Opinion autism research federal rfk jr sparks debate. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s views on autism and its purported link to environmental factors are creating a ripple effect, challenging established scientific understanding. This exploration dives into the intricacies of the research, the historical context, and the motivations behind the controversy.

The current state of autism research, encompassing genetic, environmental, and social aspects, is examined. Different methodologies, their strengths and weaknesses, and contrasting findings are analyzed. This investigation also considers the perspectives of researchers, clinicians, parents, and individuals with autism, highlighting potential biases and limitations.

Table of Contents

Overview of the Topic

The intersection of opinions on autism, scientific research, and the involvement of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a complex and contentious area. Kennedy’s outspoken critiques of mainstream autism research and vaccine-autism link have garnered significant attention, often polarizing public discourse. This discussion delves into the historical context, motivations, and differing perspectives surrounding these interconnected issues.

Understanding this intricate web requires careful examination of the scientific evidence, the historical context of autism research, and the motivations behind the arguments presented.The debate is further complicated by the emotional and personal experiences of individuals affected by autism, their families, and advocates who seek solutions and understanding. This often fuels strong reactions and passionate stances on both sides of the issue, creating a polarized atmosphere.

Ultimately, a balanced perspective necessitates a nuanced understanding of the historical context, the motivations of key figures, and the diverse perspectives of those affected by autism.

Relationship Between Opinions, Research, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Kennedy’s involvement in the autism debate stems from his public advocacy against the perceived link between vaccines and autism. This position, though unsupported by substantial scientific evidence, has resonated with a segment of the public. His association with this issue has drawn significant attention and controversy, influencing perceptions of autism research and its funding priorities. This has created a complex relationship between opinions, research, and the involvement of a high-profile figure.

Historical Context of Autism Research and Debate

The understanding and diagnosis of autism have evolved considerably over time. Early research focused on behavioral characteristics and limitations, leading to differing interpretations and diagnostic criteria. Later, genetic and biological factors were considered, which refined our understanding of autism’s neurological underpinnings. These shifts in research direction have been crucial in understanding autism as a multifaceted neurological condition, but also have been subjected to scrutiny and debate, especially concerning the role of vaccines.

A crucial aspect of this historical context involves the evolution of scientific understanding and the influence of public perception.

Motivations Behind the Connection

Various motivations underlie the association between opinions on autism, research, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s involvement. These include a desire for alternative explanations to the accepted medical consensus on autism, a distrust of established institutions, and a belief in the potential for harm from vaccines. The potential motivations behind the connection are varied and complex. This includes the search for alternative solutions and explanations, as well as the importance of transparency and accountability within the medical community.

Different Perspectives Surrounding the Issue

Diverse perspectives on autism exist, ranging from those who support mainstream scientific research to those who advocate for alternative approaches. Those who trust the scientific community supporting the current consensus often highlight the lack of evidence linking vaccines to autism and the potential risks of spreading misinformation. Conversely, others emphasize the need for further research into potential environmental factors and alternative treatments.

These differing perspectives underscore the complexity of the issue. The need for reliable information and the value of open discourse are central to the differing viewpoints. These viewpoints are deeply personal and influenced by individual experiences, values, and beliefs.

I’ve been reading a lot about the opinions surrounding autism research and federal figures like RFK Jr. It’s fascinating how these debates intertwine with real-world issues, like the recent case of a Hayward man ordered to pay $15,000 for killing two people here. While this case highlights the complexities of justice, it also makes me think about the different perspectives and potential biases in the autism research field, bringing everything back to the importance of critical thinking and reliable sources.

Analysis of Research on Autism

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) research is a dynamic field, constantly evolving as scientists uncover new insights and refine existing methodologies. Significant progress has been made in understanding the complexities of ASD, yet significant challenges remain. This exploration delves into the current state of autism research, examining various methodologies, factors, and key findings.The multifaceted nature of ASD necessitates a comprehensive approach to research, considering the interplay of genetic predispositions, environmental influences, and social interactions.

While significant strides have been made in identifying potential genetic markers and environmental risk factors, the precise mechanisms linking these factors to the development of ASD remain largely unknown.

