Specific neurons that secrete oxytocin in the brain are disrupted in a mouse model of autism, neuroscientists have found. Stimulating these neurons restored social behaviors in these mice. These findings could help to develop new ways to treat autism.

[u/mvea]

https://www.riken.jp/en/news_pubs/research_news/rr/20250207_1/index.html

[u/bigasssuperstar]

Scientists' presumptions that what looks like autism in their judgment of mouse behaviour is the same thing as what they think looks like autism in human behaviour is still stuck in the idea that what makes humans autistic can be understood from analysis of behaviour by non-autistic people.

IOW, they think they understand human autism; they think mouse autism is that, too; they think helping mouse autism will help autistic humans. But I don't believe they understand human autism at the start of that chain.

I don't question the methods they're using to test their hypotheses, but this is so many steps removed from autistic adults and what they say about their experience of the world that I don't trust it to be applicable to human autism.

[u/iprocrastina → u/bigasssuperstar]

When you do studies on rodents you're exploring new avenues of research. You don't just start on humans. The idea here is that maybe this neurological deficit seen in mice might be occurring in humans too.

edit: Hit "post" by accident. To continue, when you have promising results in rodents you then have justification to look for the same thing in animals more similar to humans. If things look good there, you can move onto human research. You can't just start screwing around with people's bodies on a hunch, you need to convince an ethics board it's worth the risk.

[u/bigasssuperstar → u/iprocrastina]

If I'm following what you're saying, applying a drug to a mouse embryo results in damage that scientists see expressed as behaviour.....so maybe the humans who behave something like that are also damaged?

[u/Solwake- → u/bigasssuperstar]

You're absolutely correct about the limitations of mouse models of human health conditions, especially ones related to behaviour. There is always a tendency to over-attribute mouse findings to humans both on the science communication side and the lay population side, because it's exciting and you want people to read the article. There is also the whole ethics of "treating autism" ofc, but we won't get into that.

In science, a model is a model is a model. In this case, the valproic acid exposure rodent model is a pragmatic tool to approximately explore one sliver of the phenomenon of autism. It's used as a model because we have strong evidence that valproic acid exposure in humans leads to one kind of autism in humans and that exposure in mice leads to consequences that in some ways looks like autism at the behavioural level AND physiological level. While there is always talk of "treatment", this kind of science is also a tool we use to better understand human autism, because as you rightly point out, there's still a lot we don't know. It's much faster to find something interesting in a rodent model and then develop a safe/ethical way to look for the same thing in humans to see if it means anything for human autism. No scientist worth their salt would draw conclusions about the human condition based findings in a rodent model like this. It's just one step in a very long chain towards human research.

The broader issue with this kind of research imo has more to do with how autism is over-medicalized and therefore research priorities, funding, and overall framing is geared towards answering research questions about the "dysfunctional aspects" of autism.

[u/bielgio → u/[deleted]]

Of course they assume things

Their best guess is an assumption, even in mathematics we need to assume our axioms are true

[u/TTEH3 → u/bielgio]

You're right, but that isn't really what they meant.

Of course all of science rests on certain axioms, but "scientists don't assume anything" in this context obviously just means "scientists don’t take their hypotheses as true without testing; they check and refine them".

[u/bielgio → u/TTEH3]

Plenty of research on autism sets good traits as maladaptive, be it trust in others, taking advantage of others, I am skeptical about research on cure for autism

A guess is literally an assumption, don't "obviously they meant" me, words have meanings

And, of course, you say "they tested it" but do not cite why this rat model is used as an autism model for humans

[u/Curious_Flower_2640 → u/[deleted]]

There really are issues with these autism mouse models though. The people using them are assuming that the mouse model is likely to be a relevant parallel to human autism. That's why these studies get funded and why they extrapolate results from them to human treatment for autism.

Usually "mouse autism" looks like "this mouse initiates socialization less and is slower at solving mazes". Which could be caused by any number of issues the mouse has with no connection to the human mechanisms of autism. Especially since the "autistic mice" are often just created by injecting their mothers with valproic acid. I was honestly shocked at how shallow the parallels often are in the mouse models when looking at autism research papers.

