Weird title, right.
Well, I actually can’t sleep because these thoughts are whirling around in my head. What thoughts you ask? You can kind of get a whiff of the overall theme from the title itself.
Currently, I’ve been absolutely fascinated with autism and play-based curricula. Yes, a by-product of being forced by my English class to write a research paper pertaining to the diploma being pursued.
Now, the research into autism is currently honed into the genetic link, as previous studies on twins have proven that link (McCarthy, 2004, p. 1325). I have yet to research the specifics and current outcomes of this branch of research; however, the scientific articles I’ve read does briefly mention potential environmental factors that could pose as risks (McCarthy, 2004, p. 1325). But, my question is why these environmental factors are not as important as the genetic link? To answer that question, I have formulated two theories that could quench my thirst. You ready? Here we go.
Number 1. To pin point environmental factors will probably rely on the knowledge of the specific “susceptibility gene” that researchers are trying to determine (McCarthy, 2004, p. 1325). A pretty reasonable hypothesis, right? Alright, let’s continue.
Number 2. To focus on environmental factors would touch on preventative measures; aka, things to avoid during pregnancy. Now, is it just me or would it be justifiable to state that preventative measures would affect profits for pharmaceutical companies? You have to admit that “cure-based” research would put some sort of marketable product manufactured by these influential companies. But, who’s to say I’m right in this opinion.
So I leave this to you, my dear readers, to ponder. What do you think? Is it numero 1, or 2? Is it both, and if so is do they weigh as equals?
McCarthy, A. A. (October 2004). Innovations: The Genetics of Autism. Chemistry & Biology, 11, pp. 1325 – 1326. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemboil.2004.10.001