The ff link might be of interest
After reading through the source materiel, I will admit I am not educated with the formulas they are using and I am not going to spend money on buying the full paper when it is speculation 'this protein emerges as a possible link between environmental factors that alter brain development and the genes that predispose to autism' Quoting Alberto Parras, the author of the study according to this link, (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0423-5) Sorry if I seem hostile but you should really read and find source material before posting as to not misinform people.
I am new to this forum so I will apologise if i have broken any rules or offended people.
I think you're quite right to be skeptical, Luke. The link is only in mouse models, and it's not clear how many of those genes are also only known from animal models. There may be something useful to learn if these things can be demonstrated in humans, but with a condition that is defined by cognitive, perceptual and social traits, I'm especially skeptical about such sensationalist reports based on animal studies. The mice might be showing behaviours that look autistic, but that doesn't mean that their psychological reason for doing so is the same.
At the same time, I don't have a problem with people posting these links, if only for my own scientific curiosity. If people only go and read them on their own, then folks like us don't get the chance to present our counter-arguments. I think it's unreasonable to expect that everyone has the scientific training or resources to understand the original sources; so bringing them up on the forum to see what other people's informed opinions are seems like a good substitute.
And yes - I hate those darned paywalls too! As a layman citizen, I just can't afford to pay to read the full papers, and I think it's important that at least a few of us are able to dig behind the hyperbole in the second hand reports.
Thanks for your response.
Misinform people? What on earth makes you think that those here are naive or stupid to be misinformed? Anyone who clicked the link can see that was the heading in the New Atlas article, not a statement of fact. I posted the link solely for the purpose of information regarding where some of the current research is at for those who are interested. Nobody is compelling or asking you to go and buy the original paper.
As for what you term "speculation", I'm afraid that's how science develops. Everything that is fact today was once speculation - speculation not from inebriated or wanton imagination - but informed and carefully considered speculation stemming from statistically sound experimentation. And yes, it starts with animal models.
Everyone knows what is scientific fact today started off as hypothesis, then theory. If it's the heading you find objectionable then my apologies. I figured anyone who read it would see that the heading comes from a "popular" science publication (kind of a tabloid) and not the original science journal, and so would instinctively know where to place or judge it. Maybe I figured wrongly.
Thanks for making me realize that.