r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • Feb 08 '25

Neuroscience 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.

https://www.riken.jp/en/news_pubs/research_news/rr/20250207_1/index.html
6.0k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

367 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

16

u/Heretosee123 Feb 08 '25

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.

3

u/bigasssuperstar Feb 08 '25

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.

13

u/Larein Feb 08 '25

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

1

u/bigasssuperstar Feb 08 '25

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

14

u/Larein Feb 08 '25

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

0

u/bigasssuperstar Feb 08 '25

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

5

u/Larein Feb 08 '25

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.

6

u/bigasssuperstar Feb 08 '25 edited Feb 08 '25

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

7

u/Larein Feb 08 '25

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?

3

u/bigasssuperstar Feb 08 '25

Because this research adheres strictly the pathology-deficit model advanced by psychiatry and the behaviourism industry. Do you see something different?

6

u/Larein Feb 08 '25

Why would that be wrong?

→ More replies (0)