Upcoming Schedule

I want to let everyone know that the blog entries here will be somewhat less frequent and more erratically spaced throughout the remainder of 2010. Part of the slowdown can be chalked up to some blog fatigue and of course the ever present demands of parenthood and a full-time job. But the bigger reason is that I want to devote more time to a new project:

What I essentially am going to do is take a subset of these blog posts from the last two years, clean them up, add a few items to them, and reassemble the lot into a more cohesive, publishable-friendly format—probably something along the lines of what I did with Autistic Symphony. My expectation is to have the project completed by the end of the year.

ASAN's Reply to My Open Letter

I was tempted to leave the body of this post blank, but let me state more straightforwardly that ASAN has simply chosen not to reply to my open letter regarding the organization's honesty and integrity. That is of course ASAN's right, and nothing unusual need be inferred from its exercising of that right.

For me personally, however, the silence is disappointing. Keep in mind that ASAN, through regular email requests and at no prompting from me, frequently asks for my support, and keep in mind that I have been generally desirous of giving that support. ASAN has done good work in the past—for instance, its rallying of support against the Ransom Notes campaign. And the stated goals of ASAN are ones that, generally speaking, I believe would be beneficial for nearly all autistic individuals.

Nonetheless, I refuse to hold ASAN to any lesser standard than I would hold any other organization that asks for my support, and that includes standards of transparency, honesty and integrity. Speaking bluntly, I have never found ASAN to be a very transparent organization, and as I think this latest incident has demonstrated, ASAN appears to have some work ahead of it if it is going to meet consistently the principles of honesty and integrity.

Going forward, I remain willing to keep an open mind and a tentative eye for ASAN, but that organization needs to realize that if it is going to continue to ask for my support, then in return I am going to seek evidence that it is meeting the highest organizational standards. Lately, that evidence has been very difficult to find.

One final matter: political expediency. I have never myself heard directly from ASAN that it is willing to place political expediency above principles of accuracy and openness, but I have heard far too often from ASAN apologists that various forms of political expediency are at times necessary and valid tactics to be employed against the so-called opposing forces. To that line of reasoning, my reply is unqualified, and it goes like this:

What autistic individuals need more than anything is accurate information, along with acceptance, support and understanding based upon that information. Autistic individuals need accurate information more than they need treatments, more than they need funding, more than they need laws; for without accurate information, all those efforts would be pointless. What autistic individuals do not need is more political and personal expediency. Autistic individuals have suffered a long history of burden from organizations all too happy to practice political and personal expediency at the expense of accurate information—Autism Speaks, DAN, FEAT, Generation Rescue, ASA, the Judge Rotenberg Center—the list goes on and on. Thus it is important to state with unqualified clarity that autistic individuals do not need the burden of suffering from one more such organization—even if that organization happens to be run by autistic individuals.

Treasures

On what I hope is a more productive note than my previous entry, I would like to draw attention to a series of posts being made on parenting over at Brett's Waste Blog. These posts generally highlight the value of celebrating what is unique in each child and of encouraging children to pursue individual interests and strengths—no matter how unusual those interests and strengths may seem. Such ideas should be applied to all children of course, but they are particularly important for autistic children, many of whom are not celebrated and not encouraged for being who they are.

One day, I hope to record a few thoughts and observations about my own son. I think I have held back so far simply because I do not have the rhetorical skills to do him justice, but what I can report today is that as he approaches his eighth birthday, he remains both obviously autistic and extraordinarily delightful. In many respects my son serves as the perfect counterexample to those who insist that only intense treatments and early intervention can help an autistic child progress; for having experienced none of these, my son has developed into an individual full of warmth, joy, skill and complexity, an individual with a unique and valuable perspective upon his world. I stand in complete awe of him, and I also stand aghast at the thought of anyone wishing for him to be any other way than the way he actually is.

It is my firm conviction that when we approach autistic children as medical problems in need of being fixed, we end up throwing away one of humanity's greatest treasures.

An Open Letter to ASAN Regarding Its Honesty and Integrity

To the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN):

I would like to request clarification on the matter of the Cat in a Dog's World blog and its affiliation to an ASAN Chapter Director. In particular, I would like to know the following:

1. Is ASAN aware that ASAN leaders are blogging pseudonymously in support of ASAN and its policies?
2. Does ASAN condone or encourage this practice?
3. If ASAN does not condone or encourage this practice, would ASAN be willing to speak out publicly against this practice and remind its leaders that they are expected to conduct themselves with honesty, openness and integrity at all times?

This is not a small matter for ASAN. Undisclosed pseudonymous blogging in support of ASAN and its policies reflects poorly on both the individual and the organization. This practice, to put it quite simply, is dishonest. I am willing to accept that the original intentions were simply a question of poor judgment, but the indications are that the individual involved wishes to continue this practice even after being made aware of its unethical nature. Furthermore, ASAN's silence on the matter makes it unclear if the organization itself understands the consequences of these actions.

I look forward to ASAN's reply regarding these questions and concerns.

Respectfully,

Alan Griswold

The Emergence of Early Behavioral Signs of an Autism Research Disorder

It looks as though I will to need to interrupt my blogging break before it has had much of a chance to begin:

The occasion for this interruption is the online publication of A Prospective Study of the Emergence of Early Behavioral Signs of Autism (Ozonoff et al., 2010). Note that I have recently posted my thoughts regarding a different paper from this same general group of researchers, Play and Developmental Outcomes in Infant Siblings of Children with Autism (Christensen et al., 2010), a paper I generally decried as containing too much researcher bias and too much reliance upon the use of concocted measures. But as luck would have it, Christensen et al. (2010) was apparently only the warm-up act: when it comes to researcher bias and concocted measures, surely nothing can hold a candle to Ozonoff et al. (2010).

And I am starting to worry. Observations of infants and toddlers who are at high risk for autism (because they have older siblings who have already been diagnosed with autism) carry the potential of providing some valuable insight into the nature of the condition; but this will only happen if those observations arrive mostly unfiltered. Based upon what I have seen so far in Christensen et al. (2010) and Ozonoff et al. (2010), and given that a good portion of the research wherewithal directed towards at-risk children has been entrusted to this one tight-knit, rather homogeneous group of researchers, it appears as though these observations are not only going to arrive filtered, they are going to arrive after having been passed through a very distorting lens.

Let me begin by summarizing my complaints and concerns about Ozonoff et al. (2010).

1. The study is based almost entirely on made-up measures—measures designed to give the appearance of science when in fact those measures are not scientific at all. And as if that were not bad enough, those measures are then used, quite falsely, to create the illusion of comparable data, when in fact no such comparison is warranted. The findings of Ozonoff et al. (2010), while not entirely without merit, are based far too much upon a constructed fiction.

2. This particular group of researchers has been displaying a consistent bias in how it regards autism—etiology, preferred treatments, etc.—a bias that is strongly coloring the group's research methodology, and more importantly, is causing the group to overlook and dismiss data that does not fit into its preconceived notions. The findings of Ozonoff et al. (2010), while not entirely without merit, have been rendered needlessly incomplete through researcher bias.

