By MAQQI
Autism is genetic
Ok so there’s an ‘autism gene’!
Nope. This is absolutely not what ‘it’s genetic’ means at all.
First off, in so far as anyone can point to a genetic component of what it is that makes a person Autistic, the biggest evidence we have by far is just that it’s way more likely that one person will get a clinical confirmation they’re Autistic if another person they are closely related to has also got a clinical confirmation. That’s not evidence of a genetic ‘cause,’ it is just a sign that identifiable characteristics used in
that assessment process are common in a given family. It is already a leap to say ‘common in this family’ = ‘it’s genetic.’ There’s a strong likelihood for sure, but is just
a correlation at this point.
This is where the ‘autism gene’ idea mostly comes from, inspired by thoughts about Down Syndrome and Fragile X and similar. But we did those tests, across a LOT of people and… There’s no one gene. There’s dozens – probably hundreds.
Okay… but at least we have a set of gene variants identifed.
We can test this, though, which is kinda cool. If we can find a particular gene variant
or something common in Autistic people in one family, then we can test to see if
that’s common among other non-related Autistic people.
Yes… but there’s a hitch. While all of them are more common in Autistic people than non-Autistics, none of them are common to large numbers of Autistics. This is why we get phrases like “may be implicated in some aspects of the Autistic profile” It’s very much a case of ‘probably kinda maybe sorta perhaps.’
The problem is, genetics is ridiculously complex. Almost no gene (actually probably none of them) operates on its own to produce a single identifiable characteristic.
To make things even messier, none of the identified gene variants are unique to Autistic people. Loads of non-Autistic people share plenty of these same variants but are clearly not Autistic.
Even putting all that aside, the very criteria any research into all this is based on to define members of their Autistic cohort in studies are based on behavioural characteristics. We are not even trying to link physiological characteristics to
underlying genetic causes, we’re trying to link genes to third-party interpretations of peoples’ actions within social and cultural contexts. And to heap more complexity on
top of this, we know a lot of those behavioural criteria are actually just evidence of stress, anxiety, trauma etc.
They are mostly just common ways humans respond to danger and harm.
But wait, there’s more! There’s another word in the mix here also, and it is one that often gets tangled up with ‘genetic’ to the point where they seem to be two words for
the same thing: heritable.
We all certainly have ‘heritable traits’ that arise from genetic causes – being tall, having red hair or dark skin, being short sighted or having sickle cell anaemia or
whatever. But the word heritable also includes habits, customs and other learned traits, plus the absence of traits because we had nobody to model them for us. This
can include methods to regulate emotionally, opinions on the value of play or study, reading ability, taste in music or art or literature, attitudes to diet or exercise or sport
and much more.
And none of this – not one bit – is a certainty. All of it is just probabilities. It’s all just
more likely, have an increased chance, are less likely, are unlikely… Even our best guesses are ‘probably’ versus ‘probably not.’
If this all sounds horribly confusing and complex at this stage, then good. It should.
The idea ‘autism is genetic’ initially sounds like we should be able to locate a gene or genes that ‘cause’ people to be Autistic. It sounds like we should be able to just do a
DNA test and pinpoint all the Autistic people. That is a long, long way off and probably not even possible at all.
What’s your thoughts about the genetic (or learned) heritability of Autistic characteristics? Is there any point to testing or do you think clinical assessment makes it unnecessary? I’d love to hear your thoughts!
