Autism is genetic

[jonesonscam]

The National Autistic Society has just said something pretty significant: Autism is genetic. Not “possibly genetic”. Not “we’re not really sure what causes it”.

After reviewing 83 research papers, the NAS is now stating definitively that autism is genetic. You’re born autistic and you’re autistic for life. Most autistic people are autistic because of genes they inherited from their parents.

I think this matters enormously because for decades, autism has been surrounded by nonsense about vaccines, parenting, mothers doing something wrong, pregnancy, diet and a million other things.

It has left parents blaming themselves, and autistic people being told that something caused them to be autistic that could somehow have been prevented.

There isn't an “autism gene”. Thousands of genes are involved, and genetics is complicated. But the basic message is now remarkably clear: autism isn't something that happened to someone. It's something they were born with.

That matters because when we stop looking for something to blame, we can start looking at what actually matters: understanding autistic people, supporting them properly, and making a society that works for them.

This all feels like a pretty important shift.

I was already pretty convinced it was all down to genes. As dd1 (diagnosed when she was 8) has grown into adulthood I’ve seen so many similarities to myself at the same age, and so many similar traits in my dad. I always thought certain things about me (and my dad) were just weird, but now I’m guessing we are also probably autistic, just not officially diagnosed.

Both really. Greater awareness now (or then as she diagnosed 15 years ago) and she’s more severely affected that I or my dad ever was. It was her teachers at primary that really pushed for it which I’m grateful for.

My dd is ginger but neither me or DH are. All my cousins are though, and both my grandads were. Just because it’s not expressed in the parents doesn’t mean it isn’t genetic.

“I never understand how people think image doesn’t back up the very idea that ‘we are all on the spectrum’. “

I think you’re misunderstanding the graphic and what it’s demonstrating.

A simpler and alternative possibility (that id more based on what we know about autism) is that autistic parents have autistic children and, due to their disabilities, these familiar are more likely to get into difficulties and need help.

Tell me what it is demonstrating if not how everyone lies on a series of spectrums? The image suggests eight.

The UK has the largest database of twins in the world with more than 15000 adult twins (twinsuk.ac.uk/about-us/history/) and they collect a lot of data on both identical and nonidentical twins and they invite the twins to come in for study days every 3-4years.

I don't know if the studies have already been done and published studies into neurodiversity but if it hasn't hopefully it will be being done

The risks with maternal age don't necessarily mean that a higher proportion of babies born with a particular trait, illness, disease and so on. It relates to proportion of babies of women of that age as women more typically have babies in their 20s and 30s there will be a higher number of children with that trait, illness disease but the chance of any of those mothers having that baby will be smaller.

Let's say the risk of thing X happening to a pregnancy/baby and so is 0.1% to a mother under 35 and 2% to a mother at 40+

There were ~500,000 babies born roughly 80% were under 35, 15% were 35-40 and 3% were over 40.
You then have 400,000 births and 400 with X under 35 and 15000 birthday over 40 and 300 with X. The rates within the group of older mothers is higher but in terms of absolute numbers because of the much larger number of births means more of the children don't have older mothers.

I hope that makes sense it tricky to do in words and being general as it all gets a bit abstract

Both.

To be fair to my mum she had been trying to get me diagnosed from childhood but our family doctor back in the 90s-00s was pretty unclued up and she was told everything from she was anxious, only boys can be autistic, I'm too intelligent to be autistic, it wouldn't make a difference if I was etc.

I struggled all the way through school: situational mutism, unable to see things from other's perspectives, not understanding jokes, always being perceived as a bit weird or childish, unable to maintain friendships, restraint collapse etc.

I had my son in 2019, and it was pretty obvious from quite young. His gross motor skills developed fast but he had a lot of stims, extreme speech delay, not being able to sustain attention and becoming extremely dysregulated around transitions.

He was diagnosed just after his third birthday, and it was quite literally only after he got a diagnosis that the GPs took me seriously, as I'd reached the point of burnout at every job I'd ever worked and antidepressants and therapy just didn't work on me, and living independently for so many years demonstrating that removing the social scaffolding around me lead to significant evidential deficits.

