SCIENCE!!! |
“Do not worry about your problems with Mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater.” - Albert Einstein
Take Einstein's quote, insert the word Science in place of Mathematics, and you're at the crux of my problem. I'm not a scientist. Thank GOD the "far greater" problems (quotes are there not because I'm implying their problems aren't in fact far greater, but because it's from the Einstein quote above) scientists face in studying something are not the problems I face as a non-scientist. And, while I graduated with a Bachelors Degree of Science in Chemical Engineering, let's face it, I was drunk 50% of the time I was in college and copying off fellow students' papers the other 50% of the time. I possess a decent working brain and understand rudimentary scientific process, and the fact is I have some worries about the science of autism. These are not the worries of a scientist. These are the worries of a parent who is trying to get his daughter the best care he can.
My current worries about Science:
1) How to determine what treatments/therapies/diets/etc. are backed by science.
While my understanding of the science of autism research is not what worries me, my understanding of how to interpret its results is. Why? Because scientists tell me that the best, most effective treatment for my daughter comes only from those treatments backed by solid scientific data. So how do I determine that? yes. . . yes. . . I know. . . Testimonials are not the same as Data. Stuff like that helps. . . but I need more.
2) How to determine whose science is real science.
So. Who tells me, the primary caregiver, which treatments are or are not backed by solid scientific data? Scientists? My pediatrician? That in itself is a problem. "The Tale of Two Scientists". The easiest and most polarizing example of this for folks sympathetic to autism issues is of course, Wakefield vs. The World. Or Anti-vax vs. Vax. Leaving all the conspiracy theories. . . drug companies, corporate greed, government cover-ups, etc completely out of the equation, we're left with a group of scientists who made a claim, and another group of scientists who later disputed the claim. And yes, I know all about what happened to Wakefield in the . . . heh. . . wake of it all. It doesn't change the fact that as a parent, I can't even begin to tell which scientist is credible and which is not. How do I do that?
3) How to understand what constitutes an effective scientific study.
I have read descriptions of treatments that claim to be backed by science that have been ADAMANTLY refuted as quackery by scientists. When I look at the claimant's study. . . it looks very sciency. (Totally a word). I need to better understand how to read the studies themselves to determine WHY the study was quackery. The most recent example I can think of is the Mercola study with the National Vaccine Information Center. I read a review that sliced and diced it. It was shady, it was shifty, NVIC was in business with Mercola, the participants were being treated by Mercola using Mercola's products. . . how could this study be "Scientific". And yet, as a parent, looking at it from the outside. . . I have no knowledge of the participants, or the relationship between NVIC and Mercola. To ME. . . it looks sciency! Are there things I can look at to see that things were done right? Buzzwords like double blind, control, group sizes, peer-reviewed journal, etc?
4) And while we're on the topic (see above) how can I tell what's a reputable peer-reviewed journal, and what's trash? Because I've seen criticisms of studies that were nothing more than "it came from (implied scoff) The Journal of Insert Technical Sounding Title, so you know it's crap". All those journals? Yeah, they look the same to me. What are the 'reputable' journals?
5) How to understand whether I give a shit whether the study is sciency or not. Because, let's face it, before ANY of these studies were backed by science, there was someone who was using them to treat kids with Autism, and at that time, they were NOT backed by science. I think as a parent this one is one of the toughest and most guilt-filled decisions: Deciding to attempt a treatment even though it hasn't been "adequately" studied. Whose fault is that? The lack of science doesn't necessarily disprove the treatment, it just means more study is needed. I want to make the "right" decision, but science is telling me that the right decision is only to use treatments with proper scientific data backing them up. And what we, as parents of kiddos on the spectrum know, is that time is of the essence. So it's not like I can really afford to wait around letting my child's best, most treatable years tick away while scientists reach their conclusions. Or can I afford NOT to wait? If I decide to try a treatment or therapy or participate in a study with my daughter that later turns out to be (hindsight) backed by science, I just bought that much more time. If I decide to try a treatment with my daughter that is later debunked by science, I'm the rube who wasted valuable therapy time on quackery.
Science is heady stuff, and scientists are a snobby and defensive (but ADORABLE) little group of know-it-alls. No offense, scientists, but you know you are. Hell, it's practically a point of pride. When I read some of the stuff you write I think, "Wow, these people are really bright!" And then in the next paragraph I read this same seemingly brilliant person poo-pooing the right of someone to criticize a study or therapy not based on the merits of that person's comment or criticism, but solely because that person lacks an advanced degree in that specific field of study. When it comes to choosing care for ourselves or for our children, it's too important NOT to have an opinion and/or take a stand, and none of us have time to go get that doctorate in neurology just so that we are then welcomed to the debate on the efficacy of the treatment du jour.
"I don't believe it!
There she goes again!
She's tidied up and I can't find anything!
all my tubes and wires
And careful notes
And antiquated notions"
There she goes again!
She's tidied up and I can't find anything!
all my tubes and wires
And careful notes
And antiquated notions"
What I'm hoping I can generate from this blog, on its very own page (I'll assign a new tab to it after it's been up a few days), is a list of sciency links. I have some already. And I don't mean sciency bloggers necessarily, although I'll certainly post those as well. I mean links to trusted sites that compile treatments or therapies that are (in the eyes at least of some scientists) appropriately sciency. I don't intend to provide a database of what is or isn't. . . just links to resources to help me (and you, if you want) find out which studies make the cut, or perhaps links to "how to" posts that help you, a non-sciency parent, make sense of the data.
I don't know how much I'll break it out, categorize and subcategorize, etc. So I'll sort of play it by ear right now. I don't have the answers. Just lots and lots of questions. I'm hoping you folks in the blogosphere can help me with this. I know I'm still new to this autism parent blogging thing, so I'm worried I won't get the sort of feedback I'll need, but it's definitely worth a shot.
We need all the help we can get.