[u/sagerobot → u/Curious_Flower_2640]

It's pretty arrogant of you to assume that all of these things haven't already been considered by the people doing this work.

Sounds like you should go and tell them how to conduct their studies since you so clearly know better than them.

[u/TheLastBallad → u/sagerobot]

"How dare you criticize someone's methodology, in order to that you must be better than them!"

Are you sure you understand how science works, let alone peer review?

[u/sagerobot → u/TheLastBallad]

Are you sure you understand how science works, let alone peer review?

Yeah I do thats why I wrote:

Sounds like you should go and tell them how to conduct their studies since you so clearly know better than them.

Did you think I was being facetious?

[u/Waste_Cut1496 → u/[deleted]]

It is nonsense. We don't understand autism very well, there is an almost zero percent chance this model is anywhere close to human autism. This assumption is entirely baseless and just bad research.

[u/Waste_Cut1496 → u/[deleted]]

I am an actual researcher at a T5 university (not on this topic though) but I do know enough about those types of models to know they are completely useless.

The dirty secret, anybody wants funding and the people doing research on that know themselves that it is useless but switching fields is hard and this seems to bring in grants so that is what they will do. Guess why the majority of researchers is not happy with the research they are doing and would rather do something actually impactful? Unfortunately the old white men in power (deciding on funding) do not like anything that diverges even a bit from what they thought was true 50 years ago...

Animal models are great to model how specific molecules react in mammals to get an idea of how things could evolve in vivo, toxicity, etc. Models of anything beyond that are pretty much useless, let alone for complicated neurological disorders like autism where mechanisms of action are unknown.

[u/SuperStoneman → u/[deleted]]

Right there's nothing wrong with my son, he just loves breaking down and entering a panic state severe enough to cause vomiting. It his favorite passtime

[u/SofaKingI → u/[deleted]]

You seem to have no idea what 90% of the autism spectrum is like.

You're the one assuming you know anything about the subject.

[u/kelcamer → u/SofaKingI]

I'm autistic, and have worked with a neuroscientist.

I'd be happy to share her contact information with you.

Feel free to checkout r/autismgirls if you're up for reading the thousands of double blind studies on this subject, or reading the mindmaps I've put together.

Autism is not what people, and researchers, believe that it is, and it is in pretty bad taste to keep making assumptions based on a pathology / deficiency model.

[u/sagerobot → u/kelcamer]

Yeah we can tell by the rest of your comments and how you are ending up being very arrogant because you strongly believe you are more informed than everyone else in this thread.

You very well may be, but you are doing yourself a disservice in getting your point across. You are unfortunately in a world with other people and other people are going to be more receptive to you when you figure out how to drop the arrogance.

Some of the worlds smartest people are also some of the most kind and professional. Arrogance has no place in academic discussion.

[u/kelcamer → u/sagerobot]

I hear that you perceive my tone as arrogant, and I appreciate you sharing your perspective. That said, I believe it’s important to focus on the content of the discussion rather than assumptions about my demeanor.

When I discuss these topics, my intention isn’t to appear superior but to advocate for accuracy and inclusivity, especially in conversations about autism. Sometimes, my passion for this topic might come across as strong, but it’s because these discussions have real-world implications for autistic individuals, including myself.

If something specific in my argument felt dismissive or unclear, I’m open to constructive feedback.

It's frustrating to me, to be autistic, and to be constantly be bombarded by society with messages of inferiority and deficiency, when that is not ultimately what autism actually is.

I’d like this conversation to remain about the issues at hand, and I hope we can move forward with mutual respect and curiosity.

If tone or phrasing matters more than the validity of an argument, then that suggests emotional comfort is being prioritized over truth.

It also occurred to me from your comment that you may be interpreting information differently than I do. For me, as someone with correctness OCD, I tend to process things in a way that feels emotionally neutral. I wonder if this difference might reflect a double empathy gap between us.

I would like to clearly state that my understanding is that education and correction is a neutral process, but your comment has led me to a new understanding that most people see it more like a power struggle which gave me a new perspective to consider! (Thanks for that realization)

I understand that people are emotional, but does that mean accuracy should take a backseat to how a message makes someone feel? If so, that raises the question—should ideas be dismissed simply because they challenge someone’s comfort, even if they’re correct?

