Perhaps we're all a little autistic

Post Reply New Topic

From The Times - May 19, 2008 - Perhaps we're all a little autistic
Those classified with the disorder may have an extreme manifestation of common traits
Mark Henderson

Autism is something of a paradox. Since a seminal 1977 study led by Michael Rutter found that identical twins are much more likely both to be autistic than are fraternal sets, it has been understood that the disorder is heavily influenced by genetics. Three decades of research, however, have yet to reveal which genes are actually responsible.

A number of candidate genes have been identified. But with a few rare exceptions, science has not located autism mutations like those that cause cystic fibrosis or muscular dystrophy. It has not even found common genetic variants of the sort that affect people's risk of diabetes or prostate cancer.

One reason could be that there are no genes that have large effects on the condition: it could be influenced by dozens, each of which raises the risk by amounts too small to be detected. Another possibility is that very rare spontaneous mutations are responsible, which are specific to individuals and families.

A third explanation has been advanced by a team led by Francesca Happé, of the Institute of Psychiatry in London. It is that autism is probably not a single disorder at all.

Many people are now familiar with the idea that autism is a spectrum of disorders, ranging from high-functioning forms such as Asperger's syndrome to disabling conditions. Dr Happé's research, which she outlined last week in a keynote lecture to an international autism conference in London, suggests that even this is too simple.

For autism to be diagnosed, a child (or adult) must meet three criteria: they must show social impairment (such as failing to understanding other people's emotions), communication difficulties and non-social problems (such as repetitive behaviour and restricted interests - following a very rigid routine is a good example) . These traits, however, do not always go together. It is quite possible to have problems in one area alone: some parents and siblings of autistic people, indeed, show this.

Dr Happé, with her collaborators Angelica Ronald and Robert Plomin, has established from large samples of twins that the genes that underlie each element of the autistic triad do not really overlap. Autism may be a confluence of three disorders, each with different causes. It is no wonder few genes have been found: scientists may have been looking in the wrong place, at a condition that is not as homogeneous as it seemed.

This lack of a single explanation for autism, and the growing understanding that its component symptoms are not necessarily linked, has an interesting implication. It suggests that the behaviours that make up autism are not really abnormal: what is unusual is when genes place people at one end of a continuum for all three.

Perhaps everyone is a little autistic. Those we classify as such may simply have an extreme manifestation of traits that are present, to a greater or lesser extent, in us all.

Comment:
"interesting concept, we all have to evolve ! To me I see Autism at the centre of many associated conditions ADHD, Dyslexia, OCD, Bipolar..... but at present its a little like breaking open a pinnata and depending on which direction you go, it seems is what you get diagnosed with and what help you get.

But thinking about it I feel even though there may be many diverse people on and off the autism spectrum, from my experience I truly feel there are in fact just a whole group of people who are just different, I have always know I was not the same as everyone else, like many people with Autism. I would also like to add there are many more undiagnosed people who are on the autism spectrum, just do not know yet!. (Alyson Bradley - asplanet.info).

sounds like this person actually knows what they're talking about.

I am just trying to get people to start thinking differently, as noone really knows all the answers yet!

The Truth About Autism: Scientists Reconsider What They Think They Know
http://www.taaproject.com/wp-content/up ... _02_08.pdf

Should autism be treated? Yes, says Baggs, it should be treated with respect. "People aren't interested in us functioning with the brains we have," she says, because autism is considered to be outside the range of normal variability. "I don't fit the stereotype of autism. But who does?" she asks, hammering especially hard on the keyboard. "The definition of autism is so fluid and changing every few years." What's exciting, she says, is that Mottron and other scientists have "found universal strengths where others usually look for universal deficits." Neuro-cognitive science, she says, is finally catching up to what she and many other adults with autism have been saying all along...

You wanna know what I think? I'm thinking ABOUT BLOODY TIME SOMEONE GOT THEMSELVES ON THE RIGHT TRACK!! ! HECKYEAH!! ! Now its only a matter of time before those incompetent idiots at Autism Speaks will tremble before a wall of solid reason...

This may be the most interesting idea I've read on autism yet. A light went off when I read this. I saw the big picture. I've been doing a fair amount of research on Asperger's in the last couple months including reading Tony Attwood's book. The more I researched the more I got the feeling there was a potpourri of deficits and unusual behaviors that were lumped together and shoved in one box. It got to the point where it seemed like there were too many specifics being included, too many ifs, ands, or buts. Tony cites example after example where an aspie could be this or the opposite, or one could have a certain trait, or not. It didn't make much sense if AS or autism is just one thing. I like clean solutions and this was anything but.

Occam's Razor (the simplest solution is the correct solution) is usually true. It is much easier to explain the multitude of seemingly contradictory "symptoms" displayed in different individuals if the "disorder" is just a group of extreme characteristics grouped in one person. No two people are going to have exactly the same set of characteristics and even those they do share will not be expressed to the same degree.

Another reason I think this theory is good is because it would put a stop to the notion that a bunch of us are fake or want-to-be aspies because we don't quite have enough of the currently accepted deficits to qualify for an official DX of AS. I believe a better way to look at it is to evaluate which characteristics one does have and look to see how they may be affecting that person's life.

I'm certainly one of those people who would not qualify for a DX of AS yet the aspie traits I do have, both strengths and weaknesses, have affected every aspect of my life.

Fascinating.

yes yes very fascinating!!

This is very impressive. I personally see a lot of potential in this strain of research if it goes down this track. I am not a professional by any means, but from my perspective of what I go through this makes a lot of sense.

I agree. I also think that this is very fascinating, and it makes a lot of sense as to why scientists haven't found a whole lot of genes associated with autism. It will be interesting what they will come up with in the next few years, preferably not a cure that would make all autism disappear off the face of the earth...Anyways, again, fascinating.