3 ms·

Thank you for this. Trying to pin Autism down to a simple cause is foolish. Not only is autism often (thusfar not 100%) caused by a malfunction in the genes it

by Dn_Ab 14y ago

Thank you for this. Trying to pin Autism down to a simple cause is foolish. Not only is autism often (thusfar not 100%) caused by a malfunction in the genes it is implicated in thousands of different genes and not even necessarily inherited (in large part being due to denovo mutations). Nonetheless the brain is a wide surface area of attack, there are many ways to assault it that could result in impaired intelligence. Worth noting is that the connection between inflammation, intelligence and health could be more related to the heritable trait of how stable or robust your phenotype is to noise (mutations and stochastic alike). What I also find interesting is that the fear for a disease being genetic will likely flip in the next 2 decades. Genetic diseases will be more easily corrected than diseases that will evolve a slip right under your nose.

lutusp 14y ago
> Trying to pin Autism down to a simple cause is foolish. Foolish unless true. We just don't know, and it's too soon to be abandoning theories. Science doesn't proceed by categorically denying possibilities before they've been fully investigated. > Genetic diseases will be more easily corrected than diseases that will evolve a slip right under your nose. On the contrary, genetic diseases will with rare exception remain incurable.
- Dn_Ab 14y ago
  1.) We are not disagreeing. Anyone who wants to pin it to autoimmune effects is missing the genetic causes, anyone looking for simple mendelian causes is missing out on multiple gene susceptibilties or denovo mutations, etc. 2.) This is a testable hypothesis and will be known in time. I believe that we will have a good enough understanding and control over genetics such that effective therapies even for adults will be possible in the stated time frame. Also notice I used the word correct not cure, not a mere play in semantics but a subtle change that strongly alters meaning.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > This is a testable hypothesis and will be known in time. Wait -- if resolution requires the simple passage of time, then it's not testable, indeed it's not really a test. A "testable hypothesis" means a notion that's subject to practical test in the present. Waiting for a future yea/nay outcome isn't, strictly speaking, a test. More of a waiting game. > I believe that we will have a good enough understanding and control over genetics such that effective therapies even for adults will be possible in the stated time frame. Gene therapies have a pretty terrible track record to date. Nevertheless, if your "time frame" is 100 years, then I would have to agree it's likely, based on Clarke's First Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarkes_three_laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarkes_three_laws Quote: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." > Also notice I used the word correct not cure, not a mere play in semantics but a subtle change that strongly alters meaning. Yes, agreed, and if this era arrives, treatment recipients will have to be told that their improved condition by no means implies that their offspring won't be similarly afflicted.

by Dn_Ab 14y ago

lutusp 14y ago

> Trying to pin Autism down to a simple cause is foolish. Foolish unless true. We just don't know, and it's too soon to be abandoning theories. Science doesn't proceed by categorically denying possibilities before they've been fully investigated. > Genetic diseases will be more easily corrected than diseases that will evolve a slip right under your nose. On the contrary, genetic diseases will with rare exception remain incurable.

Dn_Ab 14y ago
1.) We are not disagreeing. Anyone who wants to pin it to autoimmune effects is missing the genetic causes, anyone looking for simple mendelian causes is missing out on multiple gene susceptibilties or denovo mutations, etc. 2.) This is a testable hypothesis and will be known in time. I believe that we will have a good enough understanding and control over genetics such that effective therapies even for adults will be possible in the stated time frame. Also notice I used the word correct not cure, not a mere play in semantics but a subtle change that strongly alters meaning.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > This is a testable hypothesis and will be known in time. Wait -- if resolution requires the simple passage of time, then it's not testable, indeed it's not really a test. A "testable hypothesis" means a notion that's subject to practical test in the present. Waiting for a future yea/nay outcome isn't, strictly speaking, a test. More of a waiting game. > I believe that we will have a good enough understanding and control over genetics such that effective therapies even for adults will be possible in the stated time frame. Gene therapies have a pretty terrible track record to date. Nevertheless, if your "time frame" is 100 years, then I would have to agree it's likely, based on Clarke's First Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarkes_three_laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarkes_three_laws Quote: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." > Also notice I used the word correct not cure, not a mere play in semantics but a subtle change that strongly alters meaning. Yes, agreed, and if this era arrives, treatment recipients will have to be told that their improved condition by no means implies that their offspring won't be similarly afflicted.