[u/sagerobot → u/kelcamer]

I hear that you perceive my tone as arrogant, and I appreciate you sharing your perspective. That said, I believe it’s important to focus on the content of the discussion rather than assumptions about my demeanor.

This is exactly what Im talking about. This statement right here is going to turn 99% of readers off, immediately.

Like Its enraging. You absolutely suck at communication and are harming your stated cause.

You are better off silently linking studies that back your claims, you are not the person to communicate them. You are actively hurting your stated goals.

If tone or phrasing matters more than the validity of an argument, then that suggests emotional comfort is being prioritized over truth.

It probably shouldn't matter in a world of pure logic. But unfortunately this is not the world we live in.

Like it or not, effective communication is done by meeting people where they are at, not barking down at them. No matter how correct you are, the way you say things absolutely matters.

This is a public space, not a court of law.

For me, as someone with correctness OCD, I tend to process things in a way that feels emotionally neutral. I wonder if this difference might reflect a double empathy gap between us.

It certainly seems that you came from an emotionally charged place, you even stated as much in your first statements.

Sometimes, my passion for this topic might come across as strong, but it’s because these discussions have real-world implications for autistic individuals, including myself.

Were you being strongly passionate or emotionally neutral?

It seems you might not even be aware of how emotional this subject made you. And like you said, its a very personal subject so I think its pretty normal for you to get a bit more invested in discussing it, as you feel you have more stake that the average person. And to be clear you do.

I understand that people are emotional, but does that mean accuracy should take a backseat to how a message makes someone feel? If so, that raises the question—should ideas be dismissed simply because they challenge someone’s comfort, even if they’re correct?

Unfortunately the answer to this question, on reddit and in most public spaces dedicated to open discussion is yes. Accuracy should take a back seat. But, make no mistake, it should still be "in the car".

You arent in a court of law, and this isnt an actual debate with rules.

The reality is that if you want other people to agree with you, you have to find ways to slowly walk them from their current understanding, to yours.

If you want to be purely factual, you have to basically just post links to studies and maybe give a small synopsis.

Dont try to argue from your personal perspective, because that opens the conversation to the other people personal perspectives. And no one can be "wrong" about their personal perspective. At the very least they dont want to be told their perspective is wrong at the get-go. You have to add to their perspective, not try and replace it. I hope that makes sense. Sorry if this was a bit of a ramble, im not trying to say you are wrong, just that you should reconsider how you approach these things and honestly if its worth your own personal time or not.

It might be more effective for you to get your point across in different ways.

And look, communication is a problem everyone has but its an extra challenge for people with autistic traits and ultimately what ive said here is just my own take on things. I hope what ive said comes off as tips and tricks not me suggesting you are deficient or inferior in any way.

[u/kelcamer → u/sagerobot]

I’d like to continue this conversation, but I found your earlier statement about my communication ability dismissive, especially since I already mentioned that I’m autistic and that information-sharing is neutral for me.

I don’t think this discussion is going to be productive for either of us at this point, given our differing communication styles.

I prefer to chat with people who see value in accurate communication, without adding their own projections on top of that, as that allows for more productive discussions. I would've expected in a sub called r/science, that accuracy of information would be highly valued over emotional contents.

I also spend a lot of energy adapting at work, and I prefer not to mask on Sundays, so I’m going to step away from this conversation.

Autism is a subject I'm deeply passionate about, and I wish for a world that would be capable of reflecting on its biases rather than trying to force a neurodivergent individuals to conform to neurotypical norms.

It is my strong hope that one day people will be able to see that autism itself can be disabling, and also recognize that autism doesn't make a person deficient, to fully understand that disability isn't or shouldn't be a 'status drop' as so many act like it is.

For anyone who wishes to continue this conversation in good faith, I am always willing to share all resources and research on this topic with you, and I invite you to DM me if you'd like to explore this topic without cognitive bias in an open minded way.

