wavefreak58 wrote:
It would seem reasonable. Increasingly it is looking like the root cause of autism is a synergistic coupling of genetics and environment. It seems like a genetic predisposition to autism must exist that is then activated by some neurological insult. Whether in utero stress is required isn't clear, but it does seem that the roots of it are very early in development.
This does not bode well for an absolute cure or specific genetic tests. Even if specific genes can be identified, if the expression of autism can be prevented through pre-natal and neo-natal care, a genetic 'cure' (gene therapy or whatever), especially applied to the fetus, becomes harder to justify. What do those genes express in the absence of the neurological insults that produce autism? Presumably, a normal neurology. If a pathway to "normal" exists for an autistically predisposed embryo, aborting that embryo becomes ethically more untenable, as does altering the genetics in utero.
Oh my God, everything you just said occurred between now and when I posted this. Autism Speaks won't have a leg to stand on, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. As for a cure, I secretly never believed their could be one in our life times. There's so much we don't understand about the brain, we don't even know where to begin looking.
One down side I do see to linking autism to difficult birth is, it's no longer seen as a genetic anomaly or an alternate neurology, but almost as a form of retardation.