I WONDER HOW MANY of us know someone with autism spectrum disorder. It’s called a “spectrum” because a broad range of behaviors are associated with it. Some very successful and famous people are said to be on the spectrum, and some individuals aren’t as functional. The disorder seems to be growing if one looks only at the raw numbers, but when the consequence of broader diagnostic criteria are factored in, maybe the disorder isn’t “growing” but is more frequently understood and recognized.1

According to the Autism Society:

While there is not a single behavioral or communication test that can detect Autism, several Autism-specific tools are now being used for formal diagnosis … All of these tests should be used as part of a larger assessment, and not just on their own, as the determination of Autism is best completed with multiple sources of information.

So what is the cause, and what should institutions be doing to address the disorder? For the most part, the research has been focused on understanding it. That means science-based inquiry; in other words, learning as much about the behaviors as possible, forming hypotheses and rigorously testing them.

It may seem obvious to say so, but this time-tested process is called the scientific method, and it’s been widely and successfully used for centuries. The benefit of applying the scientific method is that it is systematic in its attempt to stick with the facts. As Joe Friday used to say on a long-forgotten TV show, “Just the facts, ma’am.”

By contrast, opinions are very easy to come by. Everybody has them, and some seem to be manufactured on the spot, under the influence of some substance, in a vacuum or with some emotional need unrelated to the issue. Having an opinion about something is different than forming a hypothesis and rigorously testing it.

What is the “scientific method” and why might we prefer it to some loudly expressed opinion? Here’s what the dictionary has to say about the scientific method:

The subject of autism spectrum disorder has come up in the news recently because a new Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., thinks science has been wrongly focused. The inquiry should be on environmental factors instead of genetic factors, he thinks. 3 To Kennedy, research into autism has been a kind of ideology. He said:

It isn’t as if other risk factors haven’t been studied; they have.5 So Kennedy is not on to something no one else has considered. But he does have a powerful position that can affect funding. What if his bias toward environmental factors leads to a discontination of research involving non-environmental factors? As Kennedy denounces autism research as ideology, he advocates a fringe ideology of his own. So, one must ask if Kennedy thinks he knows the answer or is genuinely interested in pursuing legitimate ASD research. His words are clear:

To add to his alarming point of view on research, he used stereotypical descriptors of persons with ASD:

Kennedy is shockingly reckless with his statements. Remember, this is a person who opposes vaccinations, even in the face of a current measles epidemic, an “anti-vaxer” as his fellow conspiracy theorists are often labeled.

Among the many, many people who would disagree with this stereotype are some who are quite capable of writing, thinking critically, and using the toilet. For a wake up call, consider this open letter, written by a young woman who says she is on the spectrum. The link is to her facebook post. 8

She’s not alone. Other families and individuals with ASD have been deeply hurt by Kennedy’s recklessness. He is in the dark about science, and he is in the dark about ASD individuals. He should not be given the influential podium that he has.