If we screen out autism......

[Iam]

This interesting article is from the UK Times, on January 12, 2009. I copied the text to this posting, but a link to the original article is here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/magnus_linklater/article5496799.ece

_____________________________________

IF WE SCREEN OUT AUTISM WE RUN THE RISK OF LOSING GENIUS, TOO

As the number of disorders identifiable by prenatal testing grows, the debate about how to handle them is intensifying.

Magnus Linklater

Robin was sitting in the classroom, giving me an exact account of the Russian Revolution. It was his specialist subject and he knew every date, every manoeuvre, the names of the Bolshevik leaders, and where they were when the Winter Palace was stormed. Robin was 16.

“So, what do you think of Lenin?” I asked. He looked at me blankly. “I don't think anything of Lenin,” he said. Robin was autistic.

He had an extraordinary grasp of facts, meticulously arranged in his mind. He had no concept of analysis or interpretation. The idea of forming an opinion was alien to him. With that incapacity came social isolation, an inability to form friendships or any lasting relationship. He was stranded, with his brilliant but disabled mind. Bringing him up had been a constant strain for his parents.

Quite how he would fare in the wider world was not yet clear.

Related Links
Parents of a Down’s child must make painful choices
Multimedia
Alpha Mummy: Should we screen for autism?
Robin, and thousands like him, are at the centre of an ethical debate with far-reaching consequences. Within a few years it may become possible for expectant mothers to have prenatal tests to determine if their child is likely to be autistic.

These may be genetic, to see whether the characteristics of autism have been inherited, or tests of amniotic fluid in the womb to detect high levels of testosterone that have been found to be associated with the condition - mainly in boys.

As the parents of the first British baby screened to be free of a breast cancer gene celebrate the birth of a healthy daughter, this must seem yet another miraculous step in the advance of science. For any family that has experienced the anguish of living with an autistic child, the prospect of being able to determine if another is about to be born would be invaluable. It would offer that most precious commodity - a choice.

Just as with Down's syndrome, cystic fibrosis or spina bifida, a mother-to-be could decide whether she can cope with the strain of bringing up a disabled child. With an autistic child, it may mean a lifetime of rejection - living with someone unlikely ever to fit into the family, who responds with blank incomprehension to affection, whose behaviour may be erratic and disturbing, whose condition is permanent. Autism, and its associated condition, Asperger's syndrome, can range from virtual incapacity at one end of the spectrum to the merely strange at the other. To bring up one autistic child is a challenge to the sanity of an entire family. To bring up two might destroy it.

The evidence of Down's syndrome suggests that very high numbers of mothers-to-be opt for an abortion if pre-natal tests show that their child has the condition. In America it is as a high as 90 per cent. In Britain, it is not so high and may be reversing - as knowledge grows, perhaps more mothers elect to keep their babies. There is, however, a critical difference between Down's and autism, highlighted by Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, director of the Autism Research Centre at Cambridge. He points out that autistic males often turn out to be skilled at mathematics and engineering - some reaching near-genius level. Almost all the mathematical giants of the past have been male. He says that Newton and Einstein were almost certainly autistic, finding relationships difficult. Artists, too, have suffered from autism or Asperger's - including the blind pianist Derek Paravicini, the artist Peter Howson and, reportedly, the film director Steven Spielberg. So if we found a test for autism, and gave parents the opportunity of aborting the foetus, we might eliminate not just an unwanted and difficult child but a potential genius.

Here lies the dilemma. Should medical science offer the opportunity to eliminate a child who may turn out to be, not only a valuable member of society, but an important contributor to its future? And here lies a further twist in the moral maze. If that were the decision, what would be the justification for deciding that only the most intelligent members of society should be protected, while the less able were judged expendable. Does not that come close to Nazi-style eugenics, the one aspect of genetic engineering we have all determined will never again be contemplated?

Professor Baron-Cohen says that we must debate these matters now, before even the possibility of a test becomes a reality. I have no doubt he is right. But I am far from clear which side we should be on.

Every human instinct must surely be against some form of national screening that would offer the opportunity to breed out the wild, the eccentric, the sometimes weird, crazed individualists who break free of routine constraints and offer the diversity on which we thrive. Can we afford to lose a future Einstein?

There is a deeper strain to the debate. Who is to judge where lies the dividing line between madness and norm? As Kamran Nazeer so brilliantly described in Prospect magazine last year, it is possible to convert the apparent drawbacks of autism into an ideal - to learn the art of conversation, for instance, and to become as adept at it as a “normal” member of society.

As the father of a bipolar son, whose understanding of his own condition and whose empathy with his fellow human beings far surpasses my own, I claim no superiority of intelligence when it comes to deciding who is rational and who not. So I shrink instinctively from any notion that we should be given the opportunity of discarding a future human being simply because he or she may be an inconvenience.

If that means holding back science or our knowledge of genetics, even at the expense of suffering families, I think it a price worth paying. To interfere with the natural diversity of the human race runs the risk of impeding natural selection itself. And that, in Darwin's bicentenary, would be a backward step.

