Autism Gene Found

Post Reply New Topic

I don't recall seeing anything about this article on here- but it's definitely relevant.
It's been all over the papers today and all over the news last night.

To prevent copyright infringement by posting it on a public board, here's the link to the article:
http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhea ... 1d&k=34751

It says a Possible gene as been found. They haven't confirmed it yet.

I find this really exciting. I'm still reading through the various copies of the story. Here's a link to the one CNN is running, if anyone wants that:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditio ... index.html

http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=25675&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

Thanks Davidufo, I didn't realize that there was a thread in another section.

Possible gene found huh. I not so excited to hear that. Meaning one next step to get rid of Autism it self.

i'll head for the hills if they try to cure me...first i'd have to find these hills to head to.

It'd be nice if they could find what causes the fluxuations in severity of Autism and AS. Then I'd be impressed. Also, it could mean that it'd only be the SEVERELY affected ones who could be treated (note: treated, not aborted). Of course, only if the patient says yes to it, if we lived in a perfect world.

But if they try to cure everybody with it, they've got another thing coming. *loads shotgun*

Given the high hereditability of ASDs, I think it is inevitable that a genetic screening test will be developed for use either as a pre-natal test or for screening embryos pre-implantation. Families with a history of ASDs are likely to be targeted first. In the UK it is routine to screen the foetuses older mothers to be for Downs syndrome, and provision of information about the realities of having a child with Downs is very poor (see http://www.downs-syndrome.org.uk/pdfs/D ... 0FINAL.pdf). Research shows that 91-93% of these parents to be opt to abort, indeed, this is the course of action expected and encouraged by the medical profession (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi- ... 1&SRETRY=0). ASDs will be no different. Indeed, the prospect of eliminating ASDs via genetic screening will probably be welcomed with open arms. Arguements for the human rights of disabled individuals mean nothing compared to parental choice.

Because trying to prevent a disease from the womb is curing it, amirite? I think it's made painfully clear that you can't cure AS or Autism all willy nilly, just treat certain aspects of it through therapy(like the ones that I found out for sensory sensitivity. Sound therapy sounds neat x: ).

Prenatal testing for conditions such as Downs syndrome, Autism and other genetic disorders isn't really about curing them. At best, it gives parents advanced warning so they can work on changing their expectations and child rearing strategies to suit the coming child, plan early intervention strategies to help it, and seek out the resources they need to educate themselves about their childs condition. What actually happens is that the babies are aborted as soon as the test results are confirmed. In the UK there is no foetal age limit on terminations if the foetus is found to have a disability. ANY disability, even mild or non-life threatening ones. The foetus could be a day away from birth when it is aborted and that's ok. Disabled people are percieved as non-people, a burden on their families and a burden on society's resources. At university I did a bioethics course that covered this issue. The class (over 200) voted almost unanimously that selective terminations were a good thing because the resources used to care for the disabled could be used elsewhere and (sic) knowingly allowing the birth of a disabled child (in this case Downs syndrome) would prevent couples having more children as they would have to devote so much time and resources to their disabled children, so the births of the disabled children should be prevented as they infringe the rights of the as of yet unconcieved normal children that the parents possibly could have. Parents are too scared, ignorant or prejudiced to consider rearing a disabled child, and I doubt there is anything that can realistically be done to change this. Prejudice against people who are "other", especially if they are pervieved as defective, is too deeply ingrained in the human psyche.

now they know the posible gene this might make quite a few parents abort their kids if they have a test to see, this is conserning

Did this test include all different levels of ASD kids or just the more severe cases?

It's a big step to go from discovering a gene to formulating a prenatal test to screen for its presence. Also, because ASDs are the product of multiple genes (not to mention environmental factors) any prenatal test would have to take this into account. It all depends what the individual genes contribute. Are some associated with more severe forms of autism and others associated with less severe forms? Are environmental factors so important in the development of the disorder that is it impossible to tell from the genes how severely an individual is likely to be affected? Do certain genes yield certain outcomes when they act in combination? Nobody knows that yet. You also have to remember that what we know as the autistic spectrum isn't an easy set of disorders to classify. Psychiatry is not a science. What one psychiatrist calls high functioning autism, another will call asperger syndrome, another will call manic depression and another will dismiss as hysteria. What we now know as psychiatric conditions and neurological developmental disorders will eventually be classified as different neurological conditions as our understanding of their neurological basis increases. There are probably hundreds of genes or combinations of genes that cobntribute to the autistic spectrum. The most severe and obvious will be targeted first, both by prenatal testing and drug treatments, and the rest will follow. I think the ballpark figure that gets passed around of prenatal testing becoming avaliable in 10 years may be about right, although with the increases in funding autism research has been getting in recently from groups like Autism Speaks (which funded the study being discussed here) it may happen sooner. The increased level of collaboration between researchers from around the world may help to speed things up too.

Have just read the original paper, here's a link, although I don't know if you have to subscribe to the journal to read it: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/n ... ng1985.pdf

Their sample seems to have covered the entire spectrum, but no numerical breakdown was given of how many of the participants were high or low functioning.

Interestingly, their results showed that autistic disorders are more heritable in families that had affected females, and these families were more likely to possess the genes pinpointed by this study.

Kbabz made me wonder if people will treat a cure for autism like they do to the cervical cancer vaccine. I don't know why people do that. What ethical issue would prevent you from curing this... disorder?

Side effect of lose of sanity? (THAT would be the day )