quote:

---

Autism is currently estimated to affect approximately one in every 166 children, yet the cause or causes of the condition are not well understood. One of the current theories concerning the condition is that among a set of children vulnerable to developing the condition because of their underlying genetics, the condition manifests itself when such a child is exposed to a (currently unknown) environmental trigger. In this paper we empirically investigate the hypothesis that early childhood television viewing serves as such a trigger. Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ American Time Use Survey, we first establish that the amount of television a young child watches is positively related to the amount of precipitation in the child’s community. This suggests that, if television is a trigger for autism, then autism should be more prevalent in communities that receive substantial precipitation. We then look at county-level autism data for three states – California, Oregon, and Washington – characterized by high precipitation variability. Employing a variety of tests, we show that in each of the three states (and across all three states when pooled) there is substantial evidence that county autism rates are indeed positively related to county-wide levels of precipitation. In our final set of tests we use California and Pennsylvania data on children born between 1972 and 1989 to show, again consistent with the television as trigger hypothesis, that county autism rates are also positively related to the percentage of households that subscribe to cable television. Our precipitation tests indicate that just under forty percent of autism diagnoses in the three states studied is the result of television watching due to precipitation, while our cable tests indicate that approximately seventeen percent of the growth in autism in California and Pennsylvania during the 1970s and 1980s is due to the growth of cable television. These findings are consistent with early childhood television viewing being an important trigger for autism. We also discuss further tests that can be conducted to explore the hypothesis more directly.

---

quote:

---

The best that could be determined by this is that cable television causes genetic changes in parents who give birth to an increasing number of Autistic children.

---

Genetics does not work this way. If a parent loses a hand as an adult, they are not more likely to give birth to a kid without a hand. Unless you are saying that television emits radiation which changes the actual DNA, it doesn't matter how much television the parents watch.

Did you read the study at all? Autism is diagnosed at around age 2-3, which is also the time that brain development is occurring. The timing works exactly.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Wow, this study is so flawed it's hard to know where to begin. (And I say this as someone who thinks kids on average watch WAY too much television, and doesn't allow her kids to watch any.)

Actually, yes I do. Because rain/snow/sleet are likely to result in kids being indoors, therefor states with high levels of precipitation are likely to have higher rates of kid TV watching?!? Yeesh, what were they SMOKING!? Also likely to have higher rates of reading, scrapbooking, and whining that they're bored, but I don't see them attempting to correlate any of THOSE with autism!

This study is an absolutely classic example of shoot-first-draw-the-bulls-eye-later pseudoscience.

There may be a link. But this study does nothing to prove one.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
I read the study. I still don't buy it. There would have to be more scientific studies of WHY this is the case. Otherwise, its no more than a questionable statistics analysis.
 

---

Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
 
I think it's weird that this study is coming out of the business management school, when Cornell already has perfectly good medical and human development programs...?
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
So, if i understand the study correctly.

A) They study places where it rains a lot so kids go inside.

B) They compare some pre-picked states to see how many kids get autism and how many houses have cable.

C) There is some statistical rates showing the number of autistic children somehow relates to the number of cable televisions.

Therefore(not checking what households actually have cable or what children actually watch it) they determine there is a connection. At best it is a thin study that needs a much closer look.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Excellent point, Zeugma. A paper on autism by an economist and a policy analyst.

Well, that does answer where they are coming from with this.
 

---

Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
Slate published an article reviewing the cornell study <edit>here is the Slate review</edit>. Then users laid the smack down about it being lousy science. Here are the slate-compiled "best of" why this is lousy science.
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
You have no idea how many times I kept looking at the word "precipitation" and wondering what in Hades it had to do with autism . . . . . . and then wondering if there were some alternative use of the word that I had somehow missed after all these years.

It is really very crappy science -- and I work in the ECE field and would love some conclusive (really conclusive) evidence to support my belief that as little to no TV as possible is for the best all the way around . . .

Ah well. It was an eye-catching, coffee-snorting moment, to be sure.
 

