Scientists discover the obvious, but give it some bones

[David B]

Autism has complex genetic components.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8020837.stm

Scientists have produced the most compelling evidence to date that genetics play a key role in autism.

They highlighted tiny genetic changes that appear to have a strong impact on the likelihood of developing autism and related conditions.

The changes influence genes which help form and maintain connections between brain cells.

The Nature study highlighted one common genetic variant in particular which, if fixed would cut cases of autism by 15%.

Previously, other genetic variants have been linked to autism, but they are all relatively rare.

I've also seen, recently, a suggestion that schizophrenia and autism are on the same spectrum, but at opposite ends. Maybe I'll seek that out tomorrow, it's late here now.

Autism and schizophrenia, at their worst, are truly terrible conditions - I've worked with some autistic people who are very dangerous, and are often very distressed. And cases of of schizophenics killing people because their voices tell them to are not uncommon.

And yet...

My fear is that there will be some sort of genetic treatment that will take schizophrenia and autism out of the gene pool, and hence the sort of obsessiveness that leads people to excel at things, and the sort of creativity that leads to great art or scientific intuition, will go with it, leading to a population of people who, as Adams put it, are useless.

The useless third of the population (consisting of hairdressers, tired TV producers*, insurance salesmen, personnel officers, security guards, management consultants, telephone sanitizers and the like) were packed into the B-Ark, one of three giant Ark spaceships, and told that everyone else would follow shortly in the other two. The other two thirds of the population, of course, did not follow and "led full, rich and happy lives until they were all suddenly wiped out by a virulent disease contracted from a dirty telephone".

Is this fanciful? In particular, is it fanciful to think that those who have just the right amount of unusual genes - coupled with a suitable environment - are those who have actually been the scientists, the technologists and the artists of humanity, from the days of learning how to work flint effectively, and draw pictures on cave walls, onwards?

David

[LoneWolf]

Is this fanciful? In particular, is it fanciful to think that those who have just the right amount of unusual genes - coupled with a suitable environment - are those who have actually been the scientists, the technologists and the artists of humanity, from the days of learning how to work flint effectively, and draw pictures on cave walls, onwards?


You know, I have never really thought about that. But it doesn’t seem fanciful to me at all. The exact same gene arrangement in one person may lead to schizophrenia and in another person lead to an artistic genius, the difference being environment or some complex other factor we are unaware of. Is the risk vs reward worth it to the individual? Maybe. Is it worth it to society? Maybe not.

It does seem like many super geniuses tend to have some other associated behavioral problems. If we start selecting these things out what will the end result be? I am not saying we shouldn’t try and eliminate these disorders, I just think it needs some very close study.

[lpetrich]

Oolon Colluphid has posted on that here (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=29990&#post29990):
Science Vol. 324. no. 5924, pp. 162 - 163 (10 April 2009)

News of the Week
EVOLUTIONARY MEDICINE: Two Sides of the Same Coin?

Constance Holden
In summary, schizophrenia is marked by overdevelopment of social-brain features and autism by underdevelopment of such features.

Language function -> auditory hallucinations
Awareness of others' mental states -> paranoia
Logic distorted by uninhibited associations
Etc.

Schizophrenia and autism as opposite extremes is parallel to Simon Baron-Cohen's work on his empathizing–systemizing theory; some people have a high Empathy Quotient (EQ) and low System Quotient (SQ), meaning that their social skills are high but their technical skills are low, while other people have low EQ and high SQ, thus having high technical skills and low social skills.

-

Some time ago at IIDB, now FRDB, I composed Robert Sapolsky: Schizotypal Shamans and Obsessive-Compulsive Ritualism (http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=205294) discussing his talk at the Freedom From Religion Foundation: Belief and Biology (http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2003/april/index.php?ft=sapolsky).

He proposes that a genetic tendency for schizophrenia is maintained because it's useful for some of us to be partially schizophrenic, that is, schizotypal. In "primitive" societies, they became the shamans and medicine people and witch doctors, people with certain sorts of expertise.

This could explain why some people have Asperger's syndrome: the resulting geekiness enables them to have skills that are useful for the rest of us.

He also gets into obsessive-compulsive disorder and how some religious ritualism is a socially-acceptable form of OCD. This could be an extreme version of some self-cleaning instinct, like what cats have.

-

In the big collection of articles at richarddawkins.net I once saw a very interesting hypothesis for why we suffer clinical depression, though I've been unable to track down where I found it.

It's that depression is a way of unlearning something that has been troublesome, like some activity that has given pleasure or some romantic relationship that has gotten broken up.

I find it a plausible hypothesis, though it must be said that depression is a kludgy method of unlearning.

But elsewhere in RD's site, I found a mention of this hypothesis (http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=978), quoting from Depression on the Rise (http://webpub.allegheny.edu/employee/r/rmumme/FS101/ResearchPapers/MeghanFox.html):

In Dr. Randolph Nesse and George C. Williams, PhD’s book, "Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine," they consider depression to be helpful for several reasons. Sadness will change one’s behavior, thereby stopping the current harmful activity or prevent future harmful activities. We can behave differently after a loss so then our future looks more positive in three steps. First, stop what you are doing; so then the damaging action is then stopped. Secondly, set aside the common human tendency of optimism. Studies have found that most people often overestimate their effectiveness and abilities. Finally, we can take off the "rose-colored glasses." Once this is done, then we can reasses our goals and strategies more objectively (Nesse and Williams, 1999).

