Hundreds of autism genes found to be triggered by a single key protein

Hi Folks,

The ff link might be of interest

https://newatlas.com/autism-genes-triggered-key-protein/55943/

Goodnight.

Parents Reply Children
  • Wouldn't you agree that if this research is eventually scaled to human subjects and the results are the same, which happens often enough though not always, then that constitutes a potential avenue for therapeutic intervention?

    Yes, I certainly agree. My skepticism is, I hope, the healthy skepticism of a scientist. The finding is certainly promising enough to be taken further, and I hope that it is.

    But wouldn't you agree any potential therapeutic intervention that removes the crippling depression, anxiety and OCD is worth knowing about?

    Yes, again. Like you, I don't seek a cure for autism, but I'd love to know that I will never suffer from acute depression ever again. I wouldn't even be averse to some treatment for specific traits of my autism, especially if they were short-acting. Even a slight improvement in my executive functioning could make a huge difference to my life - not for the sake of being more "normal", but because it would help me to achieve things that I want to achieve and for which no other kind of support presents itself.

    I'm also just fascinated by science in general, as I have been since childhood; and since my diagnosis, the science of autism particularly.

    I must admit that, on reading back, my criticism of the article in my previous post does come across rather more strident than I meant it to. My bile gets up sometimes when I read hyperbolic journalism and I can't get at the sources; and I forget that the word skeptical has a far more negative connotation for many people than it does for me. My eagle-eye for the slightest hint of sensationalism gets the better of me sometimes and I forget to point out the promising parts!

    This brings me to a point I made on another site just recently. In the absence of being able to read the source papers, those of us who wish to promote better scientific literacy and journalism are put into an awkward position, because it leaves us with little of the information we need to present good counter arguments to sensationalism and inaccuracies. All we can do is nit-pick at the ambiguous and hyperbolic language, generalise about how statistics can be biased, and mumble something about how many further stages of research will be needed before we should start to get really excited. If I had been able to read the paper and to understand at least some of it, my post might have been rather different (though not necessarily any better!)

    Best wishes.