OK, it is too early to see if they have indeed found the autism gene (if it even exists). To date, the last 4 times they “thought” they had nailed it they found the suspect gene was as prevalant or more so in the non-autistic population.
This time it looks like they are on a better track. It is not a secret that autism greatly resembles other auto-immunity problems, or that it is most likely an occurance of a gene which is triggered by an external factor, unlike genetic conditions which are present from birth (like Down’s or Fragile X).
From FEAT:
Genetic Link To Autism Found, Scientist Pooh-poohs Epidemic
[By Matthew Flitton in the Standard-Examiner, Salt Lake City.]
http://www.standard.net/standard/news/news_story.html?sid=00020402231035114462+cat=news+template=news1.html <- - address ends here.
Researchers at Utah State University have found a group of genes linked to the occurrence of autism.
The study, which will be published in this month’s issue of Human Immunology, identifies an allele that migrates with the disease through families. The finding may help in treating the disorder.
“If they (professionals) can catch them (children with autism) early, they can take them from under-performers to mainstream students in school,” said Anthony R. Torres, director in the immunogenetics laboratory in the Center for Persons with Disabilities at USU.
The genes are found on an area of the sixth chromosome known as human leukocyte antigens, or HLA. Torres said the tendency toward autism is inherited from the father.
“It tells us that autism has an immune component,” he said.
Researchers have believed for quite some time that autism may be caused by a combination of environmental and genetic factors. The new findings point in the same direction.
“We can keep looking at the immune system in autism,” Torres said.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, autism occurs in at least one in 500 people and is four times more common in males than females. Torres said reported incidents are rising and estimates the number to be closer to six people out of every 1,000. But he said the higher number doesn’t indicate an autism epidemic.
“That’s due to better diagnostic criteria,” he said.
Torres said USU has been studying autism for 16 or 17 years.
One final comment:
The scientist who dismisses outright the rise in autism over the last 15 years or so has no clue what he is saying. If autism were occuring 25 years ago at the same rate it is now, then where are all these adults on Spectrum? Presumedly they have been misdiagnosed (as either MR or psychotic) and would be most likely be living now in resedential hospitals. The trouble is, several studies were conducted in the last 5 years with this very thought in mind and they have all failed to find the “hidden cache” of autistic adults. Additionally, the schools also confirm that there is a huge influx of autistic children. Autistic children behave in a manner which is somewhat unique, once you see it for what it is it becomes very easy to recognize. And the fact of the matter is, the mass of these children were not present 30 years ago like they are now. Finally, the CA Centers for Excellence have been tracking the numbers of children passing thru their centers since IDEA was passed. They were very accurate with their diagnosis of autism, and a recent study of their 27 years of records showed that 80% of all the autistic children they have served were born after 1980, and 65% were born after 1993.
Make no mistake, whether this is the gene or not, whether their even is an “autism gene” at all, something is causing an “epidemic” of autism (approx. 7000% increase in incidence since Kanner first discovered autism in 1938, a problem for which there was no historical precedence). Current estimates are that there are 500,000 autisitc people living in the US, and at 7 per 1,000 as the current prevalance rate, 25,000 are born each year. That is ~67 per day, or ~3 each hour, or 1 every 21 minutes and 27 seconds.
Yea, I don't buy it either.
I’m sorry, but while autism does have its spectrum elements, and certainly some people that have a diagnosis today would have just been considered eccentric earlier, there are an awful lot of folks who would have been diagnosed with *something* and written up and plopped into an institution, where their behaviors would have been duly recorded every once in a while and it would hvae been reasonably feasible to figure out that “yes, 10% of the folks here in 1966 were probably autistic.” It’s not like there aren’t enough grad students in search of topics.
Seems to me the folks who took Rachel Carson and her ilk seriously get the utterly ungratifying experience of saying “we tried to tell you…”
Re: Yea, I don't buy it either.
Being a nurse working with the developmentally delayed population,a LOT of residents in these group homes or ICF/MR MUST have a diagnosis of MR instead of Autism to qualify to be placed in thse much more comprehensive placement. Because of this, I would have to venture a guess and say quite a few residents in my day were truely autistic,but were not called autistic so they would simply have a place to live. Just wanted to throw another wrench in the works.
my two cents
To quote my physician husband: “it doesn’t matter what you call your “condition” if the treatment is the same.” In other words, if all the research doesn’t produce a *new* treatment, “cure”, etc., then it is just so many words. .
With all the hoopla surrounding the astounding increase in autism and the finger pointing the suspicion at vaccines and thimerosal, is it not quite the coincidence that there is a new “genetic” component discovered by (who funded this?) research as the causative factor of autism.
And, the rise in autism is “… due to better diagnostic criteria.” Tell that to my sister. Forgive my cynicism as I clear my throat in disbelief.