Current State of Autism Research

Autism research has witnessed remarkable advancements in recent years. Techniques for early diagnosis have improved, allowing for earlier intervention and support. These advancements are leading to a more nuanced understanding of the spectrum, recognizing the diverse presentation of ASD. However, limitations still exist in fully understanding the complex etiology of ASD and in developing targeted therapies for individuals with specific needs.

Challenges include inconsistencies in diagnostic criteria, variations in symptom severity across individuals, and the lack of standardized assessment tools for certain populations.

Research Methodologies in Autism

A variety of methodologies are employed in autism research, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. These include:

Genetic studies: These studies investigate the role of genes in the development of ASD. They often involve comparing the genomes of individuals with ASD to those without, searching for variations that might contribute to the disorder. Strengths lie in identifying potential genetic markers and providing insights into the biological basis of ASD. Limitations include the complex interplay of multiple genes and the influence of environmental factors, which can confound results.

Furthermore, identifying the precise functions of identified genes and their interactions requires further investigation.
Neuroimaging studies: These studies use techniques like fMRI and EEG to examine brain activity and structure in individuals with ASD. They can provide insights into the neural underpinnings of ASD. Strengths include the ability to visualize brain activity in real-time, revealing differences in brain function compared to neurotypical individuals. Limitations include the potential for technical artifacts to affect results and the difficulty in isolating specific neural mechanisms related to ASD symptoms.
Behavioral studies: These studies focus on observing and analyzing the behaviors of individuals with ASD. Strengths include the ability to identify specific behavioral characteristics and patterns associated with ASD. Limitations include the subjectivity of observation and the potential for observer bias. Moreover, the diverse range of behaviors within the ASD spectrum can make it challenging to draw generalizable conclusions.

Factors Considered in Autism Research

Autism research considers various factors, recognizing the multifaceted nature of the disorder. These include:

Genetic factors: Research investigates the role of specific genes and genetic variations that might increase the risk of ASD. This includes studies on inherited mutations and variations in gene expression.
Environmental factors: Studies explore the potential impact of prenatal exposures, early childhood experiences, and environmental toxins on ASD development. Examples include the effects of maternal infections or nutritional deficiencies during pregnancy.
Social factors: Research acknowledges the significant influence of social interactions and communication styles on the development and presentation of ASD. This includes the impact of social support systems, early interventions, and social skills training.

Comparison of Research Findings

Research Area	Key Findings	Limitations
Genetic Studies	Identification of several candidate genes associated with ASD risk.	Complexity of gene interactions and environmental influences.
Neuroimaging Studies	Evidence of altered brain connectivity and function in individuals with ASD.	Variability in brain structures and functions across individuals.
Behavioral Studies	Identification of specific behavioral characteristics like social interaction difficulties and repetitive behaviors.	Subjectivity of observation and potential for observer bias.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Statements and Positions

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been a vocal critic of the prevailing scientific understanding of autism, particularly regarding its purported link to vaccines. His pronouncements have generated significant controversy and have had a demonstrable impact on public opinion, leading to a rise in vaccine hesitancy and a decline in vaccination rates in some areas. His claims have also been widely challenged by medical professionals and scientific researchers.His assertions often center on the idea that environmental factors, rather than genetics or a combination of factors, are the primary drivers of autism.

This stance differs significantly from the prevailing scientific consensus, which recognizes a complex interplay of genetic predispositions and environmental influences as contributing to the development of autism spectrum disorder.

Summary of Kennedy’s Claims, Opinion autism research federal rfk jr

Kennedy’s statements regarding autism frequently point to the idea that environmental factors, specifically, the presence of certain chemicals in vaccines, are the primary cause of autism. He often challenges the safety and efficacy of vaccines, arguing that they are harmful to children’s health and development. His arguments often focus on specific chemicals or compounds within vaccines, suggesting they have adverse effects on the nervous system and potentially trigger autism.