I hope you’re able to find ways to engage with different communication styles in a way that feels constructive for you in the future.

I find it ironic that you’re asking me to be more emotionally sensitive while using a tone that feels dismissive and harsh. This seems counterproductive to fostering the kind of communication you’re advocating for.

[u/CanGuilty380 → u/[deleted]]

My autistic brother was 22 years old before he could go the store alone. Autism is absolutely something that many people would like treated.

[u/kelcamer → u/CanGuilty380]

Are you aware there are different autism levels?

Are you also aware that there are different symptoms in different people?

I'm not saying no one would want help.
What I am suggesting is that autism is a lot more complicated than all the existing research we currently even know, and there could be different subtypes that are unexplored at this point.

[u/CanGuilty380 → u/kelcamer]

Yes I am. What is even the point of this question?

[u/kelcamer → u/CanGuilty380]

It’s great that you’re aware of the diversity within autism, and I appreciate you sharing your perspective. What I’m trying to highlight is that our current understanding of autism—especially in research—might not fully capture what autism actually is for those who experience it.

The ‘double empathy problem,’ proposed by Dr. Damian Milton, suggests that many difficulties attributed to autistic people may actually stem from a mismatch in understanding between autistic and non-autistic individuals, rather than an inherent deficit in autistic people.

Current research often frames autism through a deficit-based lens, assuming that divergence from the neurotypical standard is a problem to be fixed. This perspective misses how autistic experiences are fundamentally different, not deficient. By focusing on ‘correcting’ these differences, we risk misunderstanding and pathologizing natural variations in human experience.

Autism might be broader and more complex than current research or clinical definitions capture. The double empathy problem highlights that non-autistic people also struggle to understand autistic people, but their struggles aren’t pathologized. If we shift the focus to mutual understanding and acceptance, we may uncover aspects of autism that go beyond current assumptions, helping everyone—including those who seek support—in a more accurate and inclusive way.

[u/CanGuilty380 → u/kelcamer]

I really want to write a constructive respnse to you and have a proper discussion about this, but the claim that autism isn’t a deficiency and just makes them different, just makes me mad. It minimizes so many autistic peoples experience. So I’m jist gonna go to bed.

[u/kelcamer → u/CanGuilty380]

Well, considering you've already infantalized me in your other comment, that sort of thing really shuts me down.

If you're able to have a productive conversation without resorting to ad hominem, I would genuinely love to hear it.

I ask you to consider that everyone's experience of autism is different, what one person needs is different from what another person needs, and above all:

Autistic people should not be forced to change who they are in order to appease a social majority who believes indirect communication is superior.

[u/TheLastBallad → u/CanGuilty380]

And the inability to recognize that a highly variable difference can be a difficency in some and not in others pisses me off because that also minimizes so many autistic peoples experiences, including mine.

But do continue to speak for others.

[u/kelcamer → u/TheLastBallad]

Deficiency and disability aren't the same thing, though.

Yes, autism is a disability.

No, it doesn't make us deficient humans.

[u/adthrowaway2020 → u/CanGuilty380]

I don’t want to assume, but it may have something to do with what is being discussed?

[u/CanGuilty380 → u/adthrowaway2020]

The question was fit for a child. They should just get on with it and discuss a point.

[u/adthrowaway2020 → u/CanGuilty380]

There was a double entendre in my comment.

[u/TheLastBallad → u/CanGuilty380]

How dare they ask questions to better understand your knowledge base, and then go on to make a point.

How absolutely immature of them to not assume to know what information you have. Because everyone knows children develop into adults by first knowing that other people have different knowledge levels than them during childhood and then forgetting that fact and assuming everyone else must know exactly what they know as adults.

[u/monster-baiter → u/[deleted]]

autistic people: talk extensively of their experience, build community and exchange and compare experiences to each other

scientists: if only there was some way to understand what autistic people experience

[u/SofaKingI → u/monster-baiter]

It's almost like that's not the goal of this study?

[u/Tawmcruize → u/SofaKingI]

Seems like they're trying to figure out if oxytocin will make autistic people's brain "normal". Anyways here's a 3d model of a mouse brain with autism.

