10 things to remember when writing about autism science

Oct 22 2012 Published by under Uncategorized

[This post is a slightly amended version of a post that first appeared on my personal blog.]

Many popular science books have a narrative that may not necessarily stand up to precise scientific scrutiny. Indeed, a criticism leveled at many such books is this lack of care in qualifying scientific results and interpreting them with caution and caveats. It's an understandable instinct. Think about the good storytellers you know. How much care do they exercise in avoiding hyperbole or sins of co-mission and omission in telling a "good" story? Some writers of popular science books commit these sins to tell a good story, too. Others do not, yet their work is popular and well received. It is possible to be accurate and cautious and still tell a rousing tale.

The problem with writing about science, though, is that science isn't just a story. It's about facts and open questions, and it's almost never defensible to write as though a door has closed, a box has been checked, or a mystery has been completely solved. We owe it to readers to avoid simplification to the point of a sin of omission and to avoid overinterpreting to the point of hyperbole.

When it comes to writing stories about health and medicine, the stakes climb. With these stories, we're not writing only about scientific findings. What we write is also about people. Many writers seek a narrative hook, a personal story that frames the rest of the piece. I can't even count the number of autism-related stories that open with a (very real) tale of woe featuring an overwhelmed or traumatized parent talking about the grief and horror of having a child with autism. This tactic catches the reader--and happens to be one that the largest autism nonprofit in the United States also employs--successfully tugging at heart and purse strings and attracting mouse clicks. But this tugging and this narrative approach are so frequent in such stories as to be near-cliches, and they do few favors for the autistic people these stories are really about.

The presentation of autism as a monster to battle or a stalker out to destroy your life has repercussions that some autistic adults argue go beyond an unfair and painful characterization of what they believe is Who They Are. News stories about autistic people whose parents and caregivers have murdered them often carry a clear attitude of "autism is so hard, no wonder they got killed." When every news story you read describes autism as a horrific affliction and all of those with it as suffering, when mainstream news organizations persist in focusing only on what parents have to say about autism rather than talking to autistic people, when stories focus on preventing autism--with worms, no less--autistic people, real, living, breathing people, feel pain and get angry and argue that even if they are nonspeaking, they can be perfectly capable of communicating for themselves.

If you are someone who writes about health and medicine and who covers a story related to neurobiology--particularly autism--please consider the following 10 suggestions. They might help you avoid the pitfalls of hyperbole and poor interpretation and causing pain to autistic people.

  1. Interview an autistic person for insight whenever possible. If you need suggestions for leads, feel free to contact me. If you were writing a piece about any other human condition, would you talk only to parents or relatives of people with that condition if the people who have it could communicate for themselves?
  2. If a researcher claims to have "solved" autism, please exercise healthy skepticism and follow up with someone who doesn't have a dog in the hunt. Of all of the neurobiological conditions, autism may be the most variable. It's extremely unlikely that any one research path or group or hypothesis will explain all autism. Don't ride that wave with them.
  3. Don't generalize. Stick with what the findings say, not what the discussion or the conclusions or the authors or the news releases say. Have an ear for when someone is overgeneralizing. Example generalization: "X causes autism." What causes autism has not been established, and the causes themselves--and how they work--are likely going to form a very long list. We are still very early in formulating that list, much less what the items on that list do.
  4. Don't mistake correlation for cause. When a study reports a "link," that term usually means a mathematical relationship: When X was more frequent, autism was more frequent." That doesn't mean that X causes autism. It doesn't even mean that X has anything to do with autism.
  5. Don't overstate the meaning of risk. Risk is a scary word, although we all live with the 100% risk of dying someday, regardless of what other risks we face. When a study result refers to "increased risk," look at the numbers. If they say that the presence of factor X was associated with a relative risk of 2.1, for example, then the population with factor X had twice the autism compared to the group without that factor. If the average risk of having a child with autism in the absence of that factor is 1%, then this particular factor was associated with about a 2% risk. And relative risk applies only for that study--it does not tell you what the actual risk is. 
  6. Keep in mind that even these links don't imply a true causal relationship. They're just math associations. A famous example of how these relationships can end up being misinterpreted is the protein CRP and heart disease. Because of a mathematical association between the presence of this protein and the occurrence of heart disease, researchers thought for a pretty long time that CRP might cause heart disease, and drugs were even targeted to lowering its levels. Turns out, it doesn't cause heart disease, so the drugs were no use. Instead, it's either a side effect of heart disease (reverse causality) or just higher because of some indirect influence. Now, take any recent X factor you've heard is "linked" to or "causes" autism and substitute it and autism into the above story to understand how unpromising correlation can really be.
  7. Be aware of how you write about autism and of the fact that autistic people may read what you're writing. How you describe autism is, for those readers, describing themselves, their very being. Please try to avoid lapsing into the parlance of affliction, suffering, disease, desperation for a cure, war, and despair or comparisons of "low" and "high" function. A good science geek knows that function is often a matter of environment, not a constant measure. Although some autism parents may disagree, one key to making this world a better place for autistic people is for society not to see or treat them as unhearing, nonverbal, illiterate rocking obsessives who don't understand what people are saying about them. Unlike neurodegenerative or fatal diseases, autism is not universally perceived or lived as a negative condition, and it's important to remember that.
  8. If the study in question is about mice, never talk about how the results will lead to a therapy or a cure or write about the mice as though somehow, they are just tiny humans with tails. Mice have misled us before. They are only a way to model what might happen in a mammal sorta kinda related to us. They are not Us, otherwise we'd live in tiny, crowded places, having 10 children at once and ignoring them when they grow fur, and this autism thing wouldn't be an issue.
  9. Don't use phrases like "gene that causes autism" or "gene that is linked to autism" or "faulty gene" or "defective gene." What you really want to say is "gene variant" or "version of the gene." There isn't an "autism" gene; there are gene changes that might be linked to autism.
  10. Also avoid referencing "environmental factors" without providing some specific examples. Those examples should not be "chemicals" or "toxins," which are vague, meaningless, and stupid. Established environmental risk factors for autism include parental age and extreme prematurity. Try those, but handle with care.