Key Arguments and Claims

Vaccines as a Causal Factor: Kennedy argues that vaccines, particularly those containing mercury-based preservatives, are a significant contributing factor to the development of autism. This assertion directly contradicts the overwhelming scientific consensus that vaccines are not a cause of autism. Studies have repeatedly shown no link between vaccines and autism.
Environmental Toxins: He frequently highlights the potential impact of environmental toxins on neurological development. He proposes that exposure to these toxins, which can be found in various products, is a more likely cause of autism than previously considered. However, these claims lack sufficient supporting scientific evidence and are often misrepresented.
Questioning Scientific Consensus: Kennedy frequently questions the validity of the scientific consensus regarding autism, citing alleged conflicts of interest and biases within the medical community. He argues that the research supporting the current understanding of autism is flawed and insufficient. This assertion ignores decades of research and clinical data supporting the neurodevelopmental nature of autism.

Impact on Public Perception

Kennedy’s statements have had a significant impact on public perception of autism and vaccination. His claims, though widely discredited by the scientific community, have led to a rise in vaccine hesitancy and a decline in vaccination rates in some areas. This decline in vaccination rates has the potential to increase the risk of preventable diseases, putting vulnerable populations at risk.

Different Viewpoints

Medical Professionals and Scientists: The vast majority of medical professionals and scientists strongly refute Kennedy’s claims. Their position is grounded in decades of research, clinical trials, and observational studies demonstrating no link between vaccines and autism. They emphasize the importance of vaccination in preventing serious infectious diseases and protecting public health.
Public Health Organizations: Public health organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) unequivocally state that there is no scientific evidence to support the link between vaccines and autism. These organizations emphasize the importance of vaccination in preventing infectious diseases and safeguarding public health.
Parents and Advocacy Groups: Some parents and advocacy groups, concerned about the well-being of their children, may find Kennedy’s claims appealing. However, it is crucial to consider the potential negative consequences of vaccine hesitancy and the importance of relying on evidence-based information when making decisions about their children’s health.

Public Perception and Opinions

Public perception of autism is a complex and evolving landscape, shaped by a multitude of factors. Understanding these perceptions is crucial for fostering more effective support and treatment for individuals with autism. While significant strides have been made in raising awareness, misconceptions persist, impacting how society views and interacts with autistic people. This section delves into the diverse ways the public understands autism, considering how different groups perceive the issue and how media portrayal influences public opinion.The public’s understanding of autism is often influenced by readily available information, which may not always be accurate or comprehensive.

This can lead to misunderstandings about the nature of autism, its causes, and the spectrum of abilities and challenges it encompasses. Public perception is not static; it’s constantly being molded by new research, personal experiences, and media portrayals.

Public Understanding of Autism

Public understanding of autism is influenced by a variety of sources, ranging from formal educational materials to personal anecdotes and media representations. This diverse range of inputs can lead to a fragmented and often inaccurate view of the condition. A significant portion of the public relies on readily accessible information, potentially leading to misconceptions about the nature and causes of autism.

Comparison of Public Perceptions Across Different Groups

Different demographic groups may hold varying perceptions of autism, influenced by factors such as personal experiences, cultural backgrounds, and exposure to different information sources. For instance, parents of autistic children often have a deep understanding of the condition based on firsthand observation and experience. Professionals working with autistic individuals often have a more nuanced perspective based on clinical observation and data.

The general public, lacking such direct exposure, may rely on media portrayals, which can sometimes be inaccurate or sensationalized.

Impact of Media Coverage on Public Opinion

Media coverage plays a significant role in shaping public perception. While some media outlets strive for accurate and empathetic portrayals, others may perpetuate stereotypes or sensationalize the topic. Negative or misleading portrayals can lead to a skewed public understanding, potentially impacting attitudes and societal support. Media depictions of autistic individuals can significantly influence the public’s understanding of the condition.

Factors Influencing Public Opinion

Public opinion on autism and related issues is shaped by a multitude of factors, including scientific advancements, personal experiences, and media portrayals. The growing body of research contributes to a more accurate understanding, yet misinformation and outdated beliefs still persist. Personal experiences, particularly those of individuals with autism and their families, are crucial but can be limited in scope and may not always represent the diversity of the autistic population.

Media representations, whether accurate or inaccurate, heavily influence public perceptions, highlighting the importance of responsible and balanced reporting.

Impact of Opinions on Autism Research

The landscape of autism research is constantly shaped by the prevailing opinions and perspectives surrounding the condition. These opinions, whether grounded in scientific evidence or personal narratives, can significantly influence the direction of research, impacting funding priorities and ultimately, the available treatment and support options for individuals with autism. This influence is complex and multifaceted, demonstrating the importance of critical evaluation and unbiased approaches to ensure research remains objective and impactful.

