What Is Psychology's Role in Debates About Causes of and Treatments for Autism?

In Stuart W. G. Derbyshire’s review of Defeating Autism: A Damaging Delusion by Michael Fitzpatrick, he quotes the author's criticisms of the unorthodox biomedical movement that "seeks to redefine autism as an epidemic disease caused by vaccines or some other, as yet unidentified, environmental factor (p. xv)." Although the link between autism and vaccinations is presented as a controversial issue by some, there appears to be little controversy within the mainstream medical community. Mainstream physicians and scientists do not support the autism-vaccine link, or the use of unorthodox treatments on the grounds of insufficient empirical evidence. Derbyshire calls the unorthodox biomedical movement "a divisive and destructive force that threatens to derail autism research and undermine the quality of life that children with autism can enjoy." Furthermore, he describes a level of reluctance on the part of scientists to openly challenge pseudoscientific claims regarding the causes of autism because of "fear that a frank debate may not be effective, may alienate parents and patients, or may undermine access to funding."

Do you agree that there is reluctance among scientists to speak out against pseudoscientific claims related to autism? What may be the reasons for this reluctance, in addition to those cited by Derbyshire? What role should psychologists take in addressing claims of an autism-vaccine link and within the debate about unorthodox treatment?

Read the Review

Unorthodox Theories of Autism Are Wrong and Inhuman
By Stuart W. G. Derbyshire
      PsycCRITIQUES, 2009 Vol 54(24)

Comments

[Bill Ross]

It is a travesty to view the propensity for certain members humankind to take advantage of that grieve borne out of the love in caretakers for individuals of ASD. Finally, and with gratitude and thanks to Dr. Derbyshire, he too has obviously equally had enough of the Snake Oil Salesmen that spend $1000's of dollars to claim vendor areas immediately adjacent to well meaning parent and caretaker workshops and conferences intended to present the steady efforts and findings that provide need hope for coping and living normal family lives as provided by highly trained and dedicated researchers currently involved in the Scientific study developing new insight and understanding of methods for families to live normal happy family lives. Acknowledging findings and methods that provide new hope family members can co-experience the joy of individuals of ASD attaining their maximum potential. But how dismayed one becomes during daily mixers and breaks, or extended Lunch periods between A.M. and P.M. presentations. Parents are inundated with verbal presentations by so called "Bio-Medical" experts (absence identification of their academic credentials), whose sole intent is to extract hard earned funds from loving caretakers, feeling desperate and willing to try anything to help their loved one are totally confused, and end up spending the limit of their credit cards on ridiculous diet supplements, specialty diets; This in additions to the numerous authors of Books on "Proven" miracle mixtures made in a newly designed ASD Blender, or, of all things, a newly designed sleep apnea mask by self proclaimed specialist in Respiratory Science that will all but provide a cure to the symptomatic anomalies most often related to ASD within four weeks. Dedicated Neuropsycholists, Developmental Psychologists, Research Psychologists developing familial and communicative interventions for family and school settings, not to mention the M.D.'s and Highly trained therapists presenting recent findings and milestones during presentations that defined the initial impetus for participant attenance begin to become depleted in the audience, until many registered attendees return once all available credit on their Credit Cards has been depleted. This book should be condensed/abridged using language most caretakers would understand.

[Rachel Brown-Chidsey]

The discussion regarding non-scientific approaches to understanding ASD is fascinating to me. ASD is not my specialty but I am a member of both APA(D16) and the American Academy of Pediatrics. I get many publications from both organization about ASD and the differences are amazing. In adding my 2 cents about why medical science does not address pseudoscience head on, I hypothesize that it's because they have too many other scientifically-based things to do and giving "air time" to quack theories does not help kids. Speculative information from pseudoscience is not even on their radar screens.

[Dr.T]

Interesting article.

I do indeed believe that there is a reluctancy for psychologists to challenge pseduoscience and I'm not all too sure why, but I think it's worth some spectulation:

Perhaps it's because we psychologists/scientists lack the appropriate knowledge about autism to challenge pseudoscientific news and claims related to autism. For example, although we know some very advanced neurological information about autism, it still isn't enough to dispell myths. One huge pseudoscientific endeavor was motivated by Rosemary Crossley in the early 1970s and the early 1990s by Douglas Biklen. These two individual's encouraged what today is known as facilitated communication (FC).This technique was rigourously fought by the scientific community and psychologists across the United States and also in Australia, where the technique was born and later outlawed by Victorian government. The debate got to such a level that it appeared that after the mid-1990s psychologists and scientists just became either discouraged or lacked the necessary proof needed to dispell unscientifically proven claims. The myths surrouding FC, or what opponents call, hand over hand movement, intrigued parents and teachers.

As I pursue further research on the topic of FC, I find that I'm continually perplexed by the lack of concern about the technique following the mid-1990s. It appears to me that either the field of psychology became crestfallen by the continual pseudoscientific claims put forth by FC supporters, which seemed to "possess" the minds of its believers, or psychologists felt they lacked hard enough scientific evidence regarding autism to come against pseudoscience.

I truly believe that the job of psychologists is to keep pseudoscientific claims out of the media by seeking more and more evidence against such claims and presenting that evidence to the world. Additionally, psychologists should indeed take the role of educator and protector. With false claims surrouding laypeople so to speak, it allows for these individuals to become victims and vulnerable consumers. As psychologists we are to protect and to educate. In order to do this, we should be careful to take the role of one who will do what it takes to protect society and DELIVER TRUTH.

[Randall Flanery]

I believe Dr. T's last sentence captures the dilemna that most psychologists experience when confronting pseudoscience claims, especially in an area where the empirical foundation is not yet well-established or consensus has not been achieved. Scientists, including psychologists, hold themselves to a much higher standard of certainty before asserting what is the TRUTH. Concerned parents, use a different standard particularly when it promises aid or at least some semblence of control over the situation. If I have a child with autism, I might prefer to believe that it is caused by a vacine rather than chalk it up to unknown causes until we know more. The later implies too much helplessness. A parent would prefer certainty and the illusion of control over helplessness.

[Dr.T]

I totally agree with you Randall. That's basically the sum of the dilemma.

Unfortunately and sadly, parents usually would rather believe an unscientifically supported enterprise than to believe the more sound research available regarding autism. It offers them hope that perhaps their reality can change and get better. I think C.R. Snyder's work, which is largely dedicated to the psychology of hope, could give us an in-depth picture of how hope could possibly play a role in the belief of pseudoscience.

I'm sure hope can be a very strong thing; so strong that it take precedence over logical reasoning. Sometimes this is good and sometimes it is not.