[u/SuperStoneman → u/Tawmcruize]

This is how medical research works, you have to show a lot of data in support of your claim before you can start human testing on even the lowest risk groups. They can't just inject neurotransmitters into people who cant effectively communicate.

[u/Curious_Flower_2640 → u/[deleted]]

Says the person who self-diagnosed at 26 and then paid $1500 to get a piece of paper from an online diagnosis mill

[u/kelcamer → u/Curious_Flower_2640]

She got a doctorate in clinical psychology, but feel free to enjoy your ad hominem:

"Dr. Jennifer Fast was initially licensed as a clinical psychologist in Illinois in 2011 and has been a licensed clinical psychologist in Texas (#38062) since 2018.

She has trained and worked in a variety of settings including higher education, community mental health, and residential facility. She graduated with her doctorate in clinical psychology from the Illinois School of Professional Psychology and a bachelor’s degree in psychology and classical studies from Loyola University-Chicago. Dr. Fast’s areas of specialty include treatment of adults, young adults and adolescents, LGBTQIA+, trauma, crisis assessment, group psychotherapy, clinical supervision and training, and community/organizational interventions. She provides treatment from a feminist and humanistic framework and integrates other evidenced-based interventions to meet the individual needs and goals of clients. She is also trained and practices Discernment Counseling for couples on the brink of divorce. Dr. Fast views psychological and cognitive assessment as an empowering experience for clients and as an important adjunct to psychotherapy."

https://www.stanfordcouplescounseling.com/teams/dr-jennifer-fast/#:~:text=She%20graduated%20with%20her%20doctorate,studies%20from%20Loyola%20University%2DChicago.

[u/TheColdestFeet → u/bigasssuperstar]

Bold of you too assume the scientists are non-autistic. Science is one of the safe spaces for autistic people. Not saying all scientists are autistic, but I have met plenty of very prolific professors who had essentially zero social skills.

[u/Every_Lab5172 → u/TheColdestFeet]

Social skills are not the only tenet of autism, and a lack thereof confined to autistic etiology.

[u/Apprehensive-Stop748 → u/TheColdestFeet]

Trust me that is correct,the first time I noticed that I can communicate with people was when I got hired to run a lab at a university.

[u/bigasssuperstar → u/TheColdestFeet]

Lots of great scientists are autistic. Academia, research, and science used to be safe spaces for us. It's good to see more of them coming out. It's great to see some of those speak up. And it's spectacular to have a few of those listened to by the people in control.

[u/captainfarthing → u/TheColdestFeet]

Autism research historically has not been led or guided by autistics. It's almost exclusively been allistic psychologists trying to explain the behaviour they see in autistic children, and coming up with batshit theories that have been assumed true for decades. Here's a paper from 2019 arguing that autistics do not in fact lack theory of mind, one of many terrible ideas from the world's top autism researcher. Mouse models of autism are based on shaky foundations.

The existence of autistic scientists & academics isn't the same as autistics having representation and input into autism research. Also, lots of professors don't have social skills because they're just assholes and tenure lets them get away with it.

[u/bigasssuperstar → u/captainfarthing]

There were Jewish scientists in hitler's Germany and black scientists in the time of race science. Of course there are DSM-diagnosed, ABA-trained autistics working in science. The same science structure that says rats are an acceptable analog for their inner world.

[u/PlumSome3101 → u/bigasssuperstar]

Thank you for writing this. My understanding is that autistic people do not exhibit social deficits when interacting with each other. In the same way that non autistic people exhibit social deficits when interacting with a group that is predominantly autistic, autistic people have difficulty with social interactions that are not geared toward their brain type, not difficulty in general. 

It reminds me of the study that was done showing that autistic people are less likely to engage in a situation that puts others at a disadvantage. The non autistic researchers concluded that was a fault rather than looking at it as a strength. 

That said I've (diagnosed autistic) always felt like I didn't experience oxytocin in the same way as others. However just because I don't feel like oxytocin works the same for me doesn't mean the way I bond or interact socially is wrong. It's just different. 