3. For a so-called prospective study, Ozonoff et al. (2010) seems to have had a good portion of its structure retrospectively decided. While this is not sinister in and of itself, given the background of the researchers and given their potential interest in having the findings of these studies turn out in certain ways, it would seem that a greater premium would be placed upon methodological transparency and fair-mindedness. The findings of Ozonoff et al. (2010), while not entirely without merit, raise questions about general approach and about potential conflicts of interest.

Made-up Measures. There is a reason that much of science has been built up around the consistency of the yardstick and stop watch. I realize not all experiments can be conducted with quite the same degree of measurement consistency as is provided by distance and time—including within the field of autism research—and thus some leeway towards the use of broader techniques can at times be tolerated. But that leeway should not extend to complete freedom in making up measurement tools on an as-needed basis.

The measures upon which Ozonoff et al. (2010) relies are spelled out in the section “Measures Used to Track Behavioral Symptom Emergence,” a section surely deserving of a creativity award, but just as surely not deserving of the name science. Although I cannot do justice to the section myself—it really needs to be read to understand just how much measurement construction is actually going on—let me say that in essence it lays out various observer count and judgment statistics that are re-grouped and massaged together into categories freely labeled as face gazes, social smiles and directed vocalizations—“yardsticks” that I doubt have ever been employed in quite this way before, and quite likely will never be used this way again. True, these methods do allow for some crude observational comparisons between autistic and non-autistic individuals at similar ages—and so they are not completely worthless—but think about trying to repeat this experiment. Think about another research group having to train a set of observers to count face gazes or different types of vocalizations in precisely the same way as in Ozonoff et al. (2010), and you will realize there are no legitimate means by which to replicate this study, because the study has been based almost entirely on measures more fuzzy than a cotton ball.

But it gets much worse. Note that these made-up measures are applied to the study subjects at 6 months of age, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, and 36 months, with the researchers then implying, straight faced, that these measurements can then be directly compared across all these ages. This is just the height of folly! Take face gazes for instance. Think about what might be counted as a face gaze coming from a six month-old, and then think about what might be counted as a face gaze emanating from a 36 month-old. I am not an expert on infants and toddlers, but I do not hesitate to say that the quality and characteristics of a face gaze from a six month-old are not going to be anything like those from a 36 month-old. That does not stop the Ozonoff et al. (2010) researchers, however—not one bit. There you can find them, plotting out these measurements across all ages in the graphs of Figure 1, alongside corresponding conclusions about how autistic and non-autistic children have “gained” or “lost” skills over time; there is never the slightest hint that these across-age comparisons are instead a massive instance of placing 6 month-old apples next to 36 month-old oranges. And if you have the slightest doubt about the non-comparability of face gazes over time, think about how much more absurd are the comparisons of directed vocalizations. These are the summation of nonverbal vocalizations, word verbalizations and phrase verbalizations that can be corresponded to face gazes. But tell me, exactly how many word and phrase verbalizations do we expect from a 6 month-old, and in contrast, how many word and phrase verbalizations might we expect from a 36 month-old? Once again, the so-called directed vocalizations of 6 month-olds are demonstrably nothing like the directed vocalizations of 36 month-olds, and yet the researchers act as though giving these measurements the same name is all that is needed to justify their direct comparison.

This research behavior is inexcusable, because after all it was the Ozonoff et al. (2010) researchers who made up the measures in the first place. They as well as anybody would know that comparing these measurements across child ages is ludicrous, and I would have to seriously question the intelligence or integrity of anyone who would insist on doing so. But note that this is precisely what happens when scientists start relying on measurement schemes that stray too far from objectivity—it is not all that large a step from made-up measures to made-up use of those measures. As I said in my comments regarding Christensen et al. (2010), concocted measures are the calling card of a concocted science.

Researcher Bias. There is never much doubt about where this research group stands in its description of autism. Both Ozonoff et al. (2010) and Christensen et al. (2010) are literally littered with phrases describing autism as a social deficit disorder, one best approached through early intervention directed towards getting autistic children to adopt social behaviors more in line with those of non-autistic children. This philosophy precedes any attempt at observation.

Of course, there is nothing unusual or wrong about researchers having a point of view. But when that point of view colors nearly every aspect of their research methodology, and when that point of view causes the researchers to consistently overlook important pieces of information that do not fit neatly into their preconceived notions, then there is indeed a problem. My comments regarding Christensen et al. (2010) already noted that these researchers' dismissive attitude towards autistic-like behaviors in infants and toddlers has caused them to turn a blind eye to the characteristics of these behaviors, and thus the researchers are overlooking valuable information, namely that early autistic behaviors are indeed quite structured, predictable and purposeful, characteristics that would be obvious to anyone willing to take a closer look. But this theme of willful blindness is continued unabated right through Ozonoff et al. (2010). First, note the influence of the researchers' point of view on research design: all the measures these authors decide to use are directed solely towards their theory of autism as a social deficit disorder—face gazes, social smiles, directed vocalizations, examiner ratings of social engagement. This would be a lovely set of statistics if all we were interested in is what the authors want to tell us, but surely a much broader set of statistics would be more helpful if we what we are interested in is what the infants and toddlers have to tell us.

And then there is the curious case of the unused statistic. The researchers start out by measuring a category called gaze to objects, but note the problem already contained within the description of that measure—“infant's gaze is directed toward an object that the examiner is presenting to the child or to another object visible in the frame”—anyone with even a modicum of understanding about autism could tell you that there is a world of difference between attention paid to an object presented by another person and attention paid to an object through independent motivation. But this research group, so caught up in its social deficit model, fails to untangle that distinction, and when its further efforts to fit this already mangled statistic into its thesis fail to gain significance, the authors decide to drop all further mention of the measure. Thus orientation to objects and structure, potentially one of the more valuable pieces of information that might have been gathered from this study, ends up getting so messed up by researcher bias that there ends up being no information at all. This is clearly a disservice to science, and a disservice to autistic individuals.

It is easy to see what one wants to see, but the trick in science is to overcome this tendency long enough to see instead as broadly as one can. Ozonoff et al. (2010) does not rise to the level of that standard.

Questions about Approach. Although Ozonoff et al. (2010) does not spell out its overall approach in great detail or with much clarity, one can still piece together enough information from its pages to realize that what was prospective about this study was the gathering of much raw data from a rather large group of participants, while what was retrospective about this study was the harvesting of subsets of this data—as well as subsets of participants—from the initial study group. Of course, this approach raises some key questions about the timing and purpose of various study technique decisions, but these questions go largely unanswered.

I would not mention this but for the fact it must be realized that the circumstances of these at-risk infant studies, as well as the circumstances of the researchers who have been entrusted to conduct them, by necessity invite greater scrutiny. Lists of researchers given the means to conduct at-risk infant studies reveal a consistent and like-minded set of names: names such as S. Rogers, S. Ozonoff, M. Sigman and G. Dawson are associated with these studies again and again. These are researchers who are close colleagues, and who have built careers around a similar social-deficit view of autism, and who are holding mostly high-paying positions at organizations that espouse nearly identical views of autism, and who have been associated with a self-promoted and perhaps proprietary intervention technique (the Early Start Denver Model); so I do not think I am revealing any state secrets in suggesting that this group of researchers might have a vested interest in having the results of their at-risk infant studies turn out in a certain way. There is nothing necessarily sinister in this, and I certainly do not see any evidence of fraudulent results, but under these circumstances, and given the rather narrow focus of both study methodology and study results we have been seeing so far from this group, I think some healthy skepticism and a polite call for greater transparency are certainly warranted.

