Skip to Content
27Aug 2012

Autism and Whipworms at The New York Times

Deborah Blum
Share
Whipworm/courtesy WGBH.org

On Sunday, the New York Times published an opinion piece, An Immune Disorder at the Root of Autism, by Moises Velaquez-Manoff, the author of a recent book that takes a broad-spectrum look at the role of the immune system in human health.

In it the author expresses his opinion (emphasis mine) that inflammatory disease may account for a large chunk of autism cases: "At least a subset of autism — perhaps one-third, and very likely more — looks like a type of inflammatory disease. And it begins in the womb." I emphasize the word opinion because as you get further into the piece, you realize that there really isn't much science to back up that statement.

Actually, people who study autism aren't sure that it "begins" in the womb, whatever that means. Neither does the rich literature of autism research - mostly ignored here - suggest that any kind of consenus has been reached on the complex developmental factors that may play in a role.  The further you read, the more you realize that Velaquez-Manoff appears to have built his theory by largely avoiding autism research and stitching together studies that may - or may not - be relevant. To some extent, he acknowledges this. When citing the work of a scientist who studies parasitic infections in wild rats, he notes: "He's not, by training, an autism expert." At another point, he admits that overstating the role of immunology would be "folly."

One of the giveaways to the soft science problem is the author's repeated use of the word "generally", as in "Generally speaking, autism also follows this pattern" or "Generally, the scientists working on autism and inflammation aren't aware of this..."  In other words,  generally, the research just isn't there and, generally, the author is writing his way around that problem.

Fortunately, the science blogger Emily Willingham  (in my opinion, one of the best working today) posted a response today that does a terrific job of exploring and interpreting the shaky science behind this particular story. You should read the whole thing because it's so smart but I'll note a couple of her points here, beginning with: "The piece is packed with overstatements and overinterpretations and lacks much-needed modulation and qualification. More than that, it promises a "preventative" for autism that is, pardon me, off the hook(worm)."

The worm comment refers to a Velaquez-Manoff suggestion that perhaps we could reduce the incidence of autism if we were all just a little more infected with things like parasitic worms. His idea is that in the good old days of massive infection, our immune systems got a better workout and were therefore better controlled.  As Willingham points out, he supports that suggestion in part by citing studies that actually haven't taken place yet. And, she adds: "The worm in question is a whipworm that typically parasitizes pigs, and there doesn’t seem to be a disease or disorder it or its wormy brethren are not claimed to help. Some of it may be valid and looks quite interesting, but the successful trials have been in autoimmune disorders. No data exist to support using them to treat or prevent autism, much less to claim that they would be preventative. Lest we handle this too lightly, I’ll add that infections with parasitic worms afflict an estimated 740 million people and can cause anemia and malnutrition. Having a bunch of worms growing in your intestines generally isn’t preferable to not having them there."

I should mention that this particular opinion piece has stimulated a fair amount of discussion among my science writing colleagues about whether newspaper opinion sections should start fact-checking their authors. The New York Times has the reputation of producing some of the best science in the country - and this kind of work does absolutely nothing to enhance that.

                                                                                                                                                                      --- Deborah Blum

Comments

Dear Deborah,

I'm reposting. Please delete the first post. The links didn't come through.

First, so everyone knows, the NYT extensively fact-checks op-eds.

Second: Aside from questions of style, the critiques of my recent op-ed almost universally suffer from a gross lack of familiarity with the literature. Yes, it's unfortunate we couldn't print a source list with the piece, but I've posted one at my site.

Everything said in the piece appears in the peer-reviewed literature, most of it repeatedly.

Also, see Dr. Paul Patterson's take on my piece.

And see the very interesting live chat Dr. Patterson held about immune dysregulation in autism.

This research is extremely robust at this point, and potentially very important.

Cheers,

Moises

 

 

Dear Deborah,

First, so everyone knows, the NYT extensively fact-checks op-eds.

Second: Aside from questions of style, the critiques of my recent op-ed almost universally suffer from a gross lack of familiarity with the literature. Yes, it's unfortunate we couldn't print a source list with the piece, but I've posted one at my site.

http://www.moisesvm.com/2012/08/30/source-list-for-nyt-op-ed/

Everything said in the piece appears in the peer-reviewed literature, most of it repeatedly.

Also, see Dr. Paul Patterson's take on my piece.

http://infectiousbehavior.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/huge-interest-in-nyt-...

And see the very interesting live chat Dr. Patterson held about immune dysregulation in autism.

http://www.autismspeaks.org/blog/2012/08/29/immune-disorders-and-autism-...

This research is extremely robust at this point, and potentially very important.

Cheers,

Moises

 

Thanks, Tom. There's been a couple times recently when I've also wondered about the editorial oversight question at the NYT, just a few pieces that struck me as almost straight from the press release. It isn't an every day occurrence but it's definitely more often than I remember. Agreed that it's worth paying attention.

I agree entirely.   I would hope that even a casual reader of the Times would detect the casualness with which Velaquez-Manoff treats the literature on autism, not to mention biology generally. As you point out, it's evident even in the language he uses, like "generally."  I had also seen Emily's post, and it's a comprehensive, detailed indictment of the entire article.  It deserves a wider hearing, and I hope she pursues it.  Finally, I'm glad to hear that you and your colleagues in journalism are beginning to wonder about editorial oversight at the NYT.  I had already begun to wonder about the Gray Matter series in the Sunday Review, which seems, to my eye, to be a pre-publication, or even sans publication, marketing outlet for scientists.   I would love to see greater transparency about the process by which these pieces are selected for publication, not to mention some sort of explanation or justification for why they are being published.  It's nice to see more science in the paper, but I also value the role of it's superb science writing staff to serve the proper role of filters.  

Login or register to post comments