29 Marbles

As far as I know, all of the arguments about the increase in autism diagnoses being too rapid to be purely genetic are based on an assumption of randomness in the process. From that perspective I must admit that it seems unlikely that you could explain the increase in autism diagnoses purely to genetics.

But is this really a random process?

This thought occurred to me yesterday when I heard a teaser for yesterday’s Talk of the Nation on NPR, on which they had a segment titled Genetically Engineering a ‘Perfect’ Baby. In the teaser, they played a quote from one of the guests in which he said something along the lines of:

We’ve been engaged in genetic engineering for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. It happens every night in bars and clubs and every where around the world, when men and women ’select’ the mate they want to help parent their child.

Which got me thinking: What if we (humans) have been engaged in a process of informal genetic engineering - maybe more appropriately referred to as selective breeding - over the past hundred years that has contributed to the increase in autism during that time, especially of the “high-functioning”, Asperger’s type of autism? I can hear many of you, even as I type this: What the hell are you talking about? And you can bet I’ve got my fire-suit on for all the flames that are sure to come my way. But I’m serious.

Consider this: Over the past 100 years or more, the engineers, scientists, mathematicians and other technically oriented people have become more important to the success and progress of our society. As these people’s importance has grown, so has their power and their desirability as a mate. As a result, these “geeks” have more opportunities to reproduce and further the survival of geek genes. When two geeks get together, especially if they are geeky in different ways, that is even more geekiness that passes down to their children.

Or, as a good friend once put it, “Geeks are breeding more now than they used to.” I apologize for the bluntness of the statement, or if it offends, but this is how she said it. (I’ve actually used that quote before, in an August 2005 post discussing the article Scientists begin to trace autism’s genetic roots in my hometown newspaper the St. Louis Post Dispatch.)

Does anyone know of any studies that address the non-randomness of mate selection and potential impact on genetic diversity, especially as it may relate to autism? I did a quick Google search, but didn’t really come up with much.

(Back on the subject of the Talk of the Nation segment, make sure you check it out. You can also join the conversation on the subject on their blog. Some very interesting comments so far.)

Remember at the end of the early-80’s movie, War Games, when Matthew Broderick’s character David showed the WOPR how to play tic-tac-toe, and then how the WOPR learned the futility of global thermonuclear war by comparing it to tic-tac-toe?  And how WOPR (or Joshua) then commented on the futility of a game that can not be won (except by not playing), and asked David if he would like to play a “nice game of chess”?

I can’t help wondering if the whole vaccine / autism thing is an exercise in futility for both sides, a game of unwinnable tic-tac-toe, or if it is a game of chess, still in the opening phase with the middle-and end-games left to come.  And if it is a game that can be won, what exactly is it that the victors will win?

In a comment to Lisa Jo Rudy’s brief examination of some of the issues in the autism-vaccine debate, Dadvocate had this to say:

Rather, it is that some, in their zeal to promote public health may be erroneously accepting a level of adverse reaction risk that is too high (and possibly avoidable by reverting to a more conservative schedule)….

The obvious (to me) question from this is, “Given that the current vaccine schedule results in an unacceptably high risk of autism in vaccinated children, what level of risk is acceptable? If the current risk is 1-in-150 (which, I should note is actually the prevalence and not the odds of being autistic), what risk is acceptable? 1-in-500? 1-in-1000? 1-in 10,000? None?”

This question is really for those who believe that vaccines are to blame for autism, and is but one strand in a much more complex thread. Among other things, the risk of individuals becoming autistic would need to be weighed against the risk to the public at large of reducing vaccinations.

At the risk of retreading old ground, exactly where do you think the balancing point would be between protection of individuals from autism and protection of society from communicable diseases? (If you don’t think this is a valid question, by all means let me know. I’m interested in that possibility as well.)