And I would also think the autism research community might want to reconsider the wisdom of entrusting such a new and potentially valuable line of research to such an homogeneous-minded set of researchers. While there is no easy way to eliminate conflicts of interest entirely from the autism research community, at the very least, if we had some competing interests engaged in conducting some of these studies, we might be more successful in broadening our view.

Allow me to borrow a page from these researchers' storybook and suggest that early diagnosis of their autism research disorder is actually a good thing, because it opens the door to some early intervention. The intervention need not be all that intensive in this case—I think some straightforward occupational therapy will do. For instance, we might try a few sessions where when the researchers attempt to invent novel and fuzzy measures by which to conduct their studies, they are immediately re-directed to consider measures a bit more objective, broadly scoped and possibly repeatable. When the researchers begin to perseverate on their biases, we might present them with a series of PECS cards, for instance, that demonstrate how data and information can get easily overlooked when scientists walk around with blinders on. And when the researchers insist on arranging their studies to suit only their particular interests, we might enroll them in some structured play dates—friendship classes, if you will—opportunities for these researchers to practice taking turns, sharing, playing by the rules, opportunities to experience the good feeling that comes from allowing others to express their interests too.

I am half tempted to package this form of intervention and market it under a catchy phrase—say, the Early Start Indianapolis Model. But of course I know I would never get away with such a scheme, everyone would see at once through my ruse. After all, I am only suggesting that these researchers associated with Ozonoff et al. (2010) and Christensen et al. (2010) merely follow what has actually been available to them all along, merely follow the well understood principles of logic, mathematics and science.

Ozonoff, S., Iosif, A., Baguio, F., Cook, I.C., Moore Hill, M., Hutman, T., Rogers, S.J., Rozga, A., Sangha, S., Sigman, M., Steinfeld, M.B., & Young, G.S. (2010). A Prospective Study of the Emergence of Early Behavioral Signs of Autism Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2009.11.009

Christensen, L., Hutman, T., Rozga, A., Young, G.S., Ozonoff, S., Rogers, S.J., Baker, B., & Sigman, M. (2010). Play and Developmental Outcomes in Infant Siblings of Children with Autism Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders DOI: 10.1007/s10803-010-0941-y

Early Spring Break

It's time to recharge my batteries, so I'm going to be taking another break from blogging—probably until around early April or so. Feel free to check back then.

The Autistic Perceptual Difference

I want to draw your attention to a paper recently published online in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders: Play and Developmental Outcomes in Infant Siblings of Children with Autism (Christensen, Hutman, Rozga, Young, Ozonoff, Rogers, Baker, Sigman, 2010; hereafter referred to as PDO). There is much I might criticize about this paper—for instance, its prejudicial insistence on describing everything autistic as an impairment, and also its abundant use of pseudo measures to create the veneer of science (that is, an observer “counting” the number of functional play activities in a four minute session is not the same thing as measuring the distance from Mars to Neptune, no matter how much statistical massaging is applied thereafter—concocted measures are the calling card of a concocted science). In truth, however, these criticisms would apply to almost every instance of current autism research, so they do not of themselves distinguish the paper. What does distinguish the paper is that after one filters out all the fuzzy science, and after one overlooks all the prejudicial assumptions emanating from the paper's authors, the residue that remains still provides some useful insight into the nature of autism, including strong evidence for what I believe to be the nearest thing we currently have to that much sought-after prize, an actual cause of autism. Since the paper's authors have preemptively blinded themselves to these fertile possibilities (because of their prejudicial insistence on seeing everything autistic as an impairment), allow me to step in and try to shed a more productive light on their work.



The study described in PDO centers on observational data of infant siblings of autistic children, alongside similar observational data of non-autistic controls. Since a fair portion of these infant siblings will later be recognized as autistic themselves, these observations allow for a relatively large number of comparisons of autistic and non-autistic behaviors at early ages, well before outside interventions and influences begin to obscure the source of such behaviors. This particular study observed children at the age of eighteen months, and although both autistic and non-autistic behaviors are fairly limited at this age, it is not unreasonable to assume that whatever behaviors do exist at eighteen months, they are for the most part naturally and spontaneously derived.

To cut to the chase, a major finding from PDO is that the infant siblings who will eventually be identified as autistic are observed to display fewer functional play behaviors and more non-functional repetitive play behaviors than do non-autistic controls. The terms “functional” and “non-functional” are unfortunate choices (I will have more to say about these terms later), but within the context of PDO, it becomes apparent that the term “functional” is intended to describe play activity that is considered “appropriate” vis-a-vis the activities and expectations of other humans, and thus another, less prejudicial way of describing this particular finding is to say that non-autistic children engage more frequently in human-centric or human-derived play behaviors, whereas autistic children tend to engage, relatively speaking, in more object-centric or object-repetitive behaviors. Indeed, when the authors get around to discussing the observed differences between autistic and non-autistic behaviors at eighteen months of age, they concentrate precisely on this people versus non-people aspect of perception and activity. The authors' own words:

Examination of the subtypes of functional play revealed that the ASD [autistic] sibling group showed fewer self-directed and other-directed play behaviors than the TD [typically developing] controls. However, the ASD sibling group did not show fewer object-directed functional play acts. This finding is of particular interest because it suggests that children with ASD may not understand people as potential recipients of a play action and/or are not motivated to direct play behaviors to people (self or other) even before many of them are diagnosed.

Although PDO's science behind the above statement is far from precise, nonetheless, on a crudely observational level, the authors are actually onto something here; indeed, the above statement crystallizes perhaps the most useful aspect of their study. With it, PDO becomes yet another instance in a growing body of evidence, much of it dealing with children at a very young age, that demonstrates the fundamental, early-observable distinction between autistic and non-autistic individuals, namely that each group perceptually focuses on an entirely different class of sensory targets. Non-autistic individuals focus primarily on humans and human-centric activities, whereas autistic individuals focus primarily on objects and activities that are non-biological and non human-centric but that are often rich in concepts such as pattern, structure, symmetry and form. For another much-publicized example of this phenomenon, see the study Two-Year-Olds with Autism Orient to Non-Social Contingencies Rather than Biological Motion (Klin, Lin, Gorrindo, Ramsay, Jones, 2009), which demonstrates that two year-old non-autistic children focus primarily on point light displays that depict biological motion, whereas two year-old autistic children focus primarily on point light displays that depict some form of non-biological pattern.

This repeatedly observable distinction between autistic and non-autistic perception and behavior is so important and so significant that I believe it needs to be highlighted and given a name. Therefore, let me dub it the autistic perceptual difference and let me define it in the following way:

Non-autistic individuals perceptually orient primarily to humans and to human-related activities, whereas autistic individuals do not.

