They found a high correlation between families who had cable television beginning around 1980 and increased autism diagnoses in the same states at that time.
A high correlation doesn’t necessarily mean cause and effect. Television has been blamed for a lot of society’s ills and several of the claims are probably justified. It’s certainly easy to see that TV could be partly to blame for the obesity epidemic, but the blame for that must also surely be spread around. TV has also been blamed for ADHD, but again, if that’s true, I doubt TV is the only culprit.
Does TV cause autism? I have a little trouble believing it. Nonetheless, it certainly makes sense to limit TV time, especially for younger children. The American Academy of Pediatrics advisises parents that they should not allow any TV at all for children under age 2.
Not only does limiting TV make sense, but getting kids outside and active makes sense. They can’t be watching TV if they’re playing tag.
I think it’s more likely that TV could, perhaps, make autism a little worse in kids already genetically predisposed to it. But if TV caused it, I think the numbers would be even worse than they are.
David doesn’t like to sit through an entire TV show, even half-hour shows. He loves game shows (more on that next week), but rarely makes it to the end of one unless he started watching in the middle of the show.
As for TV causing autism, I don’t want to go there. I already feel enough guilt. It’s not like I can go back and make sure my kids weren’t watching too much.
For those of us who have children with autism, such a question only puts more guilt on parents who already get reemed by people who think our kids are just undisciplined.
Since there is a epidemic of autism, there has to be an environmental trigger: genetics cannot cause an epidemic. Our current focus on vaccines seems to discourage thought about other possible triggers. There is convincing evidence that vaccines do not cause autism. Why not look elsewhere?
A major environmental trigger has already been identified. Michael Waldman’s research (2006)1 has proven that autism is strongly correlated with early childhood exposure to television. Such exposure, like autism, has risen dramatically in recent years. These results do not prove that TV causes autism, but that early exposure to TV seriously increases the risk of autism.
In scientific terms, Waldman’s research is highly convincing. Nevertheless is has been ignored or dismissed. Our culture is so enamored of television and the computer that it resists the accumulating evidence that early over-exposure leads to behavioral problems in children. Parents of autistic children dread feeling blamed and so resist the possibility that their use of television, DVDs, or computer games may inadvertently have triggered autism.
Both the public and many researchers have been misled by the evidence that autism is correlated with genetic factors. In fact the genetic evidence shows that genetic factors may predispose an infant to autism, but that genetic factors alone do not cause autism. For example, when one genetically identical twin is autistic, the other may not be autistic.
Research on autism is often flawed by mechanistic assumptions about the brain. It is now well-established that biological structures are not mechanisms but dynamic systems. Unlike mechanisms, dynamic systems organize themselves with extensive input from the environment. These issues, and their implications for autism, are explained more fully in my on-line article in Dynamical Psychology (2004)2.
Meanwhile, Waldman’s results cannot be dismissed. Their scientific and statistical validity is clear.
? If genetics can not cause an epidemic….is it possible that the word “epidemic” is missplaced
“Epidemic” is not an official denomination for the growth of autism rates. If TV increases the Risk of autism….then if the kid is not exposed to TV…is it possible that he/she does not turn autistic???
“Since there is a epidemic of autism, there has to be an environmental trigger: genetics cannot cause an epidemic.”
Not true. An increase in assortive mating, i.e. the pairing up of people carrying the genes that code for a predisposition to a certain disorder, would lead to a higher incidence of that disorder in the next generation as these presumably recessive genes become concentrated in one segment of the population, as opposed to being spread more evenly throughout.
Personally, I think tv is a good candidate for the recent spike in autism rates, though of course people must have some kind of a predisposition to the disorder as well or else everyone would have been affected.
Marc,your point about epidemics makes total sense. On the other hand, I still think TV is not a player here. Maybe its not you case, but politics may play a big role on blaming TV for a lot of things.
Johanna Eubank writes about the joys and trials of having an adult child with autism.
About Johanna Eubank
Johanna Eubank is a news and research assistant for the Arizona Daily Star and online content producer for StarNet. She and her husband Dave have two sons, 23-year-old David, who has autism, and 20-year-old Rob, who is studying to be an aerospace engineer.
Email: jeubank@azstarnet.com
Good Column. The sole idea of a link is absurd and only brings more “noise” to the issue.
— Martin 07/30/2008 03:42 PM #
Dear Editor,
Since there is a epidemic of autism, there has to be an environmental trigger: genetics cannot cause an epidemic. Our current focus on vaccines seems to discourage thought about other possible triggers. There is convincing evidence that vaccines do not cause autism. Why not look elsewhere?
A major environmental trigger has already been identified. Michael Waldman’s research (2006)1 has proven that autism is strongly correlated with early childhood exposure to television. Such exposure, like autism, has risen dramatically in recent years. These results do not prove that TV causes autism, but that early exposure to TV seriously increases the risk of autism.
In scientific terms, Waldman’s research is highly convincing. Nevertheless is has been ignored or dismissed. Our culture is so enamored of television and the computer that it resists the accumulating evidence that early over-exposure leads to behavioral problems in children. Parents of autistic children dread feeling blamed and so resist the possibility that their use of television, DVDs, or computer games may inadvertently have triggered autism.
Both the public and many researchers have been misled by the evidence that autism is correlated with genetic factors. In fact the genetic evidence shows that genetic factors may predispose an infant to autism, but that genetic factors alone do not cause autism. For example, when one genetically identical twin is autistic, the other may not be autistic.
Research on autism is often flawed by mechanistic assumptions about the brain. It is now well-established that biological structures are not mechanisms but dynamic systems. Unlike mechanisms, dynamic systems organize themselves with extensive input from the environment. These issues, and their implications for autism, are explained more fully in my on-line article in Dynamical Psychology (2004)2.
Meanwhile, Waldman’s results cannot be dismissed. Their scientific and statistical validity is clear.
Maxson J. McDowell PhD, LMSW, LP
(1) www.johnson.cornell.edu/faculty/profiles/wald…
(2) www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2004/Autism04.htm
— Maxson McDowell 07/30/2008 06:43 PM #
? If genetics can not cause an epidemic….is it possible that the word “epidemic” is missplaced
“Epidemic” is not an official denomination for the growth of autism rates. If TV increases the Risk of autism….then if the kid is not exposed to TV…is it possible that he/she does not turn autistic???
— Martin 08/04/2008 02:20 PM #
“Since there is a epidemic of autism, there has to be an environmental trigger: genetics cannot cause an epidemic.”
Not true. An increase in assortive mating, i.e. the pairing up of people carrying the genes that code for a predisposition to a certain disorder, would lead to a higher incidence of that disorder in the next generation as these presumably recessive genes become concentrated in one segment of the population, as opposed to being spread more evenly throughout.
Personally, I think tv is a good candidate for the recent spike in autism rates, though of course people must have some kind of a predisposition to the disorder as well or else everyone would have been affected.
— Marc 08/05/2008 11:04 AM #
Marc,your point about epidemics makes total sense. On the other hand, I still think TV is not a player here. Maybe its not you case, but politics may play a big role on blaming TV for a lot of things.
— Martin 08/05/2008 01:27 PM #