I mean, like lots of scientific news stories, this is a bit… thin. “We solved it in mice!” is a headline we get for virtually every ailment imaginable and rarely results in a human-ready treatment in the immediate future.
Past that, I don’t think there’s anything you can do to “eliminate neurodivergence” shy of intensive eugenics. There are definitely more sever instances of autistic symptoms and behaviors that undermine quality of life - sever speech impediments, pronounced OCD, epilepsy - that I don’t think you can just condone in the name of diversity. If these symptoms can be treated, you’re in a position to preserve neurodivergence by mitigating their worst manifestations rather than eliminating it.
But gene editing is a dicey business for a whole host of reasons. This has all the hallmarks of a Trolley Problem dilemma, as there’s going to be a real human cost to testing and mainstreaming a treatment that as the potential to make radical changes to the human genome. But it also has the potential to benefit an enormous number of people suffering from a debilitating condition.
So much of the ethics will be bound up in the execution. When and how the treatment is administered, how the various conditions are diagnosed, whether we treat autistic tendency as a real quality-of-life affair or a purely cosmetic condition, whether it is something made generally available or paywalled behind for-profit bureaucracy…
But the idea that we’re just going to eliminate a general form of neurodivergence with a simple jab… That’s more fantasy than reality.
It is very much a ‘we did it in mice!’ thing
they changed some mice genes, saw that they had ASD like symptoms, and reversed that. that might not even be all that doable in humans. first of all we have a lot of genes in human associated with autism. then we have the question of whenever gen editing could reverse structural differences in an already developed brain. Then there is the problem of side effects.
and than ethics and the little thing that many ASD people would rather not ‘cure’ autism. Like making some of the negative things go away or reduce would be nice (for example sensitivity to light), but ‘curing’ autism as a whole? nah, thanks i prefer to be me
The mice thing is interesting because they’ve been doing this for a while. There’s an infection they give to pregnant mice that makes the babies display something like ASD. They’ve treated those symptoms before with a probiotic bacteria. The ‘autistic’ mice stopped doing things like persistently burying marbles but they still ignored other mice. Unsure if this latest thing is similar.
and than ethics and the little thing that many ASD people would rather not ‘cure’ autism.
Again, this goes back to the degree of symptoms. Vanishingly few people are on a crusade to defend epilepsy. But that’s also a minority of cases, so we get back into the ethics of “who do we treat and when”.
I would say I’m far less worried about a small pox style campaign of eradication than I am of an institutional gatekeeping, in which one section of the population has full normal access to preventative care while another is denigrated as “naturally autistic” and subjected to all sorts of hostile policing and social policies as a result. Factor in how Vitamin D deficiency in both pregnant mothers and young children is tied back to higher instances of autism, and you’re looking at a whole bunch of knock-on effects that amount to people living in closed off environments having higher treatment needs. As climate change renders outdoor activities more dangerous… well… you can see how folks sheltering underground in air conditioned environments are in a real tight spot.
nah, thanks i prefer to be me
I’m not sure I’d conflate autism with identity. That’s overly genetic-essentialist.
I’m not sure I’d conflate autism with identity. That’s overly genetic-essentialist.
ehhh what? being autistic is a really major part of my experience as a human you know? have you talked to an autistic person before?
Factor in how Vitamin D deficiency
vitamin d supplements are thing you know? a thing that in the scenario you describe would be necessary anyways
a crusade to defend epilepsy
comparing autism and epilepsy is insane. one of them causes you to get a seizure and literally die if you are unlucky. the other doesn’t
You should really read about autistic advocacy before debating about the ethics of editing out autism/autistic traits from the human genome.
https://autisticadvocacy.org/ https://autisticadvocacy.org/about-asan/what-we-believe/
I’m mostly concerned about intentions given that I too doubt the readiness of the science. Everyone already pounced on you for comparing epilepsy to autism, so I don’t need to go into how absurd that is. Like the others in this thread, I would have loved a reduction in some sensitivities, but I wouldn’t want to be neurotypical.
I’m mostly concerned about intentions given that I too doubt the readiness of the science.
Again, if its experiments on mice, I’m not holding my breath.
Everyone already pounced on you for comparing epilepsy to autism
Right, because they’re looking for something to pounce on. Even setting aside the ample medical evidence of comorbidity, literally just hang out with enough folks and you’ll see the trend.
I would have loved a reduction in some sensitivities, but I wouldn’t want to be neurotypical.
Reducing the sensitivity means approaching neurotypicality. These aren’t independent conditions.