There are several items to note about this definition of the autistic perceptual difference. In the first place, the autistic perceptual difference is not the same thing as a social deficit model of autism. A social deficit model of autism would imply that autistic individuals readily perceive other humans—just as non-autistic individuals do—but that autistic individuals, through a neurological defect or some other mechanism, are somehow unable to respond correctly to social inputs or to social situations. I will not go into detail here about the paucity of evidence in support of the social deficit model of autism, but I would note that the mere fact many autistic individuals do mature to the point of being quite capable and quite sophisticated in social circumstances later in life is enough all by itself to make the idea of an inherent social deficit highly improbable. By contrast, the definition of the autistic perceptual difference implies no such deficit—it posits only the perceptual distinction. All the autistic behaviors commonly portrayed by autism researchers as social shortcomings are in fact behaviors that can be expected—that is to say, they are behaviors that are quite healthy within the context of autistic perception. Autistic social behaviors are simply the natural response arising from a form of perception that does not spontaneously orient to the other members of the species.

A second point to note about the definition of the autistic perceptual difference is that it also provides an affirmative description of non-autistic perception. This is an area conspicuously absent in the current state of autism research. Although considerable research dollars are spent and considerable ink is spilled on describing what is presumably wrong about autistic individuals, scarcely one penny is deployed or one drop of ink is applied to describing what is supposedly right about non-autistic individuals. Or to put it more fundamentally, no one ever bothers to address the question, what makes non-autistic individuals non-autistic? The definition of the autistic perceptual difference provides an answer to that question in a fundamental way, by highlighting the species-specific focus of non-autistic perception, and it should be noted that while this species-specific focus aligns non-autistic individuals with the perceptions and behaviors of the remainder of the animal kingdom, oddly enough it leaves non-autistic individuals somewhat atypical with respect to the current state of civilization and mankind. It is my belief that a wealth of anthropological information is just waiting to be gleaned from the contrast and blending of our respective knowledge about autistic and non-autistic forms of perception, and at any rate, there can be no question autism research will never arrive at an accurate, comprehensive and meaningful description of the nature of autism without also arriving at a correspondingly accurate, comprehensive and meaningful description of the nature of non-autism. The autistic perceptual difference provides an excellent place from which to begin that investigation.

The final thing to note about the definition of the autistic perceptual difference is that it states the primary characteristic of autistic perception. The other observable characteristics—such as the tendency towards repetition, and the natural attraction towards objects and activities embodying pattern, structure, etc.—these remaining observable characteristics, although they follow immediately and necessarily from the lack of a human-specific orientation, they must still be described, technically speaking, as secondary characteristics. What is happening here is that because autistic individuals do not have a species-specific focus to serve for cognitive grounding (as is the case for non-autistic individuals), autistic individuals find themselves in the near grip of a sensory chaos, and must overcome this chaos by engaging with the few features in their sensory environment that inherently stand out. When we reflect upon what kinds of features in a sensory environment would inherently stand out from the remainder, we are led immediately to those features rich in concepts such as symmetry and pattern. And viewed in this light we quickly realize that autistic behaviors—repetitive, structure-focused, symmetry-intense—are once again the expected behaviors arising from their particular form of perception. Far from being deficit driven, such behaviors are indeed quite healthy and quite necessary under the given circumstances of the autistic perceptual difference.

It is possible that one day advances in neuroscience, genetics, or some yet-unknown field will uncover a material cause of autism. Nonetheless, it must be admitted that today, currently—despite all the self-congratulatory press releases and despite Geraldine Dawson's annual pompom efforts—despite all this, the autism research community's current efforts towards uncovering a specified material cause of autism still stands at essentially square zero. The autistic perceptual difference is of course not a material cause of autism; but it is, as far as I can tell, the most fundamental piece of information we currently possess regarding autism, and thus stands as the closest thing we currently have to an actual explanation for autistic characteristics. As more and more studies are performed and published regarding autistic children at extremely young ages, my prediction is that the autistic perceptual difference will continue to emerge as the one consistent thread running throughout all those studies. Strip away their concocted science, strip away their researchers' preconceived notions, strip away the medical community's insistence that autism must be a devastating medical disorder, and what will remain in paper after paper is the same observable fact: non-autistic individuals perceptually orient primarily to humans and to human-related activities, whereas autistic individuals do not. Within that unfolding body of evidence can be found a deep and wonderful scientific story that is badly in need of being told; now if we can only get the researchers compiling that evidence to drop their prejudices for just a moment, and open their eyes.



Let me conclude by discussing in greater detail PDO's usage of the terms “functional” and “non-functional” to describe various types of observed play activity in very young children.

At one point in their paper, the authors do offer some examples to help explain their employment of these terms, noting for instance that a child who puts a toy spoon to the mouth of a doll would be counted as performing a functional play activity because that activity is considered “appropriate” with regard to the functional use of a spoon, whereas a child who repeatedly puts various items into and out of a pot would be counted as engaging in a non-functional repetitive play activity, since such activity does not coincide with the expected usage of a pot. I would have preferred, however, if the authors had stuck with the example of the doll and toy spoon when explaining non-functional play activity, noting for instance that if a child were to line up these items into a regular pattern—say, spoon doll spoon doll—that child would be counted as engaging in a repetitive non-functional play activity, just as with the example of the pot. By keeping the context of their contrasting examples more homogeneous, the authors would have revealed more clearly that their usage of the terms “functional” and “non-functional” has far more to do with their own preconceived judgments of these various play activities, rather than having anything to do with the inherent value of the activities themselves.

Think about it. From the perspective of an eighteen month-old child, the functional value of the many activities possible with a doll and toy spoon must seem rather arbitrary, and indeed would be arbitrary if not for one thing, namely that the “feeding” activity is clearly a human-centric activity. An eighteen month-old child who performs such activities is doing so because he or she has seen other humans make similar motions with a doll and toy spoon (quite likely) or has begun to match human actions with real spoons to the feigned actions with toys (perhaps less likely at eighteen months, but still conceivable). Therefore, what actually makes these activities “functional”—both in the eyes of the child and in the judgments of the researchers—is their human-specific nature. But does it follow therefore that only human-specific activities are functional? And is it wise to describe other classes of play activity as “non-functional”?

Note that the so-called non-functional play activity of autistic children is not random activity. If play activity actually were the result of some kind of impairment, then what we might expect to observe is play activity that is highly chaotic or unstructured in nature; but the play activity of autistic children is anything but. Repetition itself belies the notion of chaotic behavior, since repetition is the embodiment of temporal pattern, and when we consider the nature of activities such as lining up toys, spinning objects and selves, staring at ceiling fans, running back and forth in repeated patterns, flapping arms over and over, etc., we realize that far from being random or chaotic, such activities center almost exclusively on concepts rich in pattern, structure, symmetry and form. While it is true that autistic play activities are generally repetitious, object-oriented and non human-centric, it is not therefore true that such activities are “impaired” or “non-functional,” and to insist on saying so is to admit to having turned a blind eye to what these activities actually consist of. The researchers in PDO need to be reminded that their task was to observe autistic play activities, not prejudge them.

Looked at without prejudice, autistic play activities are seen to be functional in at least two very critical aspects. In the first place, autistic play activities are functional towards the development of autistic cognition. As we have already noted, without primary perception of species-specific influences, autistic individuals must obtain their cognitive grounding through their engagement with the few elements in their sensory environment that inherently stand out from the remainder, elements humanity has now come to recognize through the concepts of pattern, symmetry, structure and form. Viewed in this light, autistic play activities are seen as not only essential, but indeed healthy towards the developmental progress appropriate for an autistic form of perception, and another prediction I will readily make is that when all is said and done, it will come to be recognized that it is the lack of understanding towards these autistic perceptual and cognitive needs—along with the many mindless attempts to intervene and thwart such needs—that accounts for the large majority of poor outcomes in autistic individuals.

