100 genes linked to autism discovered... bad news for future autistic children

It is important the media handles these revelations properly. The media likes to sensationalise. Proper understanding of the research may not have been achieved when released to the press.

Researchers often prematurely release findings in the hope of attracting more funding. We tend not to hear that the research later fizzled out for the ill-researched nonsense it actually was.

In the 1960s scientists got into a complete muddle, identifying certain XYY chromosome males who were tall and had acne, with certain psychopathic killers in American prisons - and the supermale syndrome came into being. The fact the prisoners weren't XYY chromosome, but were just tall and had acne, took a while to surface. The resultant hysteria and nonsense rattled on for a decade and a half before being discredited.

In 1971 the Doomwatch series on BBC showed a story about a schoolboy thus suspected of being a psychopath. That in particular led to a lot of public abuse of tall young men. I'm 2 metres tall, and clumsy with it, usually looking a bit hostile (but not XYY chromosome, and I didn't have acne), so I felt the fall-out from Doomwatch. I'll never forgive the BBC for the harm they did.

I wish NAS would be careful over some of these press releases. On another thread I've expressed concern about NAS getting involved in speculation about Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock Holmes character being on the spectrum. It does a lot of harm, because it stereotypes us, and adds to the public misunderstanding of autism.

I find myself wondering if it will be only acceptable to screen out AS(+?) embryos? Could an AS individual/couple/grouping screen out NT(+?) embryos? 

There is something fundamentally wrong with being unkind to those who are different.

We legislate against certain types of discrimination, which leaves others wholly unprotected. To disciminate on the grounds of race and creed is penalised socially as well as legally, it's non PC. Why then are we seeing a rise in bullying of disabled people or those with ginger hair.

What we need is education from starting school onward, to ensure that difference is embraced. Then perhaps, those with minds more geared to logic than socialising would be appreciated for their tallents, not aborted because others will make their lives a misery.

It is evolution, not mutation.

Outraged has once again hit the nail on the head. Every single living human on this planet is a 'mutated' version of the original humans to come out of Africa several thousand years ago. And yet in this country, to refer to white people as 'mutants' would be seen as diabolical

Its the use of deriviatives of root term "mutant" that I find most perjorative here. Factually, every gene has been "mutated" by the processes of life...such is fundemental to the evolutionary process...given that all genes are mutant genes, the use of such terms here can only be deliberate dehumanisiation...

Azalea, the problem is that people continue to think having an autistic child is a negative thing. I am very much for women having the choice to abort a child if she feels unable to look after it. And I think that women alone should make that decision, as although a man is obviously 50% responsible for the creation of a child, the woman is the one who has to carry it inside her for 9 months, then go through the struggle of childbirth. However, I believe that with better education on how autistic people experience life instead of the biased rubbish that is pumped out today, parents might have a better understanding of their potentially autistic child and nourish and encourage their strengths. Autistic people do have strengths. The trouble is, the world at the moment is catered for those with a particular set of strengths (socialising), so that those of use with different and equally important strengths (maths, science, arts etc.) can flourish and actually be happy. The way things are now, the most social are the happiest and those who are gifted in other areas but who are limited in social areas are dumped upon and made to feel worthless

www.bbc.co.uk/.../health-29819746

The BBC science editors seem to understand the science better than the Telegraph's. According to the BBCs reporting of the same story, the 100 mutant genes is part of the story for a small portion of people with autism. Otherwise they have identified 33 genes linked to the far more common inherited autism variants. These genes aren't mutant, they are just different to NT peoples genetic code. The article doesn't say how many cases are not explained by genes.

I would be interested to have the Telegraphs science editor Sarah Knapton tested for genes linked to IQ. How would she like it if her incapacity for understanding science was suddenly classified as a screenable mutation?

Hi Laddo,

Thanks for bringing this to our attention....

Very depressing. So many scientists are unable to grasp the difference between correlation and cause. 

I was thinking the same thing about the researchers. There have to be millions of so-called "normal" people out there carrying at least a few of these genes. I wonder how long it will take before we are just accepted as different, not broken?

I also think we should be told how many of those genes are present in members of

a) the maths, physics and engineering depts at our top universities

b) the research teams involved in this research.

How would they react if they suspect their genetic lines might be strangled by this.

Don't let the b's grind you down.

I read the article and it is gross and insensitive. I've flagged to the mods to ask for a statement from NAS on what impact they think this might have on us.