Can they cure Autism through Genetics???

Post Reply New Topic

Now, I'm not a geneticist, I'm a first year grad student in astrophysics. But I know a thing or two about genetics and medicine enough to not be fooled by what they are proposing for this cure: wouldn't genetically altering the brain in such a drastic manner just kill the person or leave them brain dead rather than actually cure them of any neurological disorders?

My first reasoning is that you are changing the biochemistry of a balanced system on a drastic scale - something has to give, and that something is life. In other words, when you change the chemistry on that large a scale, typically the cells die. Nerve cells in the brain, and then the person is left severelly brain damaged or brain dead, or probably just dead.

My second reasoning is that a genetic cure would probably only work effectively in the early fetal stages. The brain has already developed to a large extent even before birth, and by 6 years old it is fully grown with little more growth expected. I doubt that they can pull off a genetic cure without serious harm to anybody with autism, and as for the fetus that is "cured", the genes would be tied so much into other systems, as modern science is showing us, that it is hard telling is this is just another way to have an abortion or give some serious prenatal damage to your infant.

But, morally and ethically speaking, autism itself, the classical disorder, can and should be cured, while higher functioning ASD's should be researched for treatments only. I just want to say that I want the people on the lower end of the spectrum to have the same opportunity to communicate that we have, but I don't want us to be cured of some phantom disease created by society because they can't handle differences. I understand that we may need something called treatment to fit in, but not a cure! Really, for the future of this society, if this society and people with AS are to make it together, the general population needs to be cured of its ignorance and its lack of tolerance of differences. A society that does this will probably serve people with AS better than one that treats them with therapies and medications or one that attempts to cure them at every crossroads.

The most widely talked about genetic cure is Eugenics.

To put it simply, yes they can. Will they ever? No one knows.

I would think that genetics would work better for preventing, rather than curing. Though I also think it would be a really bad idea.

Curing is actually a lot less risky and challenging than preventing. Remember to "prevent" means to keep a person from "getting" it in the first place.
However, if you use curing for all people who have it, that would basically be the same as preventing, just a more efficient method.

They have not cured Cystics Fibrosis and other genetic disorders where the changes are in only one gene. In the case of Autism, the changes are in multiple genes. The track record does not look good for a cure as of yet.

That being said, If the genes are identified, we may see even more cases of selective abortions (as occurs with Downs Syndrome and other genetic disorders that can be tested before the child is born). That in and of itself may make me become a pro-life advocate.

(replying to Synth's post)

I disagree slightly. I see preventing as keeping people from getting it. Which is quite different from keeping a person from getting it, and much more doable. Keeping a person from getting it requires preserving the individual who might get it. Keeping people from getting it doesn't.

If it's indeed genetic (in the sense that only people with certain genetics can get it) one could (theoretically) prevent it by getting rid of all those genes from the gene pool. (Which, I think, would be a bad idea.)

But, seems to me, on an individual level, curing and preventing are the same thing (if we are talking genetics, which we are). The difference is when in life we do the genetics... before or after symptoms start. (Autism, as currently defined, can't occur before birth. Unborn child don't have social deficits, because there's no social world in which to have them.)

Curing and preventing can be the same, depending on your perspective. Preventing "people" from getting it is the end result of curing, as it is genetic. Curing involves seeking out what is defective, and replacing it with the effective.

I was diagnosed by the behavioural genetics clinic at the Maudley Hospital in London. Their view is that Autism in general is genetic but not a Mendelian condition but more complex than that. I agree with that.

No way!

It would take changing every cell, and that is not possible.

Designer DNA is Science Fiction.

Which is why curing 'autism' would be stupid, just like the ideas behind racial profiling turned out to be nonsense.

No it wouldn't, and yes it is. "Designer DNA" is actually a good term for it though, good job.

Which is your opinion.

I've said it often enough; my current long-term project is the stabilization of the "asperger" gene; having no classical autistics born, only non-detrimentally affected aspies. It's a long way off from completion; longer still from implementation. But, it is no "cure". A "cure", in this sense, would constitute genocide. All I seek to do is hasten and guarantee a species-branching evolution.
Modifying fifteen chromosomes is one thing; but what should I name it?
I'm probably arrogant enough to name it after myself, but that might just be in poor taste...
But; just so you don't forget, it's still a long, long way off. Also, it could not affect anybody who has already been born! That'd kill you! So don't get you're hopes up!

Actually I watched a documentary about modifying the nervous system, and they are able to do it.

I like the idea.