No, Your TV Set Did Not Cause Your Child's Autism — But Really Bad Science Could Make Your Brain Explode!

I would also add, the researchers do not indicate that they have sat in a room with autistic children and watched them “watching” TV—-I posted about this at First it was iPods, now it’s TV: Blaming autism on electronic appliances. TV is the next thimerasol, it seems.

In reacting with defensive ridicule (seriously, a Monty Pyton reference?) to what appears to be a scientifically conducted study, you’ve really done both the issue and your readers a disservice.

I don’t know if there’s anything to this potential link, but I do know I expect better than this when I come to about.com

How about, for a start, keeping an open mind?

How about actually reading and excerpting the study, instead of posting what appears to be an extremely superficial and knee-jerk reaction to the subject?

Lisa’s reaction was actually extremely gracious considering the subject matter. If you meet some of the kids I know suffering from autism, you would know the disabilities they have could not be caused by TV or not playing enough outside. How much do you know about kids with autism and how the diagnosis has expanded? Many people who are now diagnosed with autism would have been diagnosed with just mental retardation — and that was at a time where there was no cable. The numbers of kids with mental retardation are way down. Maybe TV keeps children from becoming retarded? You see the absurdity here, I hope. The study is what is extremely superficial, not Lisa’s critique.

Cynthia

There were many things that bugged me about this “research”.

1 – Temperatures were found not to be statistically significant when correlated to television viewing. Excuse me, but, in extreme weather (Minnesota winters, Lousiana summers), where will you find the children? Uh . . . indoors. Sh! That does not count!

2 – They never actually sampled children (autistic and otherwise) and found out their television watching habits at different ages.

In my sample of two, my autistic child watched far less television under age two because she could not visually track nor process television. She did not become interested in television until after we started her evaluations. My son, neurotypical, watched way more television than her–by all rights, he ought to the autistic one.

Rule number one of statistical research–you need to understand the issue you are studying. Clearly the authors of the study did not.

3 – Why is it so important that the Amish do not watch television and that overrides other factors of their lifestyle less exposure to indoor pollution, outdoor pollution, immunizations, lack of genetic variability, etc.? (Hint: only factors that match the hypothesis are *really* important–everything else you can pooh pooh to “prove” your point.)

4 – Underlying factors: autism tends to run in families with engineers/math types. Wouldn’t they tend to live in areas with greater access to technology? People familiar with autism know this.

5 – CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION!

6 – I seriously doubt this study could ever make it passed people who understand how and how not to conduct sampling and regress data.

Lisa, I agree with you. The statistical knowledge on display in this research impresses me as much as Monty Python’s circular logic.

I think the critique of this research is comical, especially so since it is primarily composed of verbatim script from Monty Python.
1. The Cornell Research explicitly does not claim a causal link.
2. Thye tested the hypothesis not one but 3 ways using different data sets to determine whether a potential link may exist – and all three indicated the same apparent trend.

3. Given that the research is essentially a statistical analysis of large data sets, the critique the researchers had no experience of Autism is absurd, none is needed in this kind of analysis.

4. Are there other plausible explanations for the apparent relationship – of course – but that does noy avoid the inescapable conclusion that TV may in part or whole represent the source of the increase in Autism in the last 25 years

5. The only valid comclusion is ‘Perhaps we need to look at this potential relationship more closely’ The researchers claimed little or nothing more.

5. To mock this research is akin to the ostrich putting its head in the sand. It tells us far more about the intellect of the critique’s author than it does about the credibility of the research.

I just read the bio of the author of this mocking critique it is I think notable and instructive to recognize that her highest academic degree is a Masters in Divinity. This of course provides her ample academic credentials to critique the much honored researchers from a prestigious university. Divinity being such a rigorus empirical discipline must have provided lots of relevent experience in assessing the vailidty of such research. Or perhaps it just provides the faith and arrogant certainty to ‘know’ when something is bad eh!

I left the comment above yours, and I have a masters degree in Operations Research (statistics) from the Naval Postgraduate school.

The question of the study “Does Television Cause Autism?” implies their intent to blame autism on television. Perhaps the authors ought to be more careful in the title.

Just because one has data, does not mean the data is reliable nor the statistical analysis done properly. For example, their data excludes a group within the population of autism–homeschooled autistic children are not usually included in school statistics.

You do need to have knowledge of autism. You might be comparing two different variables (rates of autism, precipitation, and television viewing) that might be affected by a different but more true factor. It could be that autism runs in more technologically savvy families, who might have been working in areas that got cable/satelitte first. It could be something else not yet suspected.

I can’t believe the angry pettiness of some of these posters. Maybe THAT says more about them than it does about Lisa Jo Rudy’s critique. Geesh.