Just as importantly, autistic play activities are functional in another, much broader sense, one that the scientific community has sadly ignored through the present day, but one that is literally stunning in its overall size, scope and impact.

Humanity currently faces an outstanding riddle regarding the origin and nature of its sudden transformation from biologically limited primate to collective architect of landscapes now thoroughly drenched in such concepts as abstraction, symmetry, pattern and form. The irrational bleatings of the sociobiologists notwithstanding, no plausible explanation has yet to be offered as to the source of this sudden transformation. But in point of fact, the source of that transformation actually exists right before our very eyes. If you are in need of an example, I would note that several instances could have been found engaged in the four-minute play sessions of the PDO study.

Whereas no material cause for autism has yet to be uncovered, the material cause of humanity's remarkable cultural transformation exists in abundance all around us, exists in the embodiment of a form of cognition that focuses primarily on the non-biological concepts of pattern, structure, symmetry and form—the distinguishing hallmarks of modern civilization, and the distinguishing hallmarks of autistic perception. The atypical play activity of autistic children is indeed functional, functional in a way we have hardly begun to conceive.

One More Session

At first, he might even cooperate—
Longing for praise and uncertain yet
As to the nature of this new game,
He leaps forward with beaming curiosity.
You begin touting his sudden progress.

Later, after he has recognized
This falsely structured hour
As yet one more attempt
To pound square pegs into round holes,
You begin searching for a new therapy.

Fossilization

You cannot create literature as a professional writer. You cannot discover breakthrough knowledge as a professional scientist. And you cannot inspire mankind as a professional philosopher.

When we take our most treasured enterprises and transform them into commodities, we destroy all their merit. We now have millions of writers, but no brilliant words. We now have millions of scientists, but no useful insight. We now have millions of philosophers, but no courageous wisdom.

Academia has fossilized humanity's worth.

A New Approach to Covering the Costs of Autism Research Publication

I would like to propose a new approach to paying for the costs of autism research publication. Instead of having subscribers pay for access to autism research journals, a much better solution would be to have contributors pay for the right to publish in autism research journals.

This idea might at first appear to be somewhat counterintuitive, but it has one obvious advantage over the current approach: the new approach does a much better job of matching costs to benefits. For example, readers of autism research journals, who currently receive nothing of value for their enterprise, would no longer be charged for the privilege, providing in this case a perfect match of expense and gain. At the same time, those who get published in autism research journals—and thereby gain access to doctoral degrees, tenured positions, editorial appointments, government committees and of course additional funding—would be obliged to provide some recompense for these many benefits, thereby helping to keep the system going.

But I believe I can do this excellent idea even one better.

Instead of charging a flat fee for the publication of an autism research article, a much more effective approach would be to charge an exponentially increasing scale based upon the number of co-authors listed on each paper. A one-author article, for instance—which, after all, does have some chance of providing valuable insights into the nature of autism—might be published for just a nominal amount, or perhaps even for free. Adding a second author, however, would require the contribution of, let us say, an additional two thousand dollars to the final invoice, and adding a third author would augment the overall fee by a further four thousand dollars, adding a fourth author would cost an additional eight thousand dollars, and so on.

Under this proposal—and given the size of some co-author lists I have seen on recent autism articles—a few lucky journals might find themselves able to cover an entire decade's worth of expense through the publication of a single article alone. However, let me be clear on this—I do not recommend the booking of outlandish profits under such circumstances: the majority of revenue gathered in excess of reasonable costs should be returned immediately to supporting governmental agencies, for the express purpose of retiring national debts.

Another feature that might be added to my proposal—a slight improvement, if you will—is to require a surcharge for the inclusion of any co-authors who possess high name recognition or who have reached a certain standard of publication profligacy. That is to say, for each S. Baron-Cohen, G. Dawson, or F. Volkmar pasted onto the end of any given co-author list, this would add, oh let us say, an additional fifty thousand dollars to the final publishing fee. Now it is true that if this supplemental S. Baron-Cohen, G. Dawson, or F. Volkmar happens to be the tenth author “contributing” to the given paper, then that additional name, under the scale described above, would already be setting back the paper to the tune of a half million dollars or so, and thus tacking on an additional fifty thousand dollars might seem like overdoing it a bit. But keep in mind that the value in this new approach is to match costs to benefits, and we all know how much a career (not to mention, the peer review prospects) can be enhanced by association with that one special “colleague.” If perhaps this final feature of my proposal does seem a bit too controversial, might I suggest employing it on a trial basis at first, in just a few select journals, until the feature's true benefit becomes more apparent.

I of course have some additional revenue-raising suggestions, ones based upon the number of citations employed in each article—in particular, citations of the authors' own prior work—but I would prefer to keep such suggestions on the back burner for now; I do not want to overload the system all at once with too much cash. After an appropriate investment plan has been put in place at each journal, along with all the necessary safeguards, maybe then consideration can be given to some of these more advanced techniques.

Now I know what you must be thinking. You must be thinking that if this new approach is so obviously beneficial, then why has someone from the autism research community not already suggested it. I admit to feeling a bit sheepish about having to make this proposal myself, being an outsider and all, but I would note that there are many circumstances in life in which those who are part of a community are so attached to that community they cannot easily take a step back and gain helpful perspective. Quite often—let us be honest here for once—people are simply standing too close to the problem to recognize its solution.

Beasts

Evolution is a delicate description.
Bordering on the tautological,
It requires nuanced reflection
Upon time, environment and biological dynamics
To see its process unfolding as physical necessity,
And not deductive creed.

Thus when lumbering, blustery giants
Such as Dawkins and Pinker barge in,
One is reminded of stubbly-thumbed oafs
Who destroy posthaste every delicacy they touch.
No subtlety. No discretion. Just
The ponderous pounding of their shiny new toy
Again and again and again.

It is that trait,
This barbarous, incontinent bashing
Of Darwin's dangerous idea
Against every surface they meet,
That betrays their vulnerability—
Like beasts,
They have not reflected upon evolution at all.

Scientific Advancement

I agree with Michelle Dawson's assessment that the editorial board of the proposed journal Autism Insights is dubious in nature and bad news for autistic individuals, and I expect its actions will be motivated far more by personal interests and personal agendas than by any desire to advance the science.

But my question is: how would this differ from the editorial board of any other autism-related journal?

In fact, it is revealing that assessments in autism science have now devolved mostly into questions of scientific reputation, for when you are faced with a discipline in which practically no one is advancing the science in any meaningful way, reputation becomes the only thing left to argue.

Nonetheless, scientific reputation is only a pseudo measure. Playing by the rules and convincing others to recognize you for having played by the rules does nothing to promote understanding—to promote autism insight, if you will—and it certainly does not qualify as good news for autistic individuals.

Good science spinning its wheels travels no farther than bad science prowling at random.

Scientific Accumulation

A million trivial results do not add up to something significant; they add up to triviality.

Mathematical Weaknesses

Here is a telling statement by Professor Carl B. Boyer, straight from—of all places—A History of Mathematics:

A number of deficiencies in pre-Hellenic mathematics are quite obvious. Extant papyri and tablets contain specific cases and problems only, with no general formulations, and one may question whether these early civilizations really appreciated the unifying principles that are at the core of mathematics.