---

Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
 
The impression I'm getting is that this Slate writer Easterbrook wants to make a connection between autism and television, and is using this otherwise throw-away paper by a bunch of MBA's as cannon fodder. His constant references to the "Cornell study" and the "Researchers at Cornell University" are laughable from the perspective of someone who's been around the campus for way too long now, and knows the difference between Research and speculation. I very much doubt that anyone in the Johnson School of Business Management intended to position themselves as a leader in autism and early development research.
 

---

Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
 
I just emailed the link to my best friend, who is getting her Ph.D. in Psychology. Her specialty is autism and she's worked in the field for 10 years now (she already has a masters).

From my discussions with Cara, I can say that though autism is usually diagnosed around 2 (and it's getting earlier all the time), it's present from birth. There are studies being done (by acutal psychologists who are experts in the field) that show that babies with autism do everything differently - not just the bonding stuff. They're currently working on how babies with autism roll over differently.

It's so interesting to me how people cling to misconceptions about autism despite the lack of scientific proof. There is no clinical evidence that vaccinations or gluten have anything to do with autism, yet parents delay or refuse vaccinations and put their children on gluten-free diets. One thing that Cara also told me is that there are solid, promising studies being done that show that advanced maternal age probably is a factor (along with genetics). Apparently, this research is problematic because the researchers and their backers (sponsors? - the folks who pay for it) know that it will not be well-received by people who want to delay having children.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Sounds to me, from the study, that Rain causes Autism. Just to be safe I'd keep that dangerous Water stuff away from all juveniles. Let them stay dirty and to drink, well, wine, vodka, Jack Daniels. No reason to take unnecesary chances with what could be "Rain water"
 

---

Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
 
It does remind me of the study conducted by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Basically the the decline in pirate correlates with the increase of global warming.
 

---

Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
 
One of the very first things I was taught in every science class - hard science, natural science, and social science - that I've ever taken is that correlation does not necessarily show causation. Apparently the folks who did this study never took any of those classes.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
I wonder if the authors of the study addressed the issue that if you have a more difficult to engage child (say, one with an underlying neuroprocessing disorder), then using the television as a babysitter might become much more appealling.

That is to say, not only is there the possible issue of conflating correlation with causation, but the direction of the causative arrow might also be debatable.

Edited to add: Perhaps when it is becoming progressively harder to engage your child in productive and pleasant interpersonal interactions (playing games, singing songs, sharing tasks, etc.), you are more likely to plunk your kid in front of the television and hope for a few minutes of quiet time for yourself.
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
Based on most of the crud on TV nowadays, I'd say they have it backwards. Autism causes television.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
srarLisa I agree.
 

---

Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
 
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/10/16/autism.genes.reut/index.html

Just thought it applied to conversation. I think in the end, the answer will be far from just a leads to b, but will be like if a exists and exposed to c, d or e while x then b.
 

---

Posted by jaysedai6 (Member # 8856) on :
 
if this was true, there would be no autism among the Amish, Mennoites or German Baptists.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
It isn't saying it is a sole cause, it is saying it might be a major contributor. There is a difference between the two.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Certainly. But given the horrible statistical nonsense, it is actually saying absolutely nothing.

Except that some people have an agenda, and are trying to push it. I detest and loathe pseudoscience like this.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
But kids are so young when they are (usually) diagnosed with autism, most kids aren't exposed to much tv at all by that point. It just makes it seem so unlikely that it's a major contributor.

Especially when all the other factors are weighed in.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Oh, this study may be bad science. It doesn't prove a connection, but a connection is still a possibility. I could only wish that two is too young to have accumulated hours and days and weeks of television viewing time.
 

---

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
The economists are skeptical about the study too: Marginal Revolution's take

But, to to counter a few comments made in this thread, there's a lot of good research that goes on in business schools that are not directly related to what the average person would consider "business." I've seen some brillant health economics stuff done on disease movement and AIDS policy in Africa

And business schools train more than MBA's - some of the best economists, operations research specialists, financial analysts, and sociologists (org behavior) come out of business schools' Phd tracks.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
a connection is still a possibility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:

There are so many legitimate reasons to encourage parents not to allow their kids to watch lots of TV. Why do we have to push the ones that are garbage?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
Once we push pseudoscience (or incorrectly-done science) "just in case" or because it seems support a conclusion we agree with, then when the debunking occurs, the truth gets lost in the shuffle.

---