Influence on Research Funding

Public opinion and prominent figures’ stances can significantly sway funding allocations in scientific research. When opinions diverge from established scientific consensus, it can lead to a disproportionate allocation of resources to areas that may not yield the most impactful outcomes. Funding for research that explores unproven or disproven theories can overshadow research with a solid foundation of scientific evidence.

This imbalance can hinder progress in identifying effective treatments and interventions.

RFK Jr.’s opinions on autism research funded by the federal government are certainly interesting, but it’s important to remember the complexities of scientific research. While the current focus is on understanding the causes and potential treatments for autism, the recent devastating California wildfires, which had such a profound impact, highlight the urgent need for more comprehensive research into the causes of these types of catastrophic events.

Understanding the science behind these events, like what started the California wildfires , could offer valuable insights for preventing future disasters. Ultimately, robust research, whether it’s on autism or environmental factors, is crucial for making informed decisions.

Differing Views and Research Priorities

A range of perspectives on autism exist, from those emphasizing environmental factors to those prioritizing genetic predispositions. These divergent viewpoints shape the research priorities and the questions that are investigated. The prominence of certain theories, whether supported by rigorous scientific study or not, can influence the types of research projects that receive funding and the focus of scientific investigations.

RFK Jr.’s opinions on autism research funded by the federal government are certainly sparking debate. While he’s outspoken, it’s interesting to see how local economic development efforts in Oakland, like those focusing on historic property renovations and home building loans (check out oakland historic property build economy loan develop home real estate ), are impacting the community.

Ultimately, the scientific consensus on autism research should be the focus, not personal opinions.

This often results in a complex and dynamic landscape, where the most promising research areas are sometimes overshadowed by popular but unsubstantiated ideas.

Potential Implications for Treatment and Support

The direction of autism research directly impacts the development and availability of effective treatments and support options. If research focuses on unproven or disproven theories, it can lead to the development of ineffective or even harmful interventions. This can have significant consequences for individuals with autism and their families, delaying access to evidence-based treatments and potentially hindering progress in understanding and managing the condition.

Table: Impact of Opinions on Research Funding

Opinion	Impact on Research Funding	Potential Implications for Treatment
Emphasis on Environmental Factors (e.g., vaccines)	May lead to increased funding for studies investigating environmental links, potentially diverting resources from genetic research.	Could result in the promotion of ineffective or potentially harmful treatments based on unproven links.
Focus on Genetic Predisposition	Likely to continue receiving substantial funding, aligning with the current scientific understanding of autism.	Promotes the development of treatments targeting genetic mechanisms and potential preventative measures.
Emphasis on Early Intervention	Funding often directed toward programs and research supporting early diagnosis and intervention strategies.	Results in increased access to early intervention services, potentially improving outcomes for individuals with autism.
Belief in alternative therapies (unproven)	May lead to funding allocation for unproven therapies, distracting from evidence-based approaches.	Could delay access to proven treatments and potentially harm individuals through ineffective or dangerous interventions.

Potential Misinformation and Disinformation: Opinion Autism Research Federal Rfk Jr

The proliferation of information online, while offering unprecedented access to knowledge, also creates fertile ground for the spread of misinformation and disinformation, particularly concerning complex and emotionally charged topics like autism. This can significantly impact public understanding, potentially hindering effective research, treatment, and support for individuals with autism and their families. Critically evaluating sources and understanding the mechanisms of misinformation are crucial steps in navigating this complex landscape.

Identifying Misinformation and Disinformation

Misinformation and disinformation surrounding autism often take the form of unsubstantiated claims about causes, treatments, or preventative measures. These claims can originate from various sources, including individuals with no relevant expertise, advocacy groups with specific agendas, or even well-intentioned but misinformed individuals. Recognizing these patterns and the motivations behind them is key to discerning reliable information.

Mechanisms of Misinformation Spread

Misinformation can spread rapidly through social media, online forums, and even traditional media outlets. The ease of sharing and the lack of verification processes contribute to its widespread dissemination. Emotional appeals, fear-mongering, and anecdotal evidence often play a significant role in shaping public perception and driving the spread of false or misleading information. The speed and scale of dissemination online can create a cascade effect, making it difficult to counter the misinformation.

