Nov 13 2009
Detecting Autism & the Scientific Attitude
Yesterday I read a fantastic news release about a recent scientific discovery. The piece pleased me in two ways: for the wonder/curiosity it evoked in me, and for the exemplary way it illustrated how science is a cognitively cautious, rational endeavor.
1. The finding -
University of Missouri researchers have developed a pupil response test that is 92.5 percent accurate in separating children with autism from those with typical development. In the study, MU scientists found that children with autism have slower pupil responses to light change. [source]
Is that cool, or what?! People with autism show slower pupil response to light. Wild.
2. The scientific attitude -
Study author Gang Yao says this about the research:
“There are several potential mechanisms currently under study,” Yao said. “If these results are successfully validated in a larger population, PLR response might be developed into a biomarker that could have clinical implications in early screening for risks of autism.
That is science for you. First, the “potential mechanisms” bit. Not only does knowing potential naturalistic mechanisms make a hypothesis/finding more plausible, but it also expresses the necessarily reductionistic attitude of science. Beyond the what of the universe we want to understand the how. What are all the variables (components) involved and how do they interact to cause what we observe?
Second, “If these results are successfully validated.” Bravo! Yes, if. Then we can be much more confident. When you are careful in your data-gathering and thinking, you are less likely to make mistakes and hold mistaken ideas.