[u/gerryflap → u/PlumSome3101]

As a diagnosed autisc person, I wouldn't necessarily say that "autistic people don't exhibit social deficits when interacting with each other". Personally I can get along better with some autistic people, but can also get way more annoyed by some autistic people than by neurotipical people. I notice that I notice missing social behaviours that I've trained into myself more in other autistic people. This makes me struggle to interact with them since the same mechanism that trained me also tries desperately to train them. 

Additionally I'm also quite argumentative, like many other autistic people (I'm working on it). This is fine when I agree with other autistic people, but it can in some cases also lead to way more conflict than I usually have with neurotipical people. Personally I'm not so sure that I overall get along better with autistic people than neurotipical people. At work I have a lot of autistic people like me, which makes communication easier. But I've also experienced the other way around plenty of times, when our autistic traits repelled eachother like magnetic poles.

[u/PlumSome3101 → u/gerryflap]

This is a really interesting reply and I appreciate it. I think it's worth noting that autistic or not we're all formed by socialization and individual personalities. Some of that socialization includes cultural and gendered expectations. Sometimes I get along with non autistic people better too because I've masked for so long and been socialized to not cause conflict that it bothers me to be around someone who is really creating it. But that said when talking about social differences it's usually things like eye contact, expectation of reading nonverbal cues, small talk, unwritten social rules (my very least favorite!), making groups of friends instead of being mostly interested in individual activities, etc that are considered socially difficult for autistic people and seen as deficits if that makes sense. The research doesn't show autistic people getting along better it just shows their communication style/social skills are not a deficit when interacting with each other. And as a fellow arguer I've long wondered what a world that was socialized to autistic social strengths would look like. Maybe it would account for a bunch of us being argumentative with very obvious well verbalized social rules around it. Or maybe we'd all just grump at each other idk. 

[u/Solwake- → u/gerryflap]

Yes, exactly. Autistic people are also social individuals who are still responsible for their own actions and choices, i.e. autistic people can be assholes too. If what we call autism were instead the population norm rather than a minority, there would still be "good people", "bad people", "annoying people", etc. within whatever social norms would be established in that alternate reality.

[u/Bac2Zac → u/PlumSome3101]

(also autistic speaking)

Okay so I'm going to challenge you slightly to consider how this

However just because I don't feel like oxytocin works the same for me doesn't mean the way I bond or interact socially is wrong.

And the notion that a "autism cure" could be a good thing are not mutually exclusive concepts.

The objective purpose of social skills is to connect/communicate with other human beings. If an adjustment to social activity can be performed (via drug, "discovery of a new social queues" which autistics should resonate with, therapy, ect.) that allows people to either connect with more people or build stronger connections with the people they know, that is objectively a good thing.

Things being different is not inherently bad, and the ability to communicate with people who are unable to communicate effectively with neurotypical people is objectively good. Diversity of opinion is also objectively a good thing, and as a high functioning autistic person myself, the idea of a "cure" is not something that I have any vested interest in taking should it become available. I however, am not generally at a significant disadvantage when interacting with the world like some others are and to deny that a solution for that condition could be beneficial is silly to me.

[u/PlumSome3101 → u/Bac2Zac]

I think this is very valid and I'd like to clarify that I'm not saying working toward better integration for those who want/need it or researching for those have significant disabilities or delays is a bad thing. My point is that the overall conclusion that ALL autistic people have communication issues is based on assumptions of almost exclusively non autistic people comparing our brains to theirs. It's also why we have now disproven assumptions like autistic people have no empathy or have no theory of mind. It's hard to reach accurate conclusions when there's significant or even slight bias. Whether that's the case here or not I don't know. The definition of autism has changed so much in the last decade and varies by country and institution. I'm actually really curious which social deficits are present in the mice and why they specifically associate that with an autism model. I'm definitely going to go look it up. 

As for finding something cool that helps mitigate social struggles heck yes I think anyone who suffers or who has a child who suffers should have as many options and as much research for quality of life as possible. 

[u/bielgio → u/Bac2Zac]

Babies don't choose, there are people willing to choose the skin color, hair color and eye color of their babies, they'd for sure choose their neurotype and it's unlikely to be autistic

[u/Bac2Zac → u/bielgio]

I don't feel like you read all of what I wrote.

