease, but they die from my disease 10 years after the onset of it. I was diagnosed with my disease 10 years ago and I'm still relatively fine, although I'm on disability. I can even run if I'm careful. My point is that even things that we have a good genetic picture of vary WIDELY, which is why you can't have a perfect model of them. We don't have perfect mouse models of what I have, and it's way easier to understand genetically than autism. Forget about a SIMIAN model.

So this "autism monkey" is ridiculous from a social standpoint as well. *I* could appear as though I was autistic, but it could be that I was not, in fact, autistic, I actually had severe allergies and a language disorder. There is no way you could know! STUPID. STUPID. STUPID. STUPID. You can't decide that this monkey is autistic because you can't ask the monkey if it is autistic. AND We would also have to have latino monkeys, gay monkeys, monkeys with PTSD, monkey bankers, and other human roles for monkeys that they do not assign to themselves in order for an autistic monkey to make any sense.

This is petrifying for a number of reasons.

I have been not been as skeptical as most about a cure bieng found. Yeah Autism is very complicated but since there is a great desire combined with money it would not surprise me if a way to cure it is found.

Assuming that curing Autism can not be done or even just because it is so complicated the combination of great desire and money will put great pressure for results, leading to all manor of confirmation bias doing a hell of a lot damage. Quack internet cures have done a plenty of damage but quack cures back by the mainstream, the establishment or whatever you want it will do so so much more.

The resources and time would be better used to help us instead of getting rid of us.

Not surprised CRISPR might be involved.

I stopped keeping up with what they're doing to "genetically treat" my disease. The last I heard, what they were doing with those mouse models was gene silencing (cutting out a gene that was associated with the ataxia), and stem cell injecting. Stem cells, for anyone who doesn't know, are umbilical cord blood cells that are not assigned to a specific part of the body, so they can be coaxed to turn into something else, such as neurons in the case of brain disease.

The problem with gene silencing is that association is not the same as cause, number one. Number two, you don't know what else the gene might be doing. So Gene XYZ might cause my ataxia, but also keep me from getting cancer, or keep my bones from falling apart. Without it, I might die. Or get stupid. Or the gene might be holding me back altogether and without it I would be superman. No one knows. And, since all of this Monsanto business happened, I think if you alter the genes of a human being you might be able to own that human being, or make a case that it is not a human.

What happened with the stem cells is that they behaved like what we already had. So they would become ataxic brain cells. The people got better for a few years, but then the neurons died just like their natural neuron did. So you would have to continually pump up yourself with fresh stem cells. In the case of autistic people, stem cells would probably do nothing. There is nothing wrong with your regular bodies, so having replacement cells that would be fresh versions of your natural ones would be no different. I imagine all elderly people would feel invigorated by stem cells.

I don't know what other kind of new ideas they have going that they'll try on these monkeys, but god bless um.

I don't understand how they can already look for a "cure" when they don't exactly know which genes cause autism and how they interact. In this article they are talking about 65 identified genes:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/852193

It's possible what they are doing is trying to experiment with different ways to "treat" these monkeys that they now believe are autistic.

I think the real race to find autism genes is to provide prenatal screening. It would be ridiculous to think they we're not doing that. Then they can offer people the option to terminate pregnancies with an increased chance of autism. They can and will legally do that even late term. Seriously.

These genetic tests are no joke. For something like autism, I can see it being potentially pretty dangerous.

1 in every 68 children is diagnosed with ASD these days (see article above), aborting pregnancies because a child might have ASD sounds stupid and dangerous. Numerous autists are in science, business and finance or are famous for other accomplishments, do we really want to abort the next Einstein or Mozart?

Who knows, maybe autism is the next step...

I live in Virginia, and we used to have a pretty efficient eugenics program. It was still operating in the 1970s. If you were a woman in the hospital having a baby of mixed race, if you were intellectually disabled, or if you were a full-blooded or mixed race American Indian, they would sterilize you without your consent during the delivery of your baby.

It became known because, you know, people would come home sterilized, and other people who might fall victim to this started to have their children at home.

They did other horrible things to eradicate these kinds of people, and as a result, we have very few Virginia Indians. We also have very few older Virginians willing to talk about their experiences in mental health facilities here in Virginia in the 1970s and before. Some of the mixed race people pass as white and some still identify as mixed race or multiracial, now that people are able to identify that way.

Deborah Spitz a Professor of Psychiatry at the Univeristy also has some ethical concerns. In a letter to the New York Times she wrote.

I personally think this kind of animal experimentation is wrong.

It would be nice, in my opinion, to find out what all the different causes of autism are so that we can better understand it. Those who are severely autistic aren't necessarily living the lives that they want to live. It would be nice to know what causes severe autism, at the very least.

If autism really is actually increasing, rather than only being more accurately diagnosed, it's also a good idea to figure out why. The whole world can't become autistic. I know that even if everyone were like me, there would be major problems, and I'm higher-functioning. I have a lot of difficulties, and it's not just because I socialize differently.

Perhaps certain types of autism are only a genetic difference, and not necessarily a bad one. I really don't know. I would think it a bad idea to try to make everyone the same. I like some of my autistic traits, and find them useful. I have to accept both the good and the bad, I suppose.

Lobotomies "cured" some things, too, despite having the minor side effect of destroying the patient as a person.

Last week I did read Neurotribes written by Steve Silberman about the legacy of autism and it describes in detail how desperate some people are to find a cure for Autism even using techniques on people we would (now) call inhuman.

I am sure there will be support to do this kind of research.

Well. We have to learn about unethical research as a regular part of sociology classes. Not just Nazi stuff, but about Americans who have invented things that have helped a lot of people.

For example, James Marion Sims invented the speculum (you ladies know what this is), the Sims position (hopefully you don't know what that is), and invented the method for repairing vesicovaginal fistulas. This last is a semi-common injury where a hole is torn between the anus and the vagina during childbirth. A woman with this injury has frequent infections and sanitary problems, social rejection. Before his method of fixing it, a woman with this injury basically had her life ruined. I mean, obviously.

He also pioneered other very helpful things, such as artificial insemination and abdominal surgery techniques like laproscopy and went on tours in the late 1800s in the US and Europe, hailed as a medical genius and savior.

The problem is how he figured out his surgical techniques. He experimented on his own slaves, with no anesthesia. Some of them were babies. He just strapped them down and went to town like in one of those SAW movies.

Dr. Sims was one of the most horrible people to have ever walked the earth, but we still use his techniques. What he did is no secret, but most people have never heard about it.

Kinda makes you wonder about what they're doing to these animals.