When was the last time you changed your mind about something related to autism? If you read back through my nearly three years of posts here you’ll see that my own thoughts on the matter have fluctuated quite a bit. (Good thing I’m not a politician!). It’s not that I have trouble making up my mind, it’s just that I seem to learn something new everyday that influences my opinions.

In a post entitled Nestor Lopez-Duran Ph.D on Autism, Science and Faith-Based Advocacy, Autism dad Harold Doherty, author of Facing Autism in New Brunswick, references the following comments from Lopez-Duran:

what I believe doesn’t really matter, because “beliefs” rapidly turn into blind faith, even amongst scientists. Instead, good science only occurs when positions are flexible and reflective only of the status of the research (data) at any given time

Nestor L. Lopez-Duran Ph.D., Translating Autism, About Science and faith-based advocacy

Doherty goes on to provide his own thoughts:

Many issues such as the mercury-autism, vaccine-autism, genetics-environment arguments in autism discussions purport to revolve around science but often depart from the science and embrace the faith-based advocacy referenced by Dr. Lopez-Duran. To the great detriment of anyone with an interest in understanding the nature and causes of autism.

It is very difficult to maintain this kind of cold objectivity when the subject in question is your own child. But if we, as a society, ever want to get anywhere on these questions (assuming there is somewhere to get to), this is an important lesson to keep in mind.

On a completely separate note, I will be taking a short break from posting here. You may still, however, see my name pop up in comments of other blogs. I plan to return on April 2, not coincidentally World Autism Awareness Day.

While wandering the aisles in the local Borders book store, I saw Donna Nakazawa’s new book, The Autoimmune Epidemic: Bodies Gone Haywire in a World out of Balance and the Cutting Edge Science that Promises Hope. This description is from the book’s official site:

Multiple sclerosis, lupus, Type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and nearly a hundred other chronic autoimmune illnesses are part of this devastating epidemic, in which the human body, acting on misread signals, literally begins to destroy itself. Alarmingly, the occurrence of many of these diseases has more than doubled in the last three decades, signaling a disturbing trend that can be directly tied to environmental factors in everyday modern life—including our daily exposure to a dizzying array of toxic chemicals.

With the conversation around a recent post fresh in my mind, I was drawn to the book to see what the author had to say about autism in the context of this autoimmune epidemic. There is one section, consisting of two pages, where she mentions the possible relationship of autoimmune issues, vaccines, and heavy metals (specifically mercury in the form of thimerosol) to autism. I don’t recall the specific wording, but she basically left it as, “We’ll have to wait and see what comes of the research.”

Has anyone had a chance to read this book yet? Any thoughts?

Last week I asked the question: What would it take to change your mind? I figured I should probably think of an answer for myself, this post includes some thoughts from my contemplation. This is not a complete argument for or against anything that I haven’t already stated, just some thoughts in process. Any thoughts of yours are certainly welcome.
= = == === =====

I don’t believe that autism is mercury poisoning, I’ve said that before. As for the number / types of vaccines being a trigger (I don’t believe it is a cause in the Newtonian sense), I’ve been thinking about it lately but haven’t seen any data to help me make a my mind.

Along those lines, the Age of Autism (which is, I must note, very openly of the opinion that mercury in the form of thimerosol in vaccines and/or the number of vaccines given to kids is the primary cause of most autism) yesterday pointed to the 2008 pediatrics vaccination schedules (0-6 years and 6 years and over).

WOW!!

That was about all I could think when I looked at the schedule. The schedule in and of itself doesn’t lead me to believe anything different than what I knew before, but it does give me an extra data point. The human immune system is an incredible, incredibly intelligent, incredibly complex system. (Though I’m sure there are many books specifically on the subject, The Genius Within includes a very description of how the process works.)