[u/bigasssuperstar → u/PlumSome3101]

Oh, I'm as intrigued as anyone about learning why we don't get the "YEAH!" reward neurotypical folks do from a lot of things - whether it's signaled and we don't feel it, felt but attenuated, felt but overridden, redirected to an unpleasant sensation or what. I'm not confident that these drugged mice are the path to unravelling that.

[u/vinkker → u/bigasssuperstar]

[...] the idea that what makes humans autistic can be understood from analysis of behaviour by non-autistic people.

[...] I don't believe they understand human autism at the start of that

So all scientists, especially working on anything autism related, are non-autistic people? Wouldn't people more concerned than others about a certain topic not be more likely working in fields related to what they are concerned/affected personally? Are non-autistic people unable to get feedback from people with autism? Regardless, aren't autistic people more in STEM fields than any other ones anyway?

In a lot of ways, we classify things based on the symptoms first and then follow the trails to figure out the causes. We say someone has autism based on their behaviour because it deviates away from what we would expect in respect to socialization (amongst other things, of course); autistic people have a more difficult time (bare in mine, it's a spectrum). Non-autistic people are well capable of perceiving who would have signs of autism and understanding what might be the differences and they can interact with autistic people and compare..

Thinking it is steps removed from 'real' autistic adults is far-fetched.

[u/SuperStoneman → u/vinkker]

I'm autistic and had severe tic disorder growing up, I'm starting school this summer to become a radiologist to research brain activity in children with tic disorders.

[u/Solwake- → u/vinkker]

Whether or not autistic folks were involved as researchers (and that does matter), the broader issue is how autism is currently conceptualized and framed in research as primarily a health condition. There are good reasons for it and clear circumstances where it is a health condition, e.g. when an autistic person absolutely needs help in performing activities of daily living. However, this health condition framing gets over-attributed to everything about the human condition and experience of being autistic, especially when we talk about social phenomena.

When we characterize friction in the social interaction between an autistic person and non-autistic person as a "symptom", the assumed assertion is that the autistic person is "dysfunctional". And so when we craft research questions about physiological mechanisms underlying autism, we're asking the question "what is the cellular/molecular problem that leads to the social dysfunction we've observed" instead of the research question "what is the general description of this population of humans" or "what are the normative differences between these two groups of humans". To use an extreme example to underscore the difference, the medical question would be like asking "Why are dolphins dysfunctional humans?" and "What are the physiological problems that lead dolphins to have speech disabilities, i.e. not able to make human sounds." In this extreme example, better questions might be "How do dolphins develop complex social bonds?" or "How can humans better adapt to coexist with dolphins?"

With autistic humans, obviously it's not so extreme and it's not one versus the other, it's a combination of both. Problem I'm pointing out is we've focused mostly on one and very little on the other. That has changed a lot though over the last 15 years. Research priorities have started to shift to include both. On the rehabilitation side there's a lot more meeting autistic folks as who they rather than as "problem people" and there's much more participatory research that aims to normalize autistic traits as "different ways of being". More physiological/molecular side of research tends to lag behind.

[u/vinkker → u/Solwake-]

Oh I pretty much agree with everything you say. The word that I used, "symptoms" should've been reworded to something like "behavioral differences" or something.

REALLY bold take of mine, I do not believe autism (also ADHD and some other things) are remotely close to be considered diseases, not even some form of degeneration but rather a behaviors deviating from the norms.

To be fair, they are actually considered "disorder" but "a state of confusion" does not sound appropriate to describe autism. A lot of the wording gets messy... Anyway, it's neuro-developmental and they are 947261947 things that could influence it in all directions. (Really sloppy simplification ahead) From how the brain gets "wired" in the womb to some deficiency of neurotransmitters production because a certain gene not "properly" expressed to simply an improper environment that did not provide proper stimulus for proper neurological development.

So yeah, the task is hard and not straight forward, gotta dive in all possible causes and figure all avenues people with autism can engage in to help in what they struggle in.

