There's an air of traditionality about it, as well, I think; it's as if to imply that American accents are divergent from the original core. (Although this is somewhat in question, as the evidence says that English pronunciation was rhotic in the 18th Century, like the General American accent and not like Received Pronunciation.) It was particularly peculiar to hear Americans making movies about Russians where they all had English accents.
Just to give you the benefit of the doubt, I sent an e-mail to my boss at the local autism research lab asking whether or not she believes autism is linked to some environmental factor. This is what I got back:
Absolutely yes to environment. The increase in rates is not just from increased recognition and diagnosis and broader definitions. The next steps for us are epigenetics which looks more at the environment's impact directly on our genes (methylation, gene expression). Our new equipment will do this! When people say it can't be genetics because of the rapid increase and our genes haven't changed that much in a couple generations, I say, we have the same genes in the pool but the expression is different. I think genes that cause autism now, may have caused schizophrenia and bipolar at a later age then. Toxicity is building up too quickly so we're getting earlier onset in the form of autism.
This is from someone who has been working in the field for a little under two decades and is closely involved in the collection of saliva and blood samples for genetic analysis and who has been involved in the publication of dozens of papers.
Right. We've already punched those people in the face. I am not a McCarthyite. I am a bioinformatics student who consults for an ASD research group. I'm sorry about them, I really am.
Agreed. Here, for the record, is a list of major Foxconn customers. It's basically a list of major hardware manufacturers. Foxconn products are everywhere, and it's ridiculous that Apple is getting all the flak.
FUN FACT: Sweden has the 30th highest suicide rate, below both New Zealand and Switzerland. The worst country in the world (for which we have statistics) is Lithuania, apparently.
I should perhaps reiterate that I've worked with autism researchers in the past. It's much more than a hypothesis; we're having real trouble explaining the phenomenon in terms of pure genetics. It is not hard to find an autism researcher who is downright certain that there is some environmental factor in the illness. Think Sherlock: we're running out of other stuff to rule out.
I'm curious as to why so many people seem to be jumping out of the woodwork and complaining about this. It's not even remotely a novel claim. The world is full of chemicals that interact with each other (and our bodies) in ways we don't understand, and the number of changes in human behaviour and health that they have caused is staggering. It should come as no surprise that we're changing as we change the world around us, even if it turns out that the entire autistic spectrum can be firmly rooted in heritable traits.
Then I believe we are more or less at consensus. FWIW, the paper is from way back in 2000. The second miRNA was discovered that year, in C. elegans. It's an artefact of its age, I guess.
I wasn't trying to argue originally that the data said exhaustively that autism is primarily a matter of environment, merely that most autism researchers were confident that there was an environmental component involved. I guess I should be more careful about using literal language with this topic in particular.:)
Of course the idea is bullshit. The reality isn't, however. A person could, for example, settle for older computers that weren't made in East Asia under slavish conditions to improve profit margins. Unfortunately, you'd most likely be looking at fairly antique hardware.
Suzuki is indeed and unfortunately more of a PR mouthpiece than a real human being at this point (much less researcher); perhaps it would be better to say he illuminates the opinion of the research community by exploiting it to his own shallow ends rather than anything else. And yes, "disease" is a bad word to use; both pieces are dated (the first by age and the second by shortage of recent exposure) and hence prone to what today would be considered something of a faux pas. Make no mistake: it is improbable that it has anything to do with junk food, and Suzuki should have been shot for suggesting that. More likely culprits would be air and water contaminants, or perhaps some cocktail of food preservatives.
The word "autism" is also hilariously broad, certainly. One reason the diagnostic categories are expanding is that researchers want to understand the whole spectrum of attributes that go into making the really dysfunctional cases what they are. As my boss likes to parrot, almost everyone has one or more traits that would be considered autistic if they appeared in the right combination with other aspects; in fact, the diagnostic questionnaires (which you've probably seen) are scored by adding up the 'autisminess' of the responses, so even that is a spectrum. Of course, it's hard to take the news from a psychiatrist that your son has a surplus of autistic traits when they explain it like it's a disaster.
There's another confounding factor, also, in how the population of diagnoses has grown, besides shifting definitions and older people getting re-assessed: better-educated (as well as more paranoid) young families are more likely to seek diagnoses out in the first place. In retrospect there's probably too much interference to say honestly if the rate of autistic traits is increasing or not.
I will go half way with you on editing: let's keep "recognized" where it is, but we adopt your "but it's never been demonstrated [conclusively]." I invite you to read this paper, and look at page eight of this. We can say with good certainty that genetic effects alone are probably insufficient to explain the entire autistic problem, as cases are still going up—it's not just a matter of more sensitive diagnostics (this is in TFA.) All that's left to do is to invoke Conan Doyle, and use some good old-fashioned Holmesian abduction: the environment looks pretty damn suspect.
Slashdot Mirror
FYI, HTC and Nokia are both Foxconn customers.
Can't disagree. Nice catch! We'll call that a nickel right there.
Posted.
There's an air of traditionality about it, as well, I think; it's as if to imply that American accents are divergent from the original core. (Although this is somewhat in question, as the evidence says that English pronunciation was rhotic in the 18th Century, like the General American accent and not like Received Pronunciation.) It was particularly peculiar to hear Americans making movies about Russians where they all had English accents.