Distinguishing Reliable and Unreliable Sources

Distinguishing between reliable and unreliable sources requires careful consideration of several factors. Author credentials, the presence of citations and references, the source’s reputation, and the overall tone and presentation of the information are crucial indicators. Reliable sources typically adhere to rigorous fact-checking standards and cite their evidence, while unreliable sources may lack these important elements. Seek out sources from reputable organizations, such as medical associations and government health agencies.

Look for clear links to supporting research or data, rather than relying solely on opinions or testimonials.

Examples of Misinformation

Correlation vs. Causation: Claims linking specific environmental factors to autism often confuse correlation with causation. While research might identify a correlation between a certain exposure and autism, this does not automatically imply a causal relationship. The absence of rigorous scientific evidence demonstrating a direct causal link is a key indicator of misinformation.
Unproven Treatments: Misinformation frequently promotes unproven or ineffective treatments for autism. These treatments, sometimes presented with anecdotal evidence or emotional appeals, can be costly, time-consuming, and even harmful to the individual. Scrutinize claims about cures or treatments that lack robust scientific support.
Misrepresentation of Research: Misinformation can arise from selectively quoting or misinterpreting research findings. Researchers may be misrepresented or their findings may be distorted to support a particular viewpoint. Always consult the original research to ensure accuracy.
Conspiracy Theories: Some misinformation about autism relies on conspiracy theories, which often connect autism to societal or environmental factors in unsubstantiated ways. Beware of unsubstantiated claims, especially those lacking credible evidence.

Impact of Misinformation on Autism Research

The spread of misinformation can impede progress in autism research by diverting resources, discrediting legitimate research, and creating unnecessary controversy. It can also lead to the public misinterpreting scientific findings, which could lead to harmful misconceptions about the nature of autism.

Comparison of Different Perspectives

Navigating the complexities of autism research often requires understanding the diverse viewpoints of those involved. Researchers, clinicians, parents, and individuals with autism each bring unique experiences and perspectives to the table, which can sometimes lead to differing opinions and approaches. This section explores these varying perspectives, acknowledging potential biases and highlighting the factors that shape them. A crucial aspect of this discussion is the impact of external influences, including public opinions and the statements of individuals like Robert F.

Kennedy Jr., on the overall discourse surrounding autism.

Researcher Perspectives

Researchers typically approach autism through a scientific lens, employing rigorous methodologies to investigate its causes, characteristics, and treatments. Their focus is on objective data collection and analysis, seeking to establish evidence-based practices. A potential limitation of this perspective is the inherent possibility of overlooking individual experiences and subjective interpretations. Furthermore, the pursuit of funding and publication opportunities might introduce subtle biases, although these are not always conscious or malicious.

Researchers are often constrained by the limitations of available resources, time, and ethical considerations when designing and conducting studies.

Clinician Perspectives

Clinicians, such as psychologists and psychiatrists, provide direct support and interventions to individuals with autism and their families. Their perspective integrates clinical observations with scientific knowledge to tailor therapies and support strategies. Clinicians’ understanding of individual needs is often deeply personal and nuanced. However, they may also be influenced by their professional training and experience, which can create inherent biases, such as a predisposition toward certain therapeutic approaches.

Parental Perspectives

Parents of children with autism often have a profoundly personal and emotional connection to the condition. Their perspectives are shaped by the challenges and triumphs they experience daily, and they are deeply invested in finding effective interventions and support systems. A potential limitation is the inherent subjectivity of their experiences, which can sometimes overshadow the broader scientific picture.

Parents may also be influenced by societal expectations, media portrayals, and their personal values, potentially leading to differing opinions about treatment options.

Perspectives of Individuals with Autism

Individuals with autism bring invaluable insights from their lived experience. Their perspectives are unique and often highlight the importance of individualized support and accommodations. A key factor in their perspective is their unique understanding of sensory experiences, social interactions, and communication styles. However, there may be difficulties in effectively conveying their experiences due to communication challenges. The impact of societal perceptions and expectations on their sense of self can also influence their perspectives.

