curable autism(s)

[mellowtigger]

New research from the Children's Hospital of Boston finds several new genes implicated in some forms of autism. They ran a study involving 104 Middle Eastern families (88 of which had cousin marriages, increasing the likelihood of transmission for rare mutations), looking for recessive genes that could be linked to autism diagnoses. They found that 6% of the families had DNA deletions (5 were identified) linked to autism. One of those genes was also found mutated in European and American children (especially those with autism and seizures).

In most of these "deletions", however, it wasn't the gene itself that was missing but instead it was nearby "switches" adjacent to it, suggesting the possibility that someday science could find a way to reactivate the dormant genes. The report notes:

It is the refinement of these synaptic connections that is the basis of learning and memory, suggesting that autism at its heart may represent molecular defects of learning. ... The findings also support the use of behavioral therapies in autism, which expose children to a rich environment and highly repetitive activities that may help turn on the genes and strengthen synaptic connections, Morrow adds.

I'm still not real keen on the idea that one person could decide for someone else whether to "change" them in such a way or not, but I still think it's fine for any person to make the decision only for their own self.  Anyone who suffers deserves relief.  It does make me ponder, though, what "normal" could even be in such a world.  Suppose I want to reactivate some long-buried gene that would give me a fur coat like a dog or a tail like a monkey or gills in my neck like a fish?

If it's not a matter of adding new protein encoding but merely reactivating what codes are already in my body, then it still counts as "my natural self", doesn't it?

This kind of stuff strikes me as odd in the same way as gender reassignment surgery on infants.  You don't like the body/mind that chance gave you, so you exchange that person for a different one.  Seems really dangerous to do that sort of thing to another person, but acceptable if they choose to do it for themselves.

Comments

[dr-scott.livejournal.com]

Just imagine if you could consciously tune yourself hour by hour depending on what task you wanted to perform -- intense focus mode, party mode, math mode... :-)

[mellowtigger]

If it really could be as simple a matter as changing hats, then I'd be all for it. I'd try out new genders, new handicaps, new everything. As long as I could put it all away whenever I wanted to. I think it'd be both fun and educational. :)

[dodecadragon.livejournal.com]

I agree with you on this. It's a good technology for those who wish to change their own lot in life.

It also may prove useful for adapting to different environments and/or colonizing other planets.

[mellowtigger]

Absolutely. Though is seriously blurs the definition of "human", even the concept of species, since other creatures have as much genetic baggage as we do.

[dodecadragon.livejournal.com]

I personally have no problem with blurring such definitions. :o)

Bear/Twink
Gay/Straight
White/Black
Human/Animal
Life/Inanimate
Matter/Anti-Matter

All artificial distinctions used to separate us from all the rest.

Underneath our physical facades are just a bunch of particles spinning around vibrating at various rates in a bunch of nothing. :o)

[scorpioatl.livejournal.com]

But by the time an adult capable of making that decision actually decides, it's going to be too late to do anything about the autism defect-- the brain is already wired at such a young age. Doing it near birth is the best option.

Are you still hesitant to use technology like this for heart disease or sickle cell anemia, or breast cancer?

[mellowtigger]

The Speed Of Dark is a good story about an adult who makes just such a decision. Although Gattaca comes to mind also, considering what choices that adults could make for children who then have to live with someone else's decisions. (It seems to me that there is a lot less potential for "blame" if you live with the consequences of chance rather than the consequences of someone else's mindful choice.)

Sickle cell anemia is a good example. It remains in the gene pool (although a painful debilitating, even deadly, disorder) because it's useful, providing some measure of protection from malaria infection. If we end up eliminating any genetic difference because of its perceived "badness", then we also risk eliminating useful discoveries. Mother Nature blindly experiments, but She's had a very long time to do it. Even Her mistakes can provide useful information for combating future problems. (Why reinvent wheels that nature has already provided to us?)

Consider homosexuality. Being (usually) a dead-end reproductive branch, it simply shouldn't persist in any animal's gene pool. Yet it does. Evolutionary theory therefore insists that homosexuality must provide an equally significant advantage for the animals over the long term of evolutionary history. (like sickle cell)

[furr-a-bruin.livejournal.com]

I can think of a number of changes I'd like to do to myself... *grin*

Turn up the body fur to 11. (OK, so that means no one would be able to see any tattoos - it would be worth it!)

Fill in this embarassing gap in the middle of my eyebrow, the bit right over my nose.

Extend my maximum beard length down to just past my navel.