So yes, my child had presented with much more significant needs than I had, but the better understanding and awareness of how autism presents was more from the medical side.

My mum was apparently identical to me developmentally as a child, but her brother was the one who was diagnosed with infantile schizophrenia, now understood to be early presenting autism. If you ask my nan though, she doesn't think there was anything amiss because we all behaved just like any other kid in our family going back generations.

I don't think it's an important shift, or much of a shift, and I'm not fond of this kind of framing.

I don't think strengthening the language from 'autism is mostly genetic predisposition' to 'autism is genetic' is going to stop people blaming the parents and/or autistic people, even when it's ourselves, even with the qualifiers that the National Autism Society used that includes most, often, and usually. It's a solid very simple introduction to make autistic people come across in the best light, as is their job, it's not shifting anything.

It's not going to stop people looking for something to blame or "solve" autism. All we need to do is look at pretty much any other 'born with it' condition to see that knowing that has never led to more understanding, support, or effort to make society work for us. Knowledge of a condition, whether present at birth or acquired later, has never led to that on its own. It's been through disabled people fighting for it - I mean, we didn't get more accessible spaces through people understanding mobility disabilities, it came from disabled people chaining themselves to buses and crawling up stairs in groups.

I also think, as others have mentioned, that we know other conditions that are not genetic can also appear very much like and/or are highly co-morbid with autism. We currently have an issue where some conditions are being underdiagnosed because an autism diagnosis is treated as the answer, leaving people misunderstood and not getting the needed support. I also think we are not understanding any disability if we're not looking at how environment shapes how it presents and impacts how disabling a condition can be.

There is also another issue, the part that makes me not fond of this framing.

Alcohol and other drug exposure in utero have been shown significant environmental factor. Large systemic research reviews give strong evidence that a person with FASD is at least twice as likely to be autistic as the general population. The National Autism Society chose to leave that environmental factor out. It doesn't fit the branding. There is no push for research on how having FASD or similar exposure related condition impacts further generations.

To be blunt - it doesn't fit the ableist cultural ideal that a disability only deserves understanding, supporting, compassion, for adjustments in society when they are obviously happenstance, when we are blameless.

I was born with multiple disabilities, and acquired a couple more along the way. People's attitudes often depending on how visible they are, how much that person think I'm "overcoming" being disabled (this part I think is getting worse over the years), and/or who they feel like blaming at that time - it rarely comes down understanding in any significant degree, especially not in understanding the whys behind my conditions. I'm also married to a man who became physically disabled after an assault that damaged his spine among other important parts, and had to deal with medical professionals outright telling him that they had thought he wasn't worth treating because they thought his injuries were from a motorcycle accident because of how he looks. He's dealt with a lot of shite because of people attributed the blame of his disabilities to him often pretty readily.

I don't care if my or my kids' autism is entirely genetic or a genetic predisposition shaped by environment. I do care how about the cultural issues that pits disabilities against each other and treats a condition having avoidable environmental factors as if it makes the person with it less worthwhile. The whole idea that being 'born with it' somehow makes it better, somehow now means we can shift to understanding and support, is to fall into ableist cultural ideal that such things come after figuring out blame. I'm used to it working that way, I understand why a charity promoting greater acceptance of autism is doing what the NAS has done within the cultures we have by pushing forward the stronger 'blameless' argument, but it's still a bit sad - it's not understanding or support, and it's not adjusting society, it's fitting our description in a way society will find more acceptable, a certainty - with qualifiers - that is more palatable. That's how life with disabilities tends to work, making ourselves more palatable until we get to the point where it's obviously not working and we push back. I'm not sure what that would look like when it comes to autism or similar conditions.

It is genetic OP. I don’t think that’s new info tbh. It can also be caused by environmental factors though (eg premature birth, certain drugs taken when pregnant), but it’s possible they may work with a genetic susceptibility that’s already there. It can be a mix of both aspects.

Thank you for this. It was fascinating. So is the fact you’ve traced your family line to the 1700’s.

In the case of my severely ill children CAMHs pushed it when treating them. Ditto their cousins.My grandfather was in and out of inpatient though, my aunt never left home and my father struggled massively. None were aware which makes me so sad. Life could have been so much better.Beyond that there are oddities and connections all through our family tree quite far back. My poor children have it from both our families so stood no chance. I think autistic people inadvertently seek out others with similar genes.