Of course. But then again: one may question whether academicians can see beyond the end of their own nose.

Harold Doherty and Intellectual Disability

Let me address Harold Doherty's claim that the recent CDC report on autism prevalence shows that 60 – 100% of children diagnosed with Autistic Disorder also have a significant intellectual disability (IQ less than 70). To put it bluntly, that claim is a ridiculous fiction, fabricated entirely by Mr. Doherty and not supported by anything in the CDC report. It is the kind of claim made by someone who either cannot read, cannot do math, or cannot handle logic. In Mr. Doherty's case, I suspect we are witnessing a combination of all three.

What the CDC report does state is that across the reporting sites where adequate data is available, 41% of all autism spectrum disorder (ASD) cases are associated with intellectual disability (with a range across the reporting sites from 29.3% to 51.2%). Mr. Doherty then leaps to the statement that if the Asperger Disorder cases were removed from the CDC study population, then this would imply that 60 – 100% of those with Autistic Disorder must have a significant intellectual disability (with great emphasis placed by Mr. Doherty on the midrange number of 80%).

It would be interesting to examine Mr. Doherty's math on that.

To keep the numbers round, let us assume that 40 out of 100 ASD cases show intellectual disability, which is consistent with the 41% number from the CDC report. Question: how many Asperger Disorder cases (no intellectual disability) would need to be removed from the study population so that the remaining population has an 80% intellectual disability rate? The answer is that 50 out of 100 would need to be removed. Mr. Doherty's math implies that around 50% of the cases in the CDC study are Asperger Disorder cases. I wonder if he really intended that.

I myself would be willing to grant Mr. Doherty his 50% Aspergers estimate, provided that either: a) the number shows up some place in the CDC report, or b) Mr. Doherty's other posts remain logically consistent with 50% of all ASD cases being Aspergers cases. Alas, neither provision holds true.

For instance, I have looked high and low, but the CDC report does not seem to indicate how many of its identified cases fall under the Aspergers classification. Maybe Mr. Doherty has read the report more carefully than I have, but my suspicion is that Mr. Doherty has not bothered to read the report at all. Figure 5 in the report does shows a group that would include the Aspergers cases, but Aspergers by itself does not seem to be broken out. What's worse, no matter how you look at Figure 5, it clearly does not support Mr. Doherty's 50% Aspergers estimate. If anything, Figure 5 indicates an Aspergers percentage much lower than 50%, a percentage so low it cannot in any way support Mr. Doherty's feeble attempt at math.

And then there is the matter of Mr. Doherty's other posts, the ones insisting quite loudly that autism is an environmental epidemic and that people with an Aspergers diagnosis, like Ari Ne'eman, are not really autistic. But if 50% of all ASD cases are Asperger Disorder (and therefore not really autism), what remains of the epidemic? Let's go ahead and apply Mr. Doherty's methodology to the CDC report itself, where we might note that if 1 in 110 children have ASD but 50% of these are Aspergers (and therefore not really autistic), then of course only 1 in 220 children really have autism. Better yet, if we forge ahead with Mr. Doherty's brand of logic, we might next compare this 1 in 220 figure to the 1 in 150 prevalence from the previous CDC report and note that the “epidemic” is now actually reversing—the “crisis” is indeed over! (Maybe it was all those environmental toxins that provided the cure everyone was looking for.) Now if perchance the preceding analysis is making your head spin, or if you feel like you have been somehow bamboozled or that I just made things up, please do not put the blame on me; remember, I am only following Mr. Doherty's logical lead.

Listen, no one is suggesting that intellectual abilities and disabilities in autism should be swept under the rug. Clearly, a significant portion of the autistic population experiences cognitive delays and difficulties, and a better understanding of this phenomenon would be helpful for all. But to concoct “facts” for the purpose of promoting a personal agenda serves no one well. I do not expect Mr. Doherty to agree with me very often, but I do expect him to be able to read, do the math, and think logically. I do not believe that is asking too much.

Of course it is possible that it is me who is incorrect; maybe it is my math, logic and reading skills that have gone awry. If so, I invite Mr. Doherty to demonstrate the error of my ways, and if he is successful, I will gladly make acknowledgment and apologize. But note that my only requirement for this demonstration is that Mr. Doherty use information straight out of the CDC report, and not straight out of his imagination.

And All Hell Breaks Loose

Autism Speaks, never one to miss the opportunity for tightening the fund-raising screws, has chosen to respond to today's CDC announcement on autism prevalence by portraying autistic individuals (yet once again) as devastating, burdensome, tragic and worthy of eradication. I wonder if this is how Autism Speaks has come to be known as a “charitable” organization.

Amidst all the doomsday hoopla, however, the Autism Speaks leadership might have overlooked that their sister organization, Homosexuality Speaks, also issued a press release today, one targeting prevalence rates in its own domain. Purely for the edification of Autism Speaks' officials—all of whom must have been quite busy today—I have reproduced the Homosexuality Speaks press release in its entirety below, complete with illuminating and perhaps familiar-sounding commentary from various Homosexuality Speaks officials. I trust that Bob Wright, Geraldine Dawson and Mark Roithmayr will find nothing offensive in the Homosexuality Speaks press release, but if by chance they do, perhaps they should stop for a moment and ask themselves why.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

For immediate release:

As CDC Issues New Homosexuality Prevalence Report, Homosexuality Speaks Asks “What Will It Take?” for Government to Meet the Challenge of this National Health Crisis

Leading Homosexuality Advocacy Organization Calls for Dramatic Increase in Federal Funding for Research and Services

SAN FRANCISCO, CAL. (December 18, 2009)—In the wake of today's new report from the U.S. Centers for Difference Control (CDC) stating that homosexuality now affects 1 in every 35 American teenagers, Homosexuality Speaks, the nation's largest homosexuality science and advocacy organization, called on the federal government to immediately step up its efforts—and dramatically increase funding—to address the growing national homosexuality public health crisis.

“Now that the government has confirmed that three percent of American teenagers have homosexuality, the question becomes what it will take to get our elected leaders to wake up and take on this crisis in an appropriate way,” said Rob Writeoff, co-founder of Homosexuality Speaks. “Must we wait until every member of Congress has a child or grandchild with homosexuality, or until every household is impacted by this devastating disorder? With nearly 2.25 million children on the homosexuality spectrum, we need meaningful action now that acknowledges the scope of this problem and allocates the resources necessary to take the fight against homosexuality to a new level. We cannot expect the millions of people impacted by this crisis to wait another 20 years for answers.”

The CDC report, published in this week's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), states that 3% or 1 in every 35 teenagers has been diagnosed with homosexuality, including 1 in 25 girls. This represents a staggering 57 percent increase from 2002 to 2006, and a 600 percent increase in just the past 20 years. Other significant findings include that a broader definition of HSDs does not account for the increase, and while improved and earlier diagnosis accounts for some of the increase, it does not fully account for the increase. Thus, a true increase in the risk for HSD cannot be ruled out. Even though parents typically express concerns about their child's sexuality before age twelve, the average age of diagnoses is not until around the sixteenth birthday, although diagnoses are occurring earlier than found in the 2002 study. The report uses the same methodology that produced the CDC's 2007 prevalence findings of 1 in 50 children with homosexuality.