As for the study, my first thought was, “Great. More guilt-inducing tripe.” My second thought was, “Maybe a high concentration of Starbucks locations causes autism!” Or could it be plaid shirts and tree pollen? Hmm. Someone should throw some money at that…

What a cheap shot to mock the kind of degree Lisa’s has. We are not putting our heads in the sand. Do you know children deeply affected by autism? If you do, you’d laugh at the thought TV could cause such a serious disorder. Sorry, I read the study, and it just doesn’t make sense. It is not something to pursue. There is nothing in it. I know too many kids with autism who didn’t watch TV as young kids, and many without autism who watched a lot of it. Just doesn’t follow.

And why would three to four times more girls than boys have autism? TV is fine for girls, but not for boys? To the extent one child might develop serious symptoms and the other sex remain completely unaffected? Sounds very suspicious.

And what about kids who were observed to have developmental problems by the age of six months, like my child? He wasn’t watching TV at all. And no, he wasn’t around it because he spent most of his time with me and I very, very seldom watch TV.

Cynthia

Hopefully my Masters degree from the Yale University Interdepartmental Neuroscience Program will mean more to you.

I can completely understand why she didn’t write a point by point criticism of the “study”. It is such a bad piece of science doesn’t deserve one. I could use the same statistical techniques to show that eating ice cream causes drowning, by showing that in parts of the country where it’s hot more people buy ice cream and more people drown.

This study is idiotic! If TV causes autism then why are so many children benefiting from diet and biomedical solutions. Last time I looked TV had nothing to do with the GI tract.

In terms of correlation, yes there may be one between rain and autism. Not because kids are watching TV but because of things such as toxins that fall in the rain. Mercury, ah yes that, does fall in the rain get in the water and pollute things like fish. It also could pollute things like, um, children.

I would think that being a mother of an autistic child eminently qualifies Lisa to comment on the obvious flaws of this study.

Fiona

Hmm, I live in one of the rainy counties with high cable TV subscription rates.

1. This is also the county that is home to Intel and other Silicon Forest companies, with a high concentration of engineers and computer folk. It has been suggested elsewhere that this allows technical types with genetic disposition to the autism spectrum to meet a work and interbreed, leading to a concentration of genetic factors towards autism.

2. Rain means very poor broadcast TV reception, hence higher cable subscription rates. In my county, you need cable if you want a clear picture. So, it is NOT SURPRISING that you have higher cable subscription rates in rainy counties.

3. The Silicon Forest provided good high paying jobs relative to other counties in the state which were still reliant on logging and agriculture. More discretionary dollars to spend on things like cable TV (especially given the poor broadcast TV reception due to the rain.)

I’m no statistician, but I can give you a common sense reason why folks in the Silicon Forest have cable TV.

I also agree that you simply cannot compare the Amish with any other American group, as they are highly inbred, so if autism is linked to genetic factors as many suggest, the Amish are a community where these genetic traits were lost. I come from an ethnic community that was very inbred (in one of the “high autism” counties), and I do not know of a single autistic child among our thousands of cousins. But we watch a heck of a lot of TV!

Well, this suggestion of a causal link COULD give unnecessary guilt trips to parents of autistic children, and that part is terrible. The science isn’t great, they should have actually looked into autistic children’s television viewing habits from birth until their diagnosis and compared it with averages. BUT, I think anything that might convince parents to limit their kids’ TV watching time is a GOOD thing! Especially for babies, it has been proven infants brain waves are altered negatively while watching TV (even “educational” videos) and they can be put into a catatonic state.

Thanks all for your support! I’ve gotta say I wrote this post largely out of frustration with the willingness of researchers to write ANYTHING that pops into their heads without thinking about the implications for families… and today (Sunday Oct 21) I see that Google alerts are filled with stories from reputable publications that are taking this “research” absolutely seriously. I just don’t think anyone outside the autism community has a clue as to how parents might respond to an accusation that they CAUSED their child’s lifelong disability…

Whoever funded this research must lack common sense. Surely, if funding were available for the benefit of the autistic community, caring, educating or entertaining (even by purchasing a TV) those in need would better spend them.

I had to jump in behind Lisa here – I almost threw up when I read this study (and yes, despite not having a Master’s degree at all, but rather a B.S. in Sociology, I did read it). I’m pretty sure if I had attempted to turn this in as a Senior project I would have had a difficult time passing and actually getting the degree. I’m at a loss to understand how anyone who has any experience with children on the autism spectrum could take the attitude of, hey, at least they’re encouraging kids to watch less TV. Perhaps that’s the problem with the supporters of this study or those who are so quick to judge Lisa’s opinion. Parents of children on the spectrum spend every day of their lives with that echo of Bettelheim in the back of their heads – did I do something to my child to cause this? We watch our children struggle to do that which comes so naturally to others their age and our hearts ache for them – being a child shouldn’t have to be this difficult. So yes, we’re going to get jumping-up-and-down ANGRY when a study such as this blasts it’s way into the headlines, angry to the point where there’s nothing we can do but take some small comfort in the fact that is is so Un-worthy of the press it’s gotten. It would have helped, for example, if the ‘researchers’ had bothered to actually measure the amount of television the CHILDREN were watching…

Hippy College? Monica Lewinsky? Financial Consultant? Why would anyone with beard do that? Oh, yes, the Maharishi!