The challenge with a complex system (as opposed to a merely complicated system) is that the outcome of any given input to the system can not be predicted and that a specific cause for a measured outcome cannot be identified. From Dave Snowden (who thinks about complexity a lot):

• Complex systems can not be predicted, they are non-causal (taking cause in its normal Newtonian sense) in nature they evolve and the same thing will not happen again twice, we can predict aspects of the system and different aspects of time but never the outcome of the whole system
• The concept of a non-causal system is a very difficult one to grasp as the west abandoned the idea at the time of the Enlightenment (Vico and others were prophetic in arguing against this).
• A complex system can be simulated - which increases understanding but simulation should not (although it is often) confused with prediction
• We can understand starting conditions as a complex system evolves and we can influence their evolution if we focus on barriers and attractors (1st and 2nd order constraints) but not if we look at the end point (so attempting to predict makes things worse not better)
• Humans tend to premature convergence (seeing a pattern too quickly before it is stable) and also to retrospective coherence (implying past causality where there was none). Both of these tendencies are pervasive and dangerous

Which brings me to a very interesting dilemma:

• If autism (has a cause and) is indeed caused by an insult to the immune system, we can not predict which vaccine or combination of vaccines will cause it; and,
• Once autism is caused in an individual we can not look back through their vaccination history to determine which vaccine it was that did the causing.

And this doesn’t even bring into play the complexity of the interaction between the immune system and the rest of the body or the role of genetics, and genetic predisposition.
===== === == = =

Before you read the rest of this post, please take a moment (or, if you read as slow as I do, several moments) to read these two posts, by different authors, discussing the study Continuing Increases in Autism Reported to California’s Developmental Services System: Mercury in Retrograde and the accompanying essay Thimerosal Disappears but Autism Remains published in this month’s Archives of General Psychiatry:

• Thimerosal Exposure Declines, Autism Rates Increase (Autism Vox)
• Making Sense of the California Autism Numbers (Age of Autism)

So, what do you think? Does the study prove anything? Disprove anything? If you believed before reading these posts that autism is caused primarily by thimerosal (or mercury in general), did reading these posts change your mind, or cause you to doubt that position? Conversely, if you believed before reading these posts that thimerosal / mercury is not a cause of autism, did reading these posts cause you to change your mind, or to question your beliefs?

On the Autism Blog at About.com, Lisa Jo Rudy hits the nail right on the head with this pessimistic (but unfortunately accurate) observation:

Knowing the autism community as I do, I find it hard to believe that these findings will change much of anything. Those who believe firmly that vaccines are NOT to blame for the rise in autism diagnoses will stand on these findings as proof positive of their claims. Meanwhile, those who believe firmly in the toxic nature of vaccines will continue to advocate for an end to required vaccinations - and for compensation for vaccine damage to their children.

In his article on Age of Autism, Mark Blaxill effectively quotes Karl Popper as a guide in his examination and acceptance of criticism to his theory:

He who gives up his theory too easily in the face of apparent refutations will never discover the possibilities inherent in his theory. There is room in science for debate: for attack and therefore also for defense…But do not give up your theories too easily–not, at any rate before you have critically examined your criticism.

But this then begs the question, at what point do you give up your theories. In discussing his conversion from atheism to theism (I believe Christianity, though he never comes out and says it) in his book There is a God, Antony Flew writes:

Now it often seems to people who are not atheists as if there is no conceivable piece of evidence that wold be admitted by apparently scientific-minded dogmatic atheists to be a sufficient reason for conceding “There might be a God after all.” I therefore put to my former fellow-atheists the simple central question: “What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a reason to at least consider the existence of a superior Mind?”

Obviously, this question can go both ways, and can be applied to just about any partisan disagreement, including the one at hand. With that in mind, I’ll rephrase the questions I asked above:

• If you believe that thimerosal is not a primary cause of autism, what would it take to convince you that it actually is?
• If you believe that thimerosal is the primary cause of autism, what would it take to convince you that is not?

Note: please don’t respond with something along the lines of “nothing could make me change my mind because it is obvious that my belief is correct.” If that it how you feel, then you don’t have anything worthwhile to contribute to this conversation and I’d prefer it if you didn’t clog up the comments.