“This study provides strong evidence that the prevalence of homosexuality spectrum disorder is, in fact, dramatically increasing,” said Darlene Gawson, Ph.D., Homosexuality Speaks chief science officer, who noted that recent research indicates that a significant amount of the increase in homosexuality prevalence cannot be explained by better, broader or earlier diagnosis. “It is imperative that the federal government, primarily through the National Institutes of Health and CDC, quickly and significantly increase funding for homosexuality research. We have learned a lot about homosexuality during the past five years. However, most of the critical questions about the factors that cause the many manifestations of homosexuality—and how we can better treat this disorder—remain unanswered.”

“The CDC numbers validate what we already know: We have a major public health emergency on our hands that is taking an enormous toll on millions of families across the country,” said Homosexuality Speaks President Rick Moithrayr. “These families want answers that can only come through further research. They also desperately want access to services that are, at this point, grossly inadequate to meet the current and growing needs of people with homosexuality. That must change quickly, before our society becomes overwhelmed by the demand for these services in the coming years and decades.”

According to a 2007 Yale School of Public Health study, it costs approximately $105 billion each year to care for people with homosexuality—a number that has clearly increased over the past 2 years with the rising prevalence among the youngest people with HSD and a growing demand for housing, work skills and opportunities, healthcare, and other services that simply do not exist for adults with HSD. In FY 2008, total federal spending on homosexuality research was just $177 million, expected to increase to $282 million in FY 2009—only because of a one-time infusion of $89 million in stimulus spending.

“During his campaign, President Obama committed to $1 billion of annual federal spending on homosexuality by 2012. In October, he identified homosexuality as one of his administration's top three public health priorities. This new prevalence data must compel Congress to take action to fulfill the President's promise in the upcoming FY 2011 budget process,” said Writeoff. “It is also vital that any healthcare reform legislation sent by Congress to the President must include—as both the current House and Senate versions do—an end to insurance marketplace discrimination against people with homosexuality by requiring insurers to deliver coverage for behavioral health treatments.”

“There are too many children with homosexuality who are being diagnosed at fifteen, sixteen or even seventeen years of age, which is far too late for them to experience the maximum benefits of early intervention services,” said Gawson. “Clearly, we need to do a better job of diagnosing children as early as possible—ideally by age five. We know that early intervention can make a critical difference in a child's outcome.” Gawson went on to promote her involvement in a recent study which showed that HSD children as young as four years of age, exposed to the Salt Lake City form of early intervention treatment, had follow-up heterosexuality quotient scores ten points higher than HSD children not so favorably placed.

Homosexuality Speaks has committed more than $141 million to date to fund research into the causes, diagnosis and treatment for homosexuality through 2014. It is currently funding research into potential genetic and environmental factors involved with homosexuality, as well as improved methods of early diagnosis and new treatment models.

About Homosexuality

Homosexuality is a complex biological condition that affects a person's ability to procreate and develop appropriate sexual relationships, and is often accompanied by behavioral challenges. A 2009 report by the Centers for Difference Control and Prevention (CDC) stated that homosexuality spectrum disorders are diagnosed in one in 35 or 3% of all teenagers in the United States, affecting two times as many girls as boys. It is estimated that 4.5 million Americans have a homosexuality spectrum disorder. The CDC has called homosexuality a national public health crisis for which we still need effective treatments and whose causes need to be better understood.

About Homosexuality Speaks

Homosexuality Speaks is the nation's largest homosexuality science and advocacy organization, dedicated to funding research into the causes, diagnosis, treatments and a cure for homosexuality; increasing awareness of homosexuality spectrum disorders; and advocating for the needs of individuals with homosexuality and their families. To learn more about Homosexuality Speaks, please visit www.homosexualityspeaks.org.

About the Co-Founders

Homosexuality Speaks was founded in February 2005 by Susie and Rob Writeoff, the grandparents of a child with homosexuality. Rob Writeoff has held lots of important, high-paying positions, and so he (and not homosexual individuals) should be listened to. Susie Writeoff has an extensive history of active involvement in community and philanthropic endeavors, mostly directed toward helping children, and serves on the boards of several non-profit organizations, and so she also (and not homosexual individuals) should be listened to. In 2008, the Writeoffs were named to the Newsweek 200 list of the most influential people in the world for their commitment to global homosexuality advocacy.

End of press release

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Let me add, purely for the edification of Autism Speaks' officials, that autistic individuals are first and foremost human beings, worthy just as they are. Autistic individuals are not harborers of a devastating disorder, and they are not candidates for pity, intervention and eradication. This is a lesson we have been learning, with great difficulty, about homosexual individuals over the past half century, and thus it is disheartening to see organizations like Autism Speaks intent on putting us through that painful process all over again.

Good Science

If science is merely a methodology, then in the current era it has become the preferred method of minutiae and mediocrity.

Think about it. We now live among literally millions and millions of scientists, a large portion of whom practice, in the well-intended words of Ben Goldacre, good science. They dutifully form their hypotheses, they dutifully conduct their experiments, and they dutifully record all their critical data. And when the harvesting time of publication comes around (and when the services of enough well-connected co-authors have been dutifully gathered), these good scientists patiently submit their findings to peer review and wait longingly for reply. In the thousands and thousands of unread journals now clogging our crowded shelves we might find the outpourings of these good scientists' many tireless efforts—their tantalizing insights into fatherless mice, dark halo density profiles, dysfunctional amygdalas, and the priming effects of macrophages. If good science is a blessing, then our cup truly runneth over.

But where, might I ask, is the brilliant science? Where might I find that scientist equivalent to a Newton, a Darwin, an Einstein—each of whom appeared to be far less concerned with following the prescribed recipes of good science than with turning good science upon its head? With millions and millions of good scientists now rubbing their shoulders against us, why is the brilliant science not more abundantly ripe for the picking, and why would we assume this dearth of brilliant science is in no way related to the massive proliferation of good science?

I will say it again: if science is merely a methodology, then in the current era it has become the preferred method of minutiae and mediocrity.

Intelligent Design

William Dembski, he of intelligent design fame, has written a poignant account of taking his autistic son to a gathering run by a popular faith healer, in the hopes of obtaining some miraculous autism healing—a healing which, as events turned out, would not even be offered, let alone consummated. The faith healer of course revealed himself as little more than a conjurer of theater and coinage; and after having endured the multi-hour ordeal of a long drive, a needless wait, blaringly loud music and the insipid amusements of a traveling medicine show, Mr. Dembski's wife and autistic son, summoned at long last to approach the stage for some personal healing and prayer, found themselves more than an hour later effectively shunned and turned away. The entire family drove home bitterly disappointed, if somewhat wiser about the nature of popular revivalist gatherings.

In many ways, Mr. Dembski's account is one of the more moving articles I have read in recent years—and this coming from a man for whom I share hardly a thread of common understanding. But if Mr. Dembski and I share little in the way of a common philosophical background, we do share a commonality of experience, for I too have an autistic son, one of nearly the same age as Mr. Dembski's. Thus I can commiserate completely. In fact, I cannot help but be touched greatly by Mr. Dembski's story and I cannot help but feel within the very depths of my soul the bitter anguish and confusion that must have been experienced during that distressing ordeal. But of course it is not Mr. Dembski's anguish and confusion I am feeling—I am feeling the anguish and confusion that must have been experienced by his autistic son.