These authors believe that "low mood" keeps us from jumping abruptly to escape momentary difficulties. As difficulties increase and energy is wasted, depression helps separate us from hopeless situations, so then we can consider alternatives. The capacity for high and low mood is a mechanism for adjusting the assigning of resources as a function of favoring current depression on the opportunities. If there is little hope for a rewarding payoff, it is best to just sit and wait rather than waste energy (1999).

[DMB]

My first reaction to the news of the autism genetic link, which featured on the BBC TV news that I saw by satellite this morning, was exactly that I hoped they would not rush to eliminate it.

[ofro]

It is a significant step, but in my mind a bit blown out of proportions because it makes the lay person believe that we now have a gene. This is a situation where 65% of an autistic population possess a certain allele while only 60% of a control population have it. In addition, if I understand it correctly, the locus is in an intergenic region between two cadherin genes. Chances are that either of the two genes might be influenced in its expression level, but it could also be a totally different gene elsewhere. At this point a possible explanation is that some regulatory element is affected by the polymorphism, but we have no idea which gene is controlled by it.

The reason why the cadherin is (understandably) creating excitement is that cadherins are important during neuronal development and can have an influence on how neurons form synapses with each other. But from there it is a long way to understanding how that results in the autistic phenotype.

One thing is certain from this observation, and this is probably the main message: your genes have a great influence on your brain development (duh..), that brain development is subject to a lot of fine tuning, and that the autism spectrum is a multifactorial condition.

[Pope John Pol Pot II]

There was also an interesting study last year which tied autism in to prenatal exposure to high testosterone rates in the father (for those who didn't see the article, here: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1871515,00.html ). It was personally intriguing to me. I was a bodybuilder for many years, and I sort of subjectively noted that many bodybuilders seemed to have boys who were autistic, especialy those bodybuilders who were taking anabolic steroids. An extreme example of a possible link was the murder/suicide of popular professional wrestler Chris Benoit-whose son had autism- a few years ago.

I'm not sure what the connection could possibly be between the genetic study in the OP, and the previous study on testosterone, except to note that autism is certainly "complex".

[Stanley Accrington]

And yet...

My fear is that there will be some sort of genetic treatment that will take schizophrenia and autism out of the gene pool, and hence the sort of obsessiveness that leads people to excel at things, and the sort of creativity that leads to great art or scientific intuition, will go with it, leading to a population of people who, as Adams put it, are useless.

People with autism are probably less likely to reproduce, or are likely to reproduce at a later age than average (the more autistic, the less likely to reproduce). Which means that in any population the percentage of autism would steadily decrease - so there must be some evolutionary advantage to people who do not have autism, but share genes with those that do.

I have wondered if there is a correlation between mild autism (and those people related to those with autism) and science/ engineering/ ICT - and if this might in some way confer an evolutionary advantage. However, the image of the geeky scientist does not sit well with the idea of large families!

My son has Asperger's Syndrome - when he was undergoing 'social training' (which he hated), the parents used to sit outside, chatting. I was struck by the number of mothers who were involved with teaching and education, and who said that they could now see that their husbands had 'undiagnosed autistic tendencies'. Do teachers tend to partner people with autistic tendencies? Is there a correlation with teachers and offspring with autism? Or is it just that the parents who are most likely to turn up to these training sessions are the teachers?

My son - studying engineering - has said that he would not want to be 'cured' of his Asperger's Syndrome - he considers that it is a part of his personality, and to lose it would mean that he would not be who he is.
Regards

[David B]

And yet...

My fear is that there will be some sort of genetic treatment that will take schizophrenia and autism out of the gene pool, and hence the sort of obsessiveness that leads people to excel at things, and the sort of creativity that leads to great art or scientific intuition, will go with it, leading to a population of people who, as Adams put it, are useless.

People with autism are probably less likely to reproduce, or are likely to reproduce at a later age than average (the more autistic, the less likely to reproduce). Which means that in any population the percentage of autism would steadily decrease - so there must be some evolutionary advantage to people who do not have autism, but share genes with those that do.

Or perhaps an evolutionary advantage to those with just a tinge of autistic traits?

I have wondered if there is a correlation between mild autism (and those people related to those with autism) and science/ engineering/ ICT

That is what I was taught in my training about autism.

- and if this might in some way confer an evolutionary advantage. However, the image of the geeky scientist does not sit well with the idea of large families!

Many geeky scientists do have families, though. And a bit of status.

My son has Asperger's Syndrome - when he was undergoing 'social training' (which he hated), the parents used to sit outside, chatting. I was struck by the number of mothers who were involved with teaching and education, and who said that they could now see that their husbands had 'undiagnosed autistic tendencies'.

Autism is much more diagnosed in men than in women. However I've spoken with my sister Cath at some length about the possibility that women tend to have social skills that would tend to mask autistic tendencies, but that don't mean that they aren't there.



Not to my knowledge. However I wonder if a love of learning is at least sometimes an autistic trait. Just a shot in the dark, but I wonder if teachers are attracted to well educated people, even if they do not have autistic traits themselves.

[quote] Or is it just that the parents who are most likely to turn up to these training sessions are the teachers?

Intuitively that seems a reasonable suggestion, as a factor. But beware the false dichotomy:)

My son - studying engineering - has said that he would not want to be 'cured' of his Asperger's Syndrome - he considers that it is a part of his personality, and to lose it would mean that he would not be who he is.
Regards

Not wanting to be 'cured' seems to be very common among high functioning people with autistic tendencies, and also in bipolar people, according to Stephen Fry's excellent documentary on bipolarity.

I have a self diagnosed more than a tinge of Asperger myself, but self diagnosed from the pretty well informed position of having done some training and worked with autistic people. For all the problems associated with it, I wouldn't want to change, either.

David