Medical school claims reversal of social deficits in mice

Post Reply New Topic

Autism spectrum social deficits reversed in mouse model

The same outfit made the same claims in 2016.

I could find no replications nor critique of this isolated study. Which is sadly true of most claims like this posted on WP for over a decade. That should make us cautious, not just patient. The career building, research fund and publicity seeking scientists with one track minds seize on AS for the easy money available, science isn't as lilywhite as many people readily imagine. Agenda-led research dominates the field, and shonky studies with sensational claims characterise it in a way not seen in other fields. We should question why this is.

As if there weren't enough sociable mice in the world already.

^ I looked at that press release and didn't find a link to the original research paper. Have you come across it?

The current trend in these sensationalist claims is to use "cause" as a code for "cure", while the underlying ethos of the curebie "amazing breakthrough" research is unchanged.

APOM, I am fine with your posts informing us of these claims. I have a longstanding concern, as you will know, with the gullibity with which they are publicised, as well as concerns about huge gaps in the approaches that are used to embellish these claims from scientists who are demonstrate no critical thinking in regard to their own work and ambition. It is the irresponsible and self-promoting authors that I have issues with and their colleague and media enablers.

In medical and psychological fields of science, eliminating symptoms with no idea of why they are there to begin with, especially when the unintended effects are neither considered nor well understood, tends to result in false claims of cures, exploits the layperson's ignorance of scientific malpractice, and endangers AS children of 'desperate' curebie parents. I think the eliminating symptoms mentality is as bad an approach as outright curebism, yet in autism it is tolerated and even encouraged, (certainly enabled) because we are a particularly demonised population, and the lack of respect is ingrained in these often young, hotshot wannabes on the lower or outer rungs of the scientific career ladder who want their name associated with "autism expert" because that is where the money is. And how.

The lack of critical theory applied by AS people to these claims is my other concern, though that is a gap not motivated by self interest, as the shonky cause-cure wannabe researchers are.

Another anti-science thread ... even if it didn't start out to be. I found the body of research by the Baylor researchers interesting and I respect the methodical extension of findings to broaden the original finding (presumably that reported in 2016). For instance, finding similar results in each of the three animal models, which was not expected.

If you haven't studied sciences in depth, nor the philosophy of science, you probably shouldn't be yakking about "shonky" studies. That's as ridiculous as me trying to analyze the chord structure of a symphony.

And claiming that scientists go chasing after autism research because it's so trendy and audiences so vulnerable have no concept of how science research is actually funded.

This anti-science platform is the sort of paranoia that led to anti-vaxxers. At least acknowledge that you have a bias, if you're going to talk this way.

The best part of my academic career was teaching critical theory and philosophy of science to stage 3 students.

The Economist has written an article about the study

> "It may be strain-specific and the paper does not state which strain or strains were used"

That doesn't inspire confidence.