There’s been an interesting study of the incidence of autism:
CHICAGO (Reuters) – U.S. researchers have identified 10 locations in California that have double the rates of autism found in surrounding areas, and these clusters were located in neighborhoods with high concentrations of white, highly educated parents.
Researchers at the University of California Davis had hoped to uncover pockets of autism that might reveal clues about triggers in the environment that could explain rising rates of autism, which affects as many as one in 110 U.S. children.
As you might guess the researchers are following up with checks on possible environmental causes that could explain what they’ve found:
Hertz-Picciotto said her team is now undertaking two different kinds of studies to look for environmental causes of autism, a spectrum of diseases ranging from severe and profound inability to communicate and mental retardation to relatively mild symptoms called Asperger’s syndrome.
In one, her team plans to collect dust samples from the homes of 1,300 families with autistic children to look for common chemicals, such as flame retardants, that might be playing a role.
In another, the researchers are following pregnant women who have already given birth to a child with autism, to see if there are any common exposures that might be a factor in developing autism.
I can think of all sorts of explanations: that autism is more likely to be diagnosed in children of white, highly-educated, affluent parents, that some behavior of the parents is resulting in autism in their kids, or that there are genetic reasons for autism which, in milder forms, helps people become highly educated and affluent.
It will be interesting to see how this develops and if similar clusters can be identified outside California.
Wait a minute, I thought causation was related to lack of sunlight?
My wife is a therapist (LCSW) and definitely there are referral issues with some active parents bringing in their kids very early with concerns, which are difficult to answer when the kids aren’t even old enough to express themselves, and given that kids just develop differently. Also, some schools refer concerns more than others. I live in a neighborhood in which parents have approached my wife to ask that she diagnose or recommend that a kid be examined for autism. So, yes, I think the diagnostic issues are significant sources of bias.
One of the interesting things I’ve heard lately is that they might be able to diagnose the spectrum disorder earlier by having kids watch movies and using equipment to observe where their eyes go. IIRC the child with (potential?) issues is looking at the mouth at an age when most kids have switched to looking to the eyes when listening to speech.
So is mine (SLP). Over the years I’ve met, probably, a hundred kids with autism. Maybe more. It’s an interesting subject. Hard on families.
I doubt there’s a single aetiology.