Talk:Heritability of autism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Heritability of autism article.
Article policies
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1 (February 2007)

Contents

[edit] General (multicausal) theories

I moved the following subsection, recently contributed to Causes of autism by User:Idealiot in this edit, to this talk page, as Causes of autism merely summarizes genetic causes and references Heritability of autism as the main page for the subject. I'm leaving this section here for genetics editors to see and use if they like. The only scholarly reference I've found to the 1993 publication in question is a 2000 paper by the same author. Eubulides 04:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Eub for keeping my words in sight, but really it does belong not here but on the autism causes pages (as I explained on that talk page). I propose to abridge the piece and move it back to the causes page (draft abridgment follows immediately below). E wrote "The only scholarly reference I've found to the 1993 publication.." - but so what? More to the point not a single fault of reasoning or evidence has been shown. Loads of the greatest discoveries were totally ignored/derided for decades by "distinguished experts", so that comment is merely an exhibition of ignorance. And many people would consider Rimland's ARRI to be ultra-high in the scholarship rankings anyway -he did only revolutionise the field twice (debunking refrigerator mothers; first recognition of increase data).--Idealiot 14:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General reduction of gene-expression

This is a “general” theory of autism causation not least in that it integrates together a diversity of environmental and genetic factors into a unified autism/high-IQ factor of general suppression of gene-expression.

The paper relates that concept to a seemingly comprehensive review of autism data including social class and gender differentials and otherwise-puzzling observations such as the hand-flapping and posturing. It declares that no-one has found any incompatible evidence or error of reasoning. It claims that autism involves primary abnormalities in diverse parts of the brain.

The theory was favourably mentioned by Bernard Rimland in his Autism Research Review International in 1993 and 1994. No published criticism is in evidence (highly unusual for a theory of any substance).

A pdf reprint is available free at http://cogprints.org/5207

Pre-abridgement version:

[edit] General reduction of gene-expression

This gene-expression theory of autism was published in 1993 (pdf reprint free at http://cogprints.org/5207).

It is a “general” theory of autism causes in that it integrates together a diversity of environmental and genetic factors into a unified autism/high-IQ factor of general suppression of gene-expression. It thus appears to be compatible with several of the other (more specific) causal hypotheses, and indeed supportive of them. It claims to refute the commonly-stated notion that autism remains a puzzling mystery yet to be solved.

The paper relates its “antiinnatia” concept to a long putatively comprehensive list of autism characteristics compiled by L Wing and others. It declares that the author has been unable to find any incompatible evidence. Data on the social class and gender differentials are also given explanation, as are otherwise-puzzling observations such as the hand-flapping and posturing.

The theory suggests that autism involves primary abnormalities in diverse parts of the brain and in diverse psychological functions. Random binding to DNA is proposed as one concrete mechanism of the antiinnatia.

The theory was favourably mentioned by Bernard Rimland in his Autism Research Review International in 1993 and 1994, but otherwise it appears to have been ignored. No published criticism is in evidence (an unusual situation for a theory of any substance).

The reprint’s webpage states that a paper giving update information relating to this paper, confirming three predictions and providing resolution of the later autism increase controversy is in preparation. As of 24th July 2007 there is no sign of this update.

[edit] Comments on Clarke's theory

As I explained in Talk:Causes_of_autism#General (multicausal) theories this is a gene-expression theory that most people would file under genetics, —This is part of a comment by Eubulides , which got interrupted by the following: <<No, it is a causes of autism theory which they would file under causes and not genetics. Just your peculiar idea there. Any halfbaked excuse to remove from the causes page basically.>> so it belongs in this (genetics) page not the more-general causes page. As for the quality of the theory itself, I'm not convinced it deserves so much coverage here. —This is part of a comment by Eubulides , which got interrupted by the following: <<Sorry, why should anyone give a d about your personal opinion of its merits? How about that of Rimland who was ever so slightly more distinguished in the field? How many of those other theories did he mention in his ARRI? What solid reasons for holding a low rating of it??? (If you consider ignoring by others to be a sound reason for ignoring then you put yourself in the same fool-bin as those who dismissed numerous great works such as stat thermodynamics, circulation of blood, plate tectonics, etc etc etc ad nauseam . Go on just do it.)>>

One brief sentence would be plenty. —This is part of a comment by Eubulides , which got interrupted by the following: <<How about applying that concept to your own excessive halfbakery here?>>

The test of a theory is not merely whether it has ever been refuted, but whether it is useful. —This is part of a comment by Eubulides , which got interrupted by the following: <<Who says so, and on what basis?>> This one has not been useful. —This is part of a comment by Eubulides , which got interrupted by the following: <>Evidence please. I have already mentioned that numerous of the greatest (Very useful) discoveries were ignored for decades by narrowminded "superior" contemporaries. Why should the usefulness opinion of mere you count for so much? I have to say that your own efforts here have distinctly negative usefulness, indeed approximating to functioning as a troll.>>

I've found one mention of it in a peer-reviewed publication (by the same author). —This is part of a comment by Eubulides , which got interrupted by the following: <<which is a point I have already shown to be ridiculous in the heritability talk page (see preceding para here).>>

The author himself has apparently moved on to saying that the theory is confirmed by the fact that autism is associated with watching television, and that mercury amalgams are the cause of recent autism increases; see Clarke's 2006 tribute to Rimland, so the theory is not languishing for his lack of trying. Eubulides 16:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. The theory is distinguished by a huge lack of promotion by its author, partly for reasons he briefly indicates in that tribute. Persistent obstruction by negative busybodies does not help either (exactly as encountered by numerous greatest discoveries in the past). Eub evidently adheres to a fallacious notion that establishment dogma = consensus = ok to present as absolute truth on the wiki pages. "Useful" for making oneself popular but not much else. --Idealiot 00:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:UNDUE, particularly the segment "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not", and WP:COI, WP:REDFLAG (particularly the line "Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.") and WP:FRINGE. If it's not supported by the mainstream, you will have to be patient until it is, not champion it here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. WLU 12:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I concur with WLU. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talkheader added

I've added the talkheader because this page is hard to read; signing talk page entries would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] glutathione S-transferase polymorphs and ASD

I Just stumbled upon the following in this article about environmental factors and mental health in this latest issue of Environmental Health Perspectives:

Research in the April 2007 issue of the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine showed a positive correlation between a diagnosis of autism in children and a polymorphism in a gene coding for the enzyme glutathione S-transferase in their mothers. These enzymes are involved in the detoxification of endogenous compounds such as peroxidized lipids, and in the metabolism of xenobiotic agents. The researchers determined the frequency of glutathione polymorphisms in 137 members of 49 families with a history of autistic spectrum disorders. Mothers of children with autism were 2.7 times more likely to carry the GSTP1*A haplotype. The results suggest that the haplotype “may be acting in mothers during pregnancy to contribute to the phenotype of autism in the fetus.” Source: Williams TA, Mars AE, Buyske SG, Stenroos ES,Wang R, Factura-Santiago MF, et al. 2007. Risk of autistic disorder in affected offspring of mothers with a glutathione S-transferase P1 haplotype. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 161(4):356–361.

Anyways, I don't see any mention of this gene in this article, so I thought I'd bring it up here. Yilloslime 18:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I added a brief mention. This part of the article needs a good rewrite to turn it into a decent review, but that's a bigger task. Eubulides 22:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neurexin 1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Omim/getmap.cgi?chromosome=NRXN1&first=+Find+&start=5378 references NRXN1 as part of chromosome 2 and not 11, but I'm not a specialist, please confirm Agravier (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Right you are. Thanks. I fixed it. Eubulides (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)