Genes and the environment

Two new studies whose findings have just been released have shed more culpability on environmental factors especially during pregnancy, and combined with the assumption of a genetic predisposition. As noted this morning in the New York Times, the environment, including the prenatal development period may be as important as the genes in causing autism. This seems quite logical, for certainly our genes cannot be changing as quickly as the rate of autism is increasing. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/health/research/05autism.html?_r=1&emc=eta1)

In the study of twins, both fraternal and identical, it has been found that the rate of autism occurring in siblings is much lower than the rate found in twins. The suggestion is that it is the conditions the twins shared in the womb, rather than what happened after birth that contributed to their autism.

In the second study, mothers who had taken certain anti-depressants had an increased risk of their child developing autism. This follows a recent study from Epidemiologist Rebecca Schmidt of the UC Davis MIND Institute released in May on the use of prenatal vitamins. In this case, mothers who took prenatal vitamins or the vitamins during the first month of pregnancy were only half as likely to have a child with autism as those who didn't. If the mother waited until the second month of pregnancy, there was no effect.

Is this going to make parents feel like they are being blamed once again? Parents don't need suggestions of their possible complicity in causing the autism of their child, so the more clear information that can be ascertained, the better.