It was a general comment on individual greed; i.e. "people will systematically overvalue their own money and undervalue others."
It depends on whether he's buying or selling. Selling: rounded up. Buying: rounded down.
Just to give you the benefit of the doubt, I sent an e-mail to my boss at the local autism research lab asking whether or not she believes autism is linked to some environmental factor. This is what I got back:
Absolutely yes to environment. The increase in rates is not just from increased recognition and diagnosis and broader definitions. The next steps for us are epigenetics which looks more at the environment's impact directly on our genes (methylation, gene expression). Our new equipment will do this! When people say it can't be genetics because of the rapid increase and our genes haven't changed that much in a couple generations, I say, we have the same genes in the pool but the expression is different. I think genes that cause autism now, may have caused schizophrenia and bipolar at a later age then. Toxicity is building up too quickly so we're getting earlier onset in the form of autism.
This is from someone who has been working in the field for a little under two decades and is closely involved in the collection of saliva and blood samples for genetic analysis and who has been involved in the publication of dozens of papers.
I respectfully ask you to change your opinion.
It's still shuffling around; cancer rates pretty much prove this. Also, DDT is still used in some countries.
Right. We've already punched those people in the face. I am not a McCarthyite. I am a bioinformatics student who consults for an ASD research group. I'm sorry about them, I really am.
I'm getting a little frustrated with all of these redundant posts. They're right over here.
Agreed. Here, for the record, is a list of major Foxconn customers. It's basically a list of major hardware manufacturers. Foxconn products are everywhere, and it's ridiculous that Apple is getting all the flak.
Will do!
FUN FACT: Sweden has the 30th highest suicide rate, below both New Zealand and Switzerland. The worst country in the world (for which we have statistics) is Lithuania, apparently.
Who would you buy from, then?
We already discussed that. The consumer does not have the power to steer Apple; you and I remain screwed on that front.
That makes sense. Thanks!
You may want to read the other replies to that comment. They've already been given and discussed.
I should perhaps reiterate that I've worked with autism researchers in the past. It's much more than a hypothesis; we're having real trouble explaining the phenomenon in terms of pure genetics. It is not hard to find an autism researcher who is downright certain that there is some environmental factor in the illness. Think Sherlock: we're running out of other stuff to rule out.
I'm curious as to why so many people seem to be jumping out of the woodwork and complaining about this. It's not even remotely a novel claim. The world is full of chemicals that interact with each other (and our bodies) in ways we don't understand, and the number of changes in human behaviour and health that they have caused is staggering. It should come as no surprise that we're changing as we change the world around us, even if it turns out that the entire autistic spectrum can be firmly rooted in heritable traits.
Really? I'm mildly surprised. I'd tear mine apart, but I don't want to lift three CRTs this late at night. Do you have an A1000 for comparison?
Then I believe we are more or less at consensus. FWIW, the paper is from way back in 2000. The second miRNA was discovered that year, in C. elegans. It's an artefact of its age, I guess.
I wasn't trying to argue originally that the data said exhaustively that autism is primarily a matter of environment, merely that most autism researchers were confident that there was an environmental component involved. I guess I should be more careful about using literal language with this topic in particular. :)
Yes.
Of course the idea is bullshit. The reality isn't, however. A person could, for example, settle for older computers that weren't made in East Asia under slavish conditions to improve profit margins. Unfortunately, you'd most likely be looking at fairly antique hardware.
Suzuki is indeed and unfortunately more of a PR mouthpiece than a real human being at this point (much less researcher); perhaps it would be better to say he illuminates the opinion of the research community by exploiting it to his own shallow ends rather than anything else. And yes, "disease" is a bad word to use; both pieces are dated (the first by age and the second by shortage of recent exposure) and hence prone to what today would be considered something of a faux pas. Make no mistake: it is improbable that it has anything to do with junk food, and Suzuki should have been shot for suggesting that. More likely culprits would be air and water contaminants, or perhaps some cocktail of food preservatives.
The word "autism" is also hilariously broad, certainly. One reason the diagnostic categories are expanding is that researchers want to understand the whole spectrum of attributes that go into making the really dysfunctional cases what they are. As my boss likes to parrot, almost everyone has one or more traits that would be considered autistic if they appeared in the right combination with other aspects; in fact, the diagnostic questionnaires (which you've probably seen) are scored by adding up the 'autisminess' of the responses, so even that is a spectrum. Of course, it's hard to take the news from a psychiatrist that your son has a surplus of autistic traits when they explain it like it's a disaster.
There's another confounding factor, also, in how the population of diagnoses has grown, besides shifting definitions and older people getting re-assessed: better-educated (as well as more paranoid) young families are more likely to seek diagnoses out in the first place. In retrospect there's probably too much interference to say honestly if the rate of autistic traits is increasing or not.
I believe the AC's point is that there is no alternative, short of neo-Luddism.
I will go half way with you on editing: let's keep "recognized" where it is, but we adopt your "but it's never been demonstrated [conclusively]." I invite you to read this paper, and look at page eight of this. We can say with good certainty that genetic effects alone are probably insufficient to explain the entire autistic problem, as cases are still going up—it's not just a matter of more sensitive diagnostics (this is in TFA.) All that's left to do is to invoke Conan Doyle, and use some good old-fashioned Holmesian abduction: the environment looks pretty damn suspect.