-
sponsorship
Give ScienceDaily credit: Next to the write-up of the new study that found a correlation between autism in kids and advanced maternal age (oo, rotten phrase) is a link to the 2006 study that found that "children of men age 40 and older have a significantly increased risk of having autism spectrum disorders compared with those whose fathers are younger than 30 years." There is so much scientists don't understand about the autism spectrum, which may very well turn out to be a constellation of related but different disorders, with their own or overlapping genetic links. Maybe these apparent correlations between the disorder and older parenthood will prove unimportant in the end, or as you suggest, Jess, a proxy for other underlying factors. But at least it's equal opportunity bad news in the meantime. And the findings about older dads reminds me of a Lisa Belkin's argument about why men might want to start worrying about their biological clocks, too. She cited the autism study and another one showing that the children of older fathers have slightly lower IQs. Now maybe focusing on all of this is wrongheaded, because people shouldn't decide when to have kids based on preliminary findings about slight upticks in risk. But since Meghan is right about how much more often women's marketability is on the line, I'm glad to have a reason to bring up men's, too.
-
sponsorship
Meghan, I was reminded of your comment about young women being bludgeoned with reports of their declining fertility after age 35 when reading about a new study on autism that claims that autism may be linked to moms 35 years or older. This study, from the University of Utah, also found that autism is more likely in first-born children and also in babies born breech. However, even though the write-up of the study on the website ScienceDaily is quick to note that the research "didn't identify a causal relationship" between these things and autism, I fear this will just be another weapon in Mark Regnerus' arsenal. Especially since:
Their investigation showed that the mother's age when giving birth (older than 34), breech presentation, and being firstborn were significant risk factors for the development of an [autism spectrum disorder]. The researchers also identified a small but significant relationship between the increased duration of education among mothers of those children.
Of course, they don't mention in the article that perhaps more educated mothers get better medical care, and their children are diagnosed with autism more not because they are more likely to have the disorder…but because it's diagnosed more frequently. As you pointed out, Meghan, agency is key here. We're all well aware of the risks of waiting to have children later (even though this particular study seems dubious), and I don't see why a "small but significant" correlation between late child bearing and autism should make us all rush out to get knocked up in our 20s.
-
sponsorship
Bonnie Goldstein just posted a great "Hot Document"—the police report filed by the mom in Port St. Lucie, Fla., whose 5-year-old son was "voted out" of his kindergarten class by his teacher and classmates because he was disruptive. I was grateful to read the police report because my reaction to the initial story was, "There's GOT to be more to this." Alas, the only thing the complaint clarified for me was that the teacher meant for the little boy to be dismissed from the class for the day, not forever. But how is a 5-year-old, especially an autistic 5-year-old, supposed to figure that out?
It does seem that the little boy was a distraction to his classmates, and the fact he was "in the process of being diagnosed with autism," as the article says, would explain that. I would hope that, had the voting-off incident not happened, the school and his parents would have worked hard to find the right classroom situation for him, whether special needs or some combination of special needs and time in a "typical" classroom. No child deserves to be humiliated like that. Kindergarten is not a reality show. But more importantly, kindergarten is not a democracy. Sure, let the 5-year-olds vote on what story they read or whether to have cookies or crackers for a snack. But if a child is causing a problem in class, the teacher needs to be a grown-up and deal with it.
-
sponsorship
Ann, your smart post tees me up to protest one particular pander: the candidates' unwillingess to speak the scientific truth that there is no evidence of a link between mercury in vaccines and autism. McCain is the worst on this. From the Washington Post, quoting McCain at a February town hall meeting: "It's indisputable that (autism) is on the rise among children, the question is what's causing it. And we go back and forth and there's strong evidence that indicates it's got to do with a preservative in vaccines."
Obama isn't much better. His quote from a Pennsylvania rally this week, also in the Post: "We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it." The Post has video showing that Obama pointed to someone in the crowd when he said "this person included," so he wasn't talking about himself. Still, there is nothing inconclusive about the science on the autism-vaccines link.
Hillary doesn't slam the door shut on the myth-makers, either. Asked what she would do to protect against "exposure to mercury through vaccines," she said, "I will ensure that all vaccines are as safe as possible for our children by working to ensure that Thimerosal and mercury are removed from vaccines." This is nonsensical, since the government took thimerosal out of vaccines in 1999 (because of other concerns about mercury, though not the kind of mercury in thimerosal, and not related to autism).
As Slate's health editor, I've run so many pieces that patiently debunk the claim that vaccines cause autism that the last time the controversy cropped up, I couldn't bear to assign a new one. Here's how the CDC puts it, "there's no convincing scientific evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines." Here's the latest study knocking down this ever-persistent claim. Here's a good explanation about why the myth won't die. Why, then, are the candidates blithely skipping down this pander path? I haven't heard back from the McCain camp. When I asked the Obama campaign, I got no direct answer but rather a pointed mention of the many many e-mails that parents devoted to this myth send. Which of course is the answer: On one side of this dispute is an extremely impassioned and devoted band of adherents who are deserving of sympathy: parents of autistic children. On the other side is scientific truth—cold, abstract, and apparently not a vote getter. But as our colleague Will Saletan points out, how can Democrats complain about the fake denials of global warming and evolution while practicing the exact same pandering over autism? Gross.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?