On the Autism Speaks blog, there’s a post about parents having a 1 in 34 chance of autistic kids. No, not true.
It scares me that an organization so focused on research as they claim to be can’t manage basic math. But they can’t. Sadly I wasn’t surprised.
They use this logic: A new estimate for autism is 1 in 68. I admit I haven’t dug into this estimate much because, frankly, it doesn’t matter. If you’re autistic, that matters. If you’re not, it doesn’t. Sure, schools and politicians need to consider this number, it’s source, and it’s reliability. But the problem I have is that this Autism Speaks blog entry talks about how, for parents, it’s 1 in 34. Because there are two parents of a child. So a parent has a 1 in 34 chance of being affected by autism. Two parents, twice the chance. Apparently.
Maybe this was tongue in cheek, but it didn’t look that way to me.
That said, even it if is, let me explain. Let’s say I give every family, whether single parent family or multiple parent family a 6 sided die. I ask them to roll it. What’s the chance of it turning up a 6? Oh, one in six. One sixth of the families will get a 6. Does it matter how many people watched the die roll? Of course not. If we take the 1 in 68 estimate as true, then a child has a 1 in 68 chance.
Ah, you say, what about a 2 child family? Wouldn’t that be 1 in 34? Perhaps, if autism is evenly distributed among the population. However, we know it isn’t. We know there is a genetic component. There’s also tons of speculation that there is an environmental component. Regardless of whether or not environment plays a role, some families are more likely to have the genetics and the possible environmental factor than others. So, autism will tend to cluster in some families and avoid others. So, no, it’s not 1 in 34 for a two-child family.
This estimation of family impact also ignores the adults in these families – who also may be autistic. Yes, autistic people can marry, have sex, and produce children. And they do. Someone might not be able to envision their 3 year old having sex or marrying, but to be frank I can’t envision most 3 year olds doing that. If you want to accept the high prevalence of autism as a fact, you can’t then cherry pick and decide that real autism only involves people who won’t get married or have sex or have kids. You’re taking all of us, at least if I have anything to say about it, if you’re going to use us to raise money for your salary (check out Autism Speaks expenditures on salary and fund raising expense).
I’ll leave it to others to comment on the tone of the article – yet another, “Look at how much this affects people who aren’t autistic” article about “awareness.” It continues to focus on what the writer sees as the “lowest functioning” autistics (a label I reject being applied to people because there are not only two types of autistics, and much of the limitations “low functioning” autistics experience has little to do with their abilities but more to do with expectations and support). It talks about shit smearing (these types of people, focusing on how horrible things are for them, really do have an unnatural fascination with shit). I never smeared shit. Nor have most of the autistics I know! And, no, I don’t ignore people other than “highly successful” autistics. I know what your prejudice brings: most of my autistic friends can’t work, not because they lack abilities, but because we’ve built a culture that assumes disability is inability. I could explain more, but lack the time right now – but it’s in part due to the shit articles like this spread. Who wants to hire someone who will smear shit everywhere? It’s a lot of bullshit.
I’m sick of April. I wish the month would disappear. Autism Speaks has made it a month of awareness. A month where I will hear how horrible people like me are. Thank you, Autism Speaks!