It is an oft-told story: salvation was at hand—so remarkably close at hand—if only it had been recognized and accepted.

There was indeed a miracle being offered to Mr. Dembski at that revivalist gathering, a miracle offered so quietly, so humbly, so simply, that amidst all the dancing, all the singing, all the hearty exhortations—and amidst all the tinkling of collection plates—it might have gone so easily overlooked. The miracle being offered to Mr. Dembski on that bitterly ironic night occurred at the very moment of his autistic son's rejection (and how Christianly ironic is that?), just one more rejection in a long line of rejections—from doctors, from school administrators, from nearly the entire human community, and (dare he confess it) from Mr. Dembski himself. But at the very moment of that one further rejection, that forced turning away from this so-called minister of god and the turning back towards a reassessing father—now there was a moment worthy of a hallelujah chorus.

And to Mr. Dembski's credit, at least on this particular occasion, he was not entirely immune to the poignancy and gift of that telling moment. Quietly accepting his autistic son back into the family fold, driving his children home at that ungodly hour, waiting until each had fallen asleep to discuss with his wife the doubts now arising within his troubled soul, Mr. Dembski had taken those first, faltering steps towards the altar of his own salvation—hallelujah, indeed.

But how to encourage him to take all the remaining steps? How to inspire him to face all the challenges yet to come? Do we dare to remind Mr. Dembski that in the story he cares about most, the father does not reject the unwanted son.

If there is an entity deserving of the name “God,” then that entity must exist in the here and now, and I do not mean in the here and now of any particular church, I mean in the here and now of each and every moment. The discovery and acceptance of this world as this world truly is—not as we humans desire or demand it to be—there will be found the glory behind both science and religion. And accepting autism for what it is, welcoming both its offbeat demands as well as its profoundly transformational impact upon the entire human species—there might be found the admittedly narrow path that one day uplifts all mankind.

Let Mr. Dembski begin his reconstructed catechism with that lesson and that lesson alone. And after he has begun to master it, after he has incorporated it deeply within his being, only then might I be willing to sit and talk with him about something called intelligent design.

Three Questions Poorly Asked

What aspect of brain neurology gives rise to human intelligence and reasoning?

What evolutionary mechanism underlies the ascent of human culture and civilization?

What etiology explains the disorder known as autism?

They say that a question well asked is a question already half answered: the examples above show that a question poorly asked cannot be answered at all.

Do Not Walk – Run!

Through February 2010, Royal Society Publishing will be providing free access to its digital archives, and above all else this means that the seminal autism paper, Enhanced Perception in Savant Syndrome: Patterns, Structure and Creativity (Mottron, Dawson, Soulières, 2009, hereafter referred to as EPSS), can now be read in its entirety without it costing you an arm and a couple legs. Please, if you are at all interested in expanding your horizons regarding the nature of autism, avail yourself of this opportunity to read EPSS. In an era when the entirety of the autism research community has become mired in a coagulation of genetic defect theories, brain dysfunction theories, medical imbalance theories, interventions du jour, and so on, reading the pages of EPSS can be like taking a step outdoors into the sunshine and fresh air. Even if you find yourself ultimately unable to accept the various ideas put forth in that paper, at the very least you will have to admit the presentation is not just more of the same old thing. If you want more of the same old thing, there is an interminable glut of autism research articles that can fulfill that need; but if you would like to begin to see autism through a new set of eyes, then the Mottron team's paper is certainly an excellent place to start.

(More of my thoughts regarding EPSS can be found here.)

EPSS is part of a Royal Society Philosophical Transactions B issue devoted entirely to the subject of autism and talent, and if you have time and inclination, I would encourage you to peruse some of the other articles in that issue as well. They are mostly a mixed bag, ranging from the not so bad (the Plaisted Grant and Davis paper, for instance) to the execrable (Casanova et al. and the opening introduction); but more than anything the other articles provide a revealing contrast to the EPSS paper. Note that even in an issue devoted entirely to exploring the talents and abilities of autistic individuals—talents and abilities that in many instances cannot be replicated by non-autistic individuals—even under such a heading, the various authors cannot seem to break themselves free of the paradigm that autism is the evidence of something gone medically wrong. From impaired central coherence to hyper-sensitive hyper-systemizing to “a failure in top-down inhibition,” autism scientists are literally stuck in their language of deficit and defect for explaining autistic characteristics; and at each turn there comes the barely contained whisper that it must be the strangest of happenstance that allows such fouled-up, abnormal cognitions to produce artifacts of human value and wonder. It is only in the pages of EPSS that you will find authors daring to make the opposite assertion, the assertion that autism is not so much the evidence of something gone medically wrong as it is the evidence of something gone humanly right.

I have noted elsewhere that even the Mottron team can have difficulties shaking itself completely free of the vestiges of autism's medical model; but within EPSS, the Mottron team is unabashedly spontaneous, imaginative and creative. The result is a first, solid glimpse into autism not as deficit and disease, but instead as a catalyst for humanity's most shocking and wondrous transformations. Do not miss this historical opportunity. Do not walk, but run! Run to the Royal Society archives!

Apologia

Often what is needed is not new evidence, but a better home for the evidence one already has.

The Philosophy of Academic Philosophy

Do academic philosophers write about anything besides other philosophers? Kripke, Dummett, Foucault, Wright, Rawls, the list goes on and on. Like denizens of a closed-off room, these dilettantes can breathe only their self-made stench.

Open a window, for God's sake! Out in the sunshine you might find Thoreau, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein—all romping about, and giving a rat's ass for their fellow philosophers. But no, behind these heavy curtains we find Dennett, Searle, Rorty—each waxing ad nauseam on...Dennett, Searle, Rorty (not to mention, waxing ad nauseam on Thoreau, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein).

Why would anyone strive to become a philosopher for the purpose of regurgitating other philosophers? Can these professors not think for themselves?

Maybe Derrida, you say—maybe he is the exception. Well, here too we are stuck in the morass of other philosophers, although I admit the approach is unique. But what can it say about modern philosophy to know that its con artists are the most creative?

A Foretold History of Autism Science

It is hard to scale a phantom mountain; inevitably, that climbing party must come back down.

The Divineless Comedy

I suppose it had to come to this, what with the new atheism having become so popular and all. Now we have the Brights movement, and no kidding, you too can register. Hell, what am I saying, I myself can register—apparently I meet all the preconditions.

But Lord have mercy, where is a Kierkegaard when you truly need him? I can hear the Dane laughing already: “And after you have mastered truth is subjectivity—ein, zwei, drei—then you can register as a Bright.”

According to their website, the Brights' first principle (you knew there had to be a first principle) is “We are a constituency of individuals (the registered Brights).” If I were to make a suggestion for a second principle (after registering, of course), it would be “We shalt make closer scrutiny of the words 'constituency' and 'individual,' not to mention a more careful contemplation on the consequences of registration.”

Why Life Is Not a Team Sport

The real conflict is not between science and religion, the real conflict is between collective ignorance and an individual sense of wonder. And in that conflict, Dawkins, the Pope, Behe, Hitchens, Dobson, Harris, Dembski, Grayling, Dennett and the grand ayatollahs are all on the same side.