[Charlie]

Thanks for that. SB-C has definitely been doing the rounds, appearing in newspapers/online regularly over the last couple of weeks. I think this is probably the one which has been written the best that I have seen so far.

[goddessoflubbock]

I find it interesting that again the discission of testosterone comes up in relation to autism. My older son we eventually found out had very high levels of testosterone, levels which were also very high during that pregnancy. My older son is my only child I would describe as neurologically typical.

When pregnant with DS I asked to have those levels checked - so I might avoid some of the unpleasantness from before. They were perfectly normal.

I realize this is highly anecdotal but I doubt I was an only case.

[AKAConlang]

I will certainly be crying over all the people who will never get to play chess better than me. But I have a right to be here too, and my sister has a right to be here too, and the children I used to work with have a right to be here too.

[goddessoflubbock]

Simon Baron-Cohen (who is related to comic Sasha Baron-cohen) also came out with a DVD to "teach autistic children to smile" or perhaps to understand smiles. And various other emotions. Faces are put on various transport modes - a train, a bus, maybe a plane - and apparently children are mesmerized by this video which purports to teach them to understand facial expressions. It was just released in the US having previously been available in Europe. It's about $59.99 in the US.

[Noctivagus]

Simon Baron-Cohen (who is related to comic Sasha Baron-cohen) also came out with a DVD to "teach autistic children to smile" or perhaps to understand smiles.

I wonder if he could teach Sasha Baron-Cohen how to make people smile.

[Charlie]

Simon Baron-Cohen (who is related to comic Sasha Baron-cohen) also came out with a DVD to "teach autistic children to smile" or perhaps to understand smiles. And various other emotions. Faces are put on various transport modes - a train, a bus, maybe a plane - and apparently children are mesmerized by this video which purports to teach them to understand facial expressions. It was just released in the US having previously been available in Europe. It's about $59.99 in the US.

I've seen that somewhere else, and seemed to get the impression it was "borrowing" various concepts from Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends (coincidentally my favourite programme as a child - I wore out more than one video through overuse by just watching them repetitively )

[goddessoflubbock]

Simon Baron-Cohen (who is related to comic Sasha Baron-cohen) also came out with a DVD to "teach autistic children to smile" or perhaps to understand smiles.

I wonder if he could teach Sasha Baron-Cohen how to make people smile.

Now that's funny!

It does seem a bit of a ripoff from Thomas the tank (which should be purchased under medical insurance for parents of children on the spectrum. It seems to be their hands down favorite!). DS loved trains but for some reason Thomas the Tank never crossed our horizon. He was much more into the TRAIN of it all.

[SomethingElse]

I think that he actually did say that a lot of autistic children really like Thomas the Tank Engine and that's why/where they got it from.

My brother had a Thomas the Tank Engine room 'theme' (lampshade, bedspread, rug/mat-type-thing - my 'theme' was Snatch the dog, and worse still it was PINK! I got a slight upgrade when my aunt and uncle bought me a blue set, but I would have liked Thomas the Tank Engine.. did quite like the blue, though, and it was a dog. And boys had the blue one too, I think, so that was okay ).

[Noctivagus]

Personally, I never took to 'Thomas the Tank Engine' I preferred 'The Clangers' or 'Noggin the Nog', or 'Ivor the Engine'.

[adhocisadirtyword]

I was into Mork and Mindy.

I was an odd kid.

[SomethingElse]

I like 'Thomas the Tank Engine' but it wasn't my favourite. To be honest I'd be here all day if I decided to start talking about favourite cartoons. I still love them. I have 'Dogtanian', 'Count Duckula', 'Barney the dog with stars in his eyes', 'Family Ness', 'Pocket Dragons', 'He-Man', 'Dungeons and Dragons' and some other cartoons on DVD, with plans to get as many more as possible. I also have a lot of theme songs on my computer/mp3 player.

I liked Mork and Mindy, too, Adhoc.

[Sophist]

I was into Mork and Mindy.

But of course! I was a Nick@Nite fiend, so of course Mork & Mindy were on the list.

Nick@Nite and the Discovery Channel, those were my two. --And of course cartoons on Nickelodeon.

[adhocisadirtyword]

I didn't even know it was on Nick@Nite. I watched it when it originally aired - from all of a few months old to about 4 years old. Some of my first memories were of the show. I was also very much into Greatest American Hero and use to sing the theme song at the top of my lungs when it came on.

Nick@Nite for me was The Brady Bunch, Patty Duke, and The Dick Van Dyke Show.

[Sophist]

Yeah, they had it on Nick@Nite, although I can't remember the timeframe now. All the shows are running together for me.

For me, the shows I loved most were Get Smart, Dick Van Dyke, Mary Tyler Moore, Green Acres, and Mr. Ed.

Nick@Nite just isn't the same anymore. I can't imagine it being "classic tv" when I actually remember when the original shows aired.