Contrasting Perspectives on the Relationship Between Opinions, Research, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Perspective	View on Research	View on Opinions	View on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Researchers	Evidence-based, objective, rigorous	May acknowledge public opinion but prioritize scientific data	Critical of unsubstantiated claims, potentially harmful
Clinicians	Important but need integration with individual needs	Important to consider but prioritize clinical judgment	Cautious of promoting unproven treatments
Parents	Seeking evidence-based support and interventions	Crucial for advocacy and support groups	May be influenced by perceived expertise and advocacy
Individuals with Autism	Need for tailored support and understanding	Valuable to share their experiences	May have varied reactions based on personal experience

Historical Context and Evolution of Understanding

The understanding of autism has undergone a remarkable transformation over the centuries, moving from a largely unknown and misunderstood condition to a more defined and researched area of study. Early conceptions often lacked the scientific rigor of modern approaches, leading to misdiagnosis and stigmatization. This historical journey is crucial to understanding the current challenges and progress in autism research.The evolution of autism’s understanding reflects the broader development of scientific knowledge, societal attitudes, and medical advancements.

The shift from vague descriptions of unusual behaviors to precise diagnostic criteria has been a slow but significant progress. Understanding this historical context is critical to appreciate the complexities and nuances of autism in the present day.

Early Conceptions and Misunderstandings

Early conceptions of conditions that now fall under the autism spectrum were often confused with other disorders or simply categorized as “eccentricity” or “emotional disturbance.” There was a lack of specific diagnostic tools and an incomplete understanding of the neurological underpinnings of the condition. These early beliefs, while reflecting the limited knowledge of the time, often led to inappropriate interventions and societal prejudices.

For example, in the early 20th century, some individuals with characteristics now recognized as autism were institutionalized or treated with ineffective therapies based on prevailing medical models.

Influence of Historical Events

Historical events have undeniably shaped the trajectory of autism research. The rise of scientific inquiry and medical advancements brought about a greater focus on understanding and categorizing mental health conditions. World War II and the subsequent increase in mental health awareness played a significant role in shifting public perception towards recognizing the existence of these conditions, paving the way for more research and clinical studies.

Key Milestones in Autism Research and Understanding

This timeline highlights pivotal moments in the development of our understanding of autism:

1943: Leo Kanner publishes “Autistic Disturbances of Affective Contact,” marking a significant step towards recognizing autism as a distinct condition, though his descriptions lacked comprehensive neurobiological understanding.
1950s-1960s: The focus shifted towards identifying specific behavioral traits associated with autism. This era saw an increasing awareness of the unique challenges faced by individuals with autism.
1970s-1980s: Research expanded into areas such as communication and social interaction, leading to a better understanding of the spectrum of difficulties experienced by autistic individuals. The impact of early intervention became a growing area of interest.
1980s-1990s: The DSM-III introduced a more structured diagnostic system, which helped to standardize the identification of autism and to foster more comprehensive research. The rise of the autism advocacy movement brought increased awareness and public attention to the needs of autistic individuals.
2000s-present: The field of autism research has experienced rapid growth. Neuroimaging techniques and genetic research have provided deeper insights into the neurological basis of autism. The recognition of the autism spectrum, encompassing various levels of severity and presenting characteristics, has broadened our understanding.

Evolution of Diagnostic Criteria

The diagnostic criteria for autism have evolved significantly over time. Early diagnoses were often based on limited behavioral observations and lacked the specificity of modern criteria. The DSM-5, for example, represents a significant advancement in diagnostic accuracy and specificity, which continues to be refined through ongoing research. These revisions reflect a growing understanding of the multifaceted nature of autism and the importance of capturing the full range of experiences.

Shifting Public Perception

Public perception of autism has changed dramatically. From a period of stigma and misunderstanding, there has been a notable shift toward acceptance and recognition of the diversity of experiences within the autism spectrum. This evolution reflects a growing appreciation of the strengths and abilities of autistic individuals.

Last Point

In conclusion, the debate surrounding Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s views on autism and the related research presents a complex picture. The interplay of opinions, research findings, and public perception is examined, revealing potential misinformation and its impact. A critical evaluation of diverse perspectives is crucial to understanding the nuanced issues involved. Ultimately, responsible engagement with this complex topic is essential for fostering informed discussion and supporting those affected by autism.