More Evidence of Increase in Profound Autism

I am Jack's username writes "The New York times has an article (no registration required) about an increase in profound autism in California of 273% between 1987 and 1998. Between 1999 and 2001 more than 6 500 cases were reported, similar to the number reported between 1970 to 1995. The increase cannot be accounted for by misdiagnosis, increased awareness, childhood immunizations, emigration, birth injuries, and genetics. Some autism experts think the actual cases to be dramatically more than reported in the UC study. See also previous discussions about high-function geek rich areas like silicon valley."

Comments

Evolution?

[no_nicks_available]

I know very little of the condition, but considering autistic people have some extraordinary abilities, is it possible this could be an evolutionary step?

Re:Evolution?

[ucblockhead]

No. Evolution doesn't work that way.

The way evolution works is that there are many completely random variations and those that cause greater reproductive success are propogated.

The only way to see an "evolutionary step" (itself a misnomer) is to see some variation that causes greatly enhanced success at breeding. Needless to say, we are not seeing that here.

Re:Evolution?

[YaRness]

consider it as an adaption to a society where you are taken care of and fed no matter how fit you are. sure, an autistic caveman wouldn't last a season, let alone long enough to breed. but today only the worst of birth defects prevent you from being raised and cared for all your life; an ideal environment to keep you alive until you can pass along your genetic material.

Re:Evolution?

[sbaker]

> Evolution lets you adapt to your environment. Considering
> an autistic individual needs lots of supervision, this is
> probably not the case.

If you believe this is an evolutionary change (and I do not) then you'd have to conclude as follows:

These children probably get lots of supervision - could be that's part of the environment that they are adapting to? Biology isn't picky about the distinction between a 'natural' environment and one that we've created - or about the distinction between a sustainable environment and an unsustainable one. When a large proportion of the population is severely autistic and can no longer provide that supervision for their offspring - evolution must either step in again - or if it can't react fast enough, there will be a population crash.

If you do believe this is an evolved adaptation then you'd have to conclude that Geeks should not be marrying other Geeks.

Personally, I'd suspect some side-effect of pollution...or a statistical error of some kind. I doubt evolution could react to a change in the environment as fast as one generation - which is as long as the geek population has surged in California.

Re:Evolution?

[benwaggoner]

Well, here's the test then. Do those with autism go on to have more children or grandchilden than average?

If not, autism in itself is evolutionarily negative. However, it is possible that a milder expression of the same genes does have advantages, ala tech centers. Think sickle-cell anemia, where one gene gives you malaria resistantance, but two make you very sick.

Remeber, a human is a gametes way of making more gametes. Cool abilities don't count in evolution if they don't lead to more grandchildren.

Empowered patients...

[Idarubicin]

From the article:

Parents in the study were asked what might have caused their child's autism. Nearly half the parents in both groups said they did not know. A third blamed genetics; smaller numbers cited immunizations, birth injury or environmental factors.

So, just about half of parents are intellectually honest, then. We don't know what causes autism--there is nothing approaching a consensus among researchers, and there are few well-designed studies that even suggest a possible cause. Asking parents what caused their child's autism is like asking a non-technical person why their hard drive crashed. The answer as likely as not will be "I dunno, maybe I've got a virus?" Interesting for investigating the biases of the hapless user, but not a useful diagnosis.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I'm just surprised that nobody in the study thought to blame living near power lines--unless that's an "environmental factor".

Hypothesis: The incidence of autism is higher because children aren't being allowed to eat enough dirt. Exposure to more microorganisms when young strengthens the immune system. There exists a microbe (virus, perhaps) as-yet-uncharacterized that causes autism. (This happens sometimes with diseases. For example, most stomach ulcers are caused by the bacterium h. pylori and can often be cured with antibiotic therapy. This fact only came to light very recently, after decades of assuming that ulcers were essentially untreatable.) Children's weaker immune systems don't fight this pathogen as effectively as they used to, so they develop autism more frequently.

Solution: Feed all young children dirt.

This hypothesis actually has about as much grounding as many of the other suggested causes of autism. Based on very weak evidence, some parents have started to avoid immunizing their children, putting them at much greater risk for measles and other potentially deadly diseases. Bless the internet and its unquestioned authority on medicine.

California air pollution

[ucblockhead]

California is no where near as polluted as it used to be. There are many other areas of the US which are substantially worse (Houstan, Atlanta). In addition, if it were an issue of pollution, you'd see substantial differences in Southern California, where smog hangs over the city, and the San Francisco Bay Area, where the prevailing winds blow most of the smog eastward.

Re:More on autism (my experiences)

[nackrm]

"...will have to suffer their entire lives as unattractive and anti-social."

Austism has no connection with how you look. In some cases there may be other complications from the autistic person, such as downs, but that's a whole differnt disorder.

"It's nothing more than just an enhanced perception of life"

I can't really blame you for thinking of Rainman or other similar cases when thinking of autism, but to think that the average person is made better by this disorder is kind of ignorant. In most cases, it's not only a person's social development that is slowed/stopped/messed up. In fact, their cognative levels are supressed throughout their life.

Re:More on autism (my experiences)

[Flat5]

If you think autism is "an enhanced perception of life," you are terribly misinformed.

Please, go spend some time with autistic children. Between your comments, those about "California hypochondriacs", and about evolution(!?), I am surprised at the level of ignorance about this disease. It is a profound illness, not just lonely smart kids. Not even close.

Flat5

Reading materials

[Yosemite Sue]

Could I suggest that people who are really interested about vaccines consult references on both sides of the story? Or even read something based on facts, on scientific methods, peer-reviewed (scientific publications in refereed journals)?

Oh, wait, this is /.! Never mind. ;-)

YS

Re:all sorts of theories

[s.fontinalis]

"I have to admit, it's alot of shots these days, and there's clear economic motives for the makers."

Never mind the horrors of death by Polio(you think an autistic childs a problem - try a full body polio cripple), or Tuberculosis, or Measles - the list of truly horrible diseases that killed MILLIONS and were all but eradicated by public vaccination goes on, as do the children saved with vaccinations.

Re:Sickle-Cell Comparison

[blamanj]

From Autism Today:

Since 1977, when the first autism twin study demonstrated higher concordance rates of autism among identical twins than fraternal twins, the evidence for inherited factors in autism has gained widespread recognition among researchers.

This article does state that autism does not follow the standard patterns for dominant, recessive or X-linked disorders, however.