By David R.

Never has there been such a great volume of speculation concerning a largely settled matter of science. The causes of autism — as numerous or few as they may be — present an issue subject to a myriad of bizarre conjectures, ranging from claims of vaccines afflicting children with the disorder to assertions that the condition is caused by the consumption of processed foods. Regardless of these spurious notions, it is the current scientific consensus that autism is a primarily hereditary condition. As contemporary efforts to cure or prevent autism serve only to further stigmatize the disorder, it has become clear: This quixotic inquiry must end.

For those unaware, autism spectrum disorder is a congenital neurological condition that adversely impacts socialization and communication in those who suffer from it. As autism often results in social dysfunction and developmental delays, a great deal of stigma surrounds the condition. Consequently, many individuals and organizations aim to prevent the development of the disease. One such group is antivaxxers, or those who are opposed to the vaccination of children.

Many anti-vaccination organizations — including The Autism Community in Action and the Children’s Health Defense — posit that vaccinations cause autism in children. These organizations claim that the chemicals present within vaccines detrimentally affect children’s cognitive development, leading them to develop autism and other neurological disorders. In spite of the severity of these accusations, there is very little evidence supporting the idea that the administration of artificial immunization measures is in any way correlated with the development of autism spectrum disorder. Currently, the global scientific consensus regarding the causal link between vaccines and autism is that, in the words of Dr. Kristin Sohl, “Multiple studies from around the world have found no credible link between autism and vaccines.”

In addition to anti-vaxxers, the “crunchy” community maintains that post-natal environmental factors significantly contribute to the prevalence of autism. These “crunchy” influencers and their followers advocate for natural approaches to parenting, including limiting exposure to processed foods and other artificialities. While the majority of this advocacy is relatively benign — if not a bit pseudoscientific — some of it serves to promulgate the pernicious belief that autism can be caused by the inclusion of processed foods in children’s diets. Just as with anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories, there is little basis for these beliefs, as CEO of Crossriver Therapy Steven Zauderer acknowledges: “Autism is not caused by a single factor or event, and there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that a specific food… causes autism.”

While many seek to prevent autism, equally as many wish to cure the condition. While there is no known cure to autism spectrum disorder at this time, some believe it is possible to entirely rid those afflicted of the disorder. This, of course, raises the question: Why do we need to cure autism? As autism is a neurological condition, its presence results in fundamental deviations in brain anatomy. Due to this, autism often influences all facets of an autistic individual’s life. Consequently, for many such people, autism is an inextricable component of their being. In placing inordinate focus upon a cure for autism, society demonizes what is an intrinsic aspect of many people’s identity. When people speak of the “burden” placed upon society by autism, or of “exterminating” the condition, they are often perceived not as inimical to autism, but to autistic people themselves.

Discussion of a possible “cure” for autism creates false hope, merely delaying society’s inevitable acceptance of neurodivergent individuals. Similar to the discourse surrounding those suffering from physical disabilities, we must reframe the conversation around autism. As autism cannot be ameliorated, society must focus on accommodation efforts rather than efforts intended to cure autism. When examining the condition’s symptoms, it is clear that autism is not problematic in a vacuum. It is only when neurodivergent individuals interact with neurotypical individuals that conflicts may occur. Indeed, it is rather how society engages with autistic individuals that instigates conflict. Due to this, it is evident that a cure for autism is not so categorically necessary or desirable to prompt further efforts to cure or prevent the disorder.

And to those who propose further efforts to cure autism, I pose the following question: To whom are such measures truly beneficial?