Genetics does not explain steep raise in last a few decades.
Anyway, we do not really know what is causing it, have no real idea what it even is. But we must apply occam's razor very very quickly!
Anyway, we do not really know what is causing it, have no real idea what it even is. But we must apply occam's razor very very quickly!
If I were to include additional biological possibilities, I'd include: a) birth control -> waiting to have children until a later age, more de novo mutations due to age. b) assortive mating, since some careers tend to attract those on the within and on the edges of the spectrum., c) perhaps controversially, and with the very little research on the subject, endocrine disruption from plastic waste exposures.
Is it politically correct to write about later stage pregnancies? It would be insta ban only a few years ago.
Perhaps soon we will be able to openly discus something else, that may cause endocrine disruption, not just plastics!
> general cognitive decline
According to whom? The Flynn effect famously says the opposite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
My research for the last 10 years has been dedicated to collecting and analyzing data for the Autism Phenome Project [1]. Unlike almost all autism neuroimaging research, we include the full spectrum of autism, with a third of our participants with severe intellectual disabilities, closely matching their share of the autistic population, as well as those who are non-verbal, have extreme specific phobias and anxiety, sensory sensitivities, self-injurious behaviors: the full spectrum. It still frustrates me to no end that almost every neuroimaging study you read by default excludes those with IQs less than 80, while our cohort has managed, through very hard work, managed to image individuals with IQs in the 20-60 range with regular success.
I appreciate the effort it takes to include that group. My brother has severe/low functioning autism and he also has very limited language capability (limited vocabulary with simplified grammatical constructions, mix of ASL/SEE signs and spoken words, difficulty producing certain sounds). I've always found it odd that even studies that mainly use data gathered by imaging or other medical tests that don't rely on the subject's mental capacity to participate almost always have no subjects that resemble him at all. I've always assumed it's because it's significantly harder to manage such subjects and probably also very likely for their families to be unable to bring them in for testing in studies that span years.
Surely it should be easy to collect the data to plot such a hypothesis: incidence rate vs age of father and vs age of mother at conception, and at birth.
as we built better telescopes, we found more stars
like all things in life, it's not the only variable. but better recognition is absolutely a factor.
Before there were government services families still had children with profound disabilities that required lifelong care, they just didn't usually have any formal diagnosis. Everyone still understood that they need help with everyday activities and can't live on their own but sending them to specialist for a diagnosis didn't seem like something that was needed or even available if desired. The diagnosis is needed if you're applying for services, so more services that exist means more formal diagnosis will happen.
B) Nope. There are more autistic people because tests improved.
This common discourse annoys me a little, frankly. The problem is that "B" does not imply "not A". Both explanations can be true at the same time.
But people people will automatically discard "A" because "A is problematic". It implies a cause, and we may not like it, so is removed from the discussion ASAP.
The same kind of "problematic" that was to observe in 1960's that "smokers develop lung cancer frequently, maybe tobacco causes cancer". Companies will fight teeth and nails to dismiss it and say "look at the cute squirrel over there".
But is true that we started to notice much more autistic people after the use of some particular pesticide became widespread in the entire planet. May be related. May be not. May be a common result triggered by many causes, but we should not jump to bring home the "nice" B just because is nice (and politically convenient)