Very similar story here.

Also, your last sentence. I have been saying this for years. I definitely believe that ND people either subconsciously seek out other ND people (or even consciously, feeling perhaps safer with someone similar to themselves) As a result, I think this may also have led to us all having more ND kids (as, broadly speaking, people married their first loves and usually quite young, back in my parents and grandparents day) Hope that makes sense.

DDs Dads family are all ND (some diagnosed, some in denial) and there's a strong line in mine too, so, yes, my DD never stood a chance either.

It never worked with me and her father so I've been a single parent since she was a baby. Now that I am older I simply don't have the energy or head space for a partner, or even people in my house.

I didn’t jump on and say all the autistic people. I said I wondered if there is anything else going on that presents as autism. We live in an age of high level of brain stimulation. Ultra processed foods, mobile phone radio waves, microplastics, air pollutants etc. Are these things causing something that is similar perhaps. Why would me thinking this be weird?

I'm confused

I thought we knew autism was genetic

Did you read it properly? None of my family are and none of their fathers are. Not just talking about parents here, both are families no autism at all.

That’s not how it works, they don’t test everyone just to make sure they don’t have it!

They've studied families, which is the same thing except for the exact date of birth. It's how they realised that autism was inherited.

I've thought for a while that neurodiversity is like a magnet. I'm ADHD married to ASD and his therapist said it's a very common pairing. I'm glad we have no kids.

It really would explain why rates appear to be rising. On the other hand the government report that's just been published says that rates are not rising, it's just that awareness is rising.

Large systemic research reviews give strong evidence that a person with FASD is at least twice as likely to be autistic as the general population.

please link your reviews. FASD has autism-like symptoms. It is coming back to my ‘tired all the time’ analogy - pushing similar symptoms for a wide range of conditions under into a single group rather than recognising autism-like symptoms are a feature of a wide range of conditions not a single condition.

I dont know wether its just my LA but all the special schools ( we have two primary and two secondary schools) have doubled in capacity over the past Decade to meet the growing needs of children many of whom have an autism disgnosis
These schools cater for childden with complex disabillities so would never have beeen under the radar

I think the increase in diagnosis is because autistic people are struggling more than before so they seek help.

Households generally need two working adults to have a good quality of life, so autistic people who previously managed alright as housewives, artists, etc. are now forced into earning a decent wage and exacerbating their autistic difficulties.

Life, especially in the UK, is unbelievably noisy and busy, with construction work, relentless road noise, air traffic, booming music, dogs... Overpopulation is a major issue in terms of worsening the negative symptoms of autism. Children are showing signs of extreme suffering very early on because existence is already so painful, leading their parents to seek help.

I agree that modern life could make some non-autistic people appear autistic because most symptoms of autism are simply normal responses to severe anxiety. Soothing behaviours: repetitive movement such as rocking, lining things up, needing order and control, tics, eating the same thing repeatedly, isolating oneself. Distress behaviours: covering ears, hitting things or themselves, anger, meltdowns.

I think the more likely explanation, though, is that autistic people are just coping less well than before so we aren't slipping through the net.

I suspect that's at least partly because of a growing awareness among parents and in society that those children deserve a proper education, and that many of them will simply not have been been going to school in the past. Also perhaps a growing awareness that mothers need to work and can't if children aren't in school.

Autism wasn't even separated from childhood schizophrenia until 1979, and from then until the late 2010s it was primarily a developmental disorder.

Diagnosis has increased compared to say the 1970s because it's essentially a totally different condition. Adults couldn't be diagnosed with autism until comparatively recently, and at first if it was considered for adults it was as a "residual state" of childhood psychosis...

All the claims that more people are diagnosed now than fifty years ago ignore the fact that 95% of people diagnosed now would not meet the criteria in use in 1976!

The people were around obviously, but the diagnosis criteria has changed beyond all recognition multiple times. They weren't overlooked for diagnosis because society was so accommodating - they simply were not autistic by the diagnosis criteria in use at the time .