new discovery of how autistic brains different

Post Reply New Topic

I've seen this around the news the past couple of days, and am surprised it wasn't posted here yet.
new autism discovery story

Thank you for posting!

I appreciate research on autism. But I still have issues w/ autism speaks and the autism tissue program b/c they take brain tissue and whole brains from deceased children and individuals who were unable to consent and had their bodies turned over post-mortem by relatives. I do appreciate autism research and donation of human tissues, but only if those tissues come from individuals who were old enough to and legally did consent to organ and tissue donation.

I am unsurprised.

Interesting article. It's not so much a breakthrough but it confirms the theory that communication between the frontal lobes and the rest of brain is poor so the whole brain cannot work to its full potential.

I would totally donate my screwy brain for research.

Is there a better use for the brain tissue and whole brains they take from the deceased children?

So, what about the 25% that didn't have the "defect"?

It bothers me to no end that one day I will die and some doctor will be gutting me like a fish but now I have to worry about the doctor hi-jacking my brain to help in the stamping out of Aspergers. Autism Speaks hates us so much they are willing to desecrate autistic children's lifeless corpses to wipe us out. What type of parent would allow their children to be cut up and carted off to the Autism Speaks research labs. I hope one day we out number the NTs because they will make great pets.

Last edited by Todesking on 27 May 2011, 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This study is interesting on a few points:

1. This is consistent with many other studies suggesting long-range connections between different brain areas are underdeveloped in autism while short-range connections may be overly developed.

2. This study suggests there are over- and under- expressed genes. They found that the "up" genes tended to be genes relating to immune and glial function, while the "down" genes tended to be involved in the formation and function of synapses between cells.

Glial cells provide support and nutrition in the brain, form myelin (insulate one neuron from another), and participate in signal transmission. If you do the research on Einstein's brain there is some research suggesting he had more glial cells relative to neurons in all areas studied compared to controls, particularly in the left inferior parietal area.

I don't know what this means but it's interesting, nevertheless.

As a neuroscientist, I would allow my children's brains to go to science in a heartbeat. NOT donating organs for scientific research is a big waste. Throwing away organs is throwing away chances for scientific discovery and innovation. We are not ethically allowed to look at living people's brains up close, so how else are we going to learn about the brain than to dissect people's brains post-mortem? As for not being old enough to give consent, children don't give consent in ANY research study. It is the parents who do. So, parents giving brains for donation IS within legal consent. And if we don't look at children's brains and only look at adult brains, we are going to miss many things. While I don't agree with Autism Speaks's "cure" philosophy, ethical neuroscience research should never be turned away. Just because we eventually figure out HOW ASDs are caused does NOT mean that people will HAVE to be cured. Studying abnormal brains is just as important to understanding normal brain functions as studying neurotypical brains.

Regarding the study itself, I didn't think it was all that interesting or revolutionary. So there's genetic proof of autism post-mortem. Whoop-de-do. Not any more startling than finding amyloid plaques in Alzheimer brains after death. Finding diagnostic tests in living subjects is far more important and necessary, so I hope the genetic information from this study is put to use in this area.

Finding that 75% of the brains developed a particular way was interesting, as there's been discussion of multiple possibilities - which isn't ruled out, but more that the majority of autistic people may be autistic in the same way. Depending upon whose brains were used, anyway. If there's a spread of severity and such, and not just a concentration.

Why would anyone want to donate their brain? It's disgusting! Sorry, I am VERY easily grossed out and realize that most people wouldn't be disgusted by that thought, it's just me. I understand that some people may want to do it for scientific purposes, but it's too gross for me.

Before this point my understanding is that Brain Scans on living individuals could not detect specific markers for Autism. Therefore, all we have are pyschological testing based on behavior, and self report.

This research could lead to physical testing to determine Autism, rather than just psychological testing. And, possibly even advances in interventions. It also dispels the myth that Autism is just another way of thinking, with no structural problems in the brain, giving better understanding why some autistic people have problems with emotion and speech.

There were many correlations before, but no solid evidence such as that provided by postmortem studies.

I had never heard anyone say that autism is just another way of thinking with no structural problems in the brain. I always thought both were considered true by many.

I wish it were just another way of thinking.

That sample size in the study is just a tad on the low side... the preliminary findings are interesting but I think they have a long way to go.

And is this study finding anything that wasn't already known? Aren't they mapping brain function on live individuals? They already know the synaptic function differences by looking at it in live subjects. I have no trouble with tissue donation. Like sweetleaf I see no use for the body after death. If it can serve the greater good in some way it's a good thing.

I'm disturbed by the language in that article. It was extremely negative for something that is supposed to be neutral science.