Finally, I know deadlines are tight, but never take a paper author's interpretation as The Final Word. Try to find someone not connected with the work and get their comment. Journalism 101, I know, but it's surprising how often articles do not include this kind of balance. By balance, I don't mean "gives the other side." I just mean, "possibly modulates enthusiastic author's overinterpretation or overselling of results and their significance." 

10 responses so far

  • Julian Frost says:

    Be aware of how you write about autism and of the fact that autistic people may read what you're writing. How you describe autism is, for those readers, describing themselves, their very being.

    Thank you so much for saying this, Emily.

  • I'm just finishing up a second edition of my book, the Australian Autism Handbook (the first, released in 2008, was a best-seller in Australia). I think I have ticked most of your boxes, because as well as being an autism mum I am a medical writer by profession. However, I will do a quick spot check before I send it to the editor next week!

  • Lisa Jo Rudy says:

    Hi there Emily! Nice post, and much-needed; can only hope it gets into the right hands!

    One more point I'd like to make.

    The term "autism" is NOT a medical term, nor does it describe a specific and consistent set of symptoms. At this point, people with a Pervasive Developmental Disorder (sometimes called Autism Spectrum Disorder) have one of five different diagnoses, none of which is "autism."

    Much more significantly, the differences among people with "autism" are HUGE, and there is often no way for the casual writer or blogger to know WHICH people with autism are being studied. In fact, it seems as if the researchers themselves don't do much picking or choosing. As a result, any given study could include people who are, variously:

    of above average intelligence or profoundly intellectually disabled

    able to speak, read, and write with erudition or unable to say a single word

    suffering from a variety of medical issues such as epilepsy, sleep disorders, GI issues, etc. -- or perfectly healthy

    unable to bear the sound of a fluorescent light, or perfectly comfortable in a huge, cheering crowd

    exhibiting behaviors such as physical aggression or an inability to sit for more than a few seconds -- or completely comfortable and happy sitting through a two hour classical concert

    completely uninterested in other people, or so desirous of relationships that rejection is like a living hell

    In short, people with "autism" are as different from one another as any other group of people - -with the exception that all have some level of difficulty with social communication.

    When I write about "autism," I find that the differences between me/my son and other parents is like night and day. Where I can honestly say "my son's autism has made puberty much easier for him and for us," another parent can honestly look at my and ask "are you completely nuts? there is NOTHING about autism that makes ANYTHING easier."

    We are both right -- because we are talking about people whose symptoms fit the criteria for autism BUT are radically different.

    Lisa Rudy
    http://www.authenticinclusion.org

  • 8) Property are the main reasons for divorce in india.
    It is an option to ask your friends or relatives if they know
    a lawyer who is known to have an effective performance in the field.

    Hiring a lawyer after a car accident depends on many
    factors.

  • The treatment is relatively painless and gives very
    good results for those that are good candidates. The spacing of
    procedures is recommended to give the follicles that were
    in their "resting" state or not actively growing during your preceding procedure
    to get in their active phase and grow hair. The pressure is on for our celebrities to look perfect every second
    they are in the public eye, which is why so many of them call on the
    skilled hands of plastic surgeons, wardrobe specialists and now, laser hair removal experts.

    If you missed my earlier article about my $425 in winnings from the Laser'.
    Not all products give only its benefit, but always expect
    that the disadvantage and the negative result is also
    a part of it.

  • A person essentially lend a hand to make critically posts I would state.

    This is the very first time I frequented your website page and so far?
    I surprised with the research you made to make this particular submit
    extraordinary. Magnificent job!

  • officer will frequently ask the driver additional questions and try to "test" the driver for "divided attention"
    (i. The Motion for Summary Judgment is found in the Federal Rules of Civil
    Procedure Rule 56. The initial consultation is typically free of legal
    costs.

  • Thanks for every other excellent post. The place
    else could anybody get that type of info in such an ideal
    manner of writing? I have a presentation next week, and I'm on the search for such info.

  • Have you ever considered creating an ebook or guest authoring on other sites?

    I have a blog based upon on the same topics you discuss and would love to have you share some stories/information.
    I know my readers would value your work. If you're even remotely interested, feel
    free to send me an email.

  • Wow! This blog looks exactly like my old one! It's on a totally different subject but it has pretty much the same page layout and design.
    Superb choice of colors!