[u/bigasssuperstar → u/vinkker]

Please see the other replies to people who misread that as an assertion that no autistic people were involved.

An example from the same field: Psychiatric research into homosexuality, studying men who were diagnosed homosexual by psychiatrists, certainly involved gay scientists. It didn't make their studies make more sense - the psychiatric definition of the disorder of homosexuality was baked into the work from conception.

[u/Heretosee123 → u/bigasssuperstar]

I suppose this is how science has always been done. Mouse models to human models. At the end of the day nobody should ever trust it will be applicable to humans, you should just let evidence speak for itself.

[u/bigasssuperstar → u/Heretosee123]

What they're judging as evidence and what they're hearing it say is also filtered through what they understand autistic people to be. So, if they say the evidence is 100% and it's only 100% because it fits their flawed understand of autistic people, that's a lot of money to advance a misunderstanding to a new level of proof.

[u/Larein → u/bigasssuperstar]

You sure none of the researches is autistic? Its not 0% chance, especially in academics.

[u/bigasssuperstar → u/Larein]

I haven't claimed none of the researchers is autistic.

[u/Larein → u/bigasssuperstar]

Yet you claim they have 100% flawed understanding of autism?

[u/bigasssuperstar → u/Larein]

I didn't claim that either. Are you replying to the right person?

[u/Larein → u/bigasssuperstar]

What they're judging as evidence and what they're hearing it say is also filtered through what they understand autistic people to be. So, if they say the evidence is 100% and it's only 100% because it fits their flawed understand of autistic people, that's a lot of money to advance a misunderstanding to a new level of proof.

it's only 100% because it fits their flawed understand of autistic people, that's a lot of money to advance a misunderstanding to a new level of proof.

[u/bigasssuperstar → u/Larein]

Yes, what part of that are you curious about? It reads better with the words you removed.

[u/Larein → u/bigasssuperstar]

You also said:

But I don't believe they understand human autism at the start of that chain.

But if there are autistic people researching this, they would have very first hand experience on autism. Yet you declare out of nowhere that they don't understand it. What do you base that?

[u/BonJovicus → u/bigasssuperstar]

I swear to god why do people come to r/science to be so anti-science? 

For starters you clearly didn’t read the paper because more broadly they are looking at neural circuits that influence behavior. The premise is well established and is generally applicable outside of autism. 

Bold of you to assume none of the scientists are autistic or that anyone is making any assumptions here. I guarantee you these scientists probably understand better than some random redditor that studying biology in a mouse has caveats and is not 100% directly applicable to humans. 

[u/bigasssuperstar → u/BonJovicus]

Swear to god.

[u/pbdart → u/bigasssuperstar]

You don’t trust anything without data in science. That doesn’t mean you throw your hands up and say “this will never work in humans”. You start small, build a foundation of work for novel treatments, and work slowly, ethically, and diligently to investigate further.

[u/bigasssuperstar → u/pbdart]

Data can be great. Which things about a population get turned into data, as chosen by the people doing the measuring, can lead to breakthroughs or genocides. Having one group describe another based on what it notices is weird and pathological has led us bad places before in the name of science. The behaviours being measured and the assumptions in and around that observation unsettle me in this case.

[u/TwistingEarth → u/bigasssuperstar]

Do you have a degree?

[u/bigasssuperstar → u/TwistingEarth]

Yeah, in a bin with other Things In Large Frames.

[u/Waste_Cut1496 → u/bigasssuperstar]

Yep this type of research is animal abuse and nothing else. The chances that this is in any way or form transferrable to humans tends towards zero. Makes me sad to see tax dollars wasted towards such things tbh

[u/Quinlov → u/bigasssuperstar]

Noone understands autism anymore because in popular discourse the word has become so overused that it has completely lost meaning

[u/bigasssuperstar → u/Quinlov]

That's not true. Are you saying you've lost track of what autism is?

[u/Quinlov → u/bigasssuperstar]

I'm saying that people have taken to describing pretty much everything as autism

[u/bigasssuperstar → u/Quinlov]

Yes, and that's not true.

[u/Quinlov → u/bigasssuperstar]

Sorry I forgot you are the person who decides what is and is not true