https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/29344/ Yale are worried. Spot the holes in the defence

OK, first up in this study of how to frighten autistic toddlers using vampire masks and mechanical spiders etc..
Allegedly things such as use of vampire masks and giant spiders are standard and have been for two decades. I think not.
Next../

...understanding how autistic people get anxious and depressed. I wonder if it's connected to experiments in which a tiny child is exposed to terrifying things?
Moving on...
/

Let us consider the notion that the experiments were 'very brief'.
P4. "Each probe lasted approx 60 seconds...
One trial of stranger approaching, 3 trials of spider, 3 trials of dinosaur, 3 trials of horror masks.

Age of child, 22 mths/

"interspersed with playtime"

The gap between trials is given on p 4 as between 30 seconds and 75 seconds. No mention of playtime at all.

Is this an error in writing up this $750,000 report?/

Count to 30 seconds. How much 'play' do you think a distressed child is going to get in 30 seconds?

Parents could end the session - in fact some did, didn't they.
and others were excluded from analysis
This is described as " parental
noncompliance" /

I cannot find where the study sets out its plan for adverse effects and long term harms.

No-one else can.
"We monitored both behavioral and physiological responses" says the defense statement.
Where? Where in the study does it say this?/

"We implemented a strict protocol to ensure that children were not experiencing extreme negative emotions, and none did."

And the follow up period was what?
And the write up of the follow up period?
And the reflection that autistic kids tend to have delayed emotional responses?/

Not good enough.
Those tiny children deserved better than a modern-day equivalent of the Little Albert study, and they deserve a team that faces up to its responsibilities.
Find those tiny ones. Check them for harm. With autistic input. Report back.

Thank you for reading.

PS re "We monitored both behavioral and physiological responses". How, precisely did you monitor this automated response to fear? Standardly this is done with readings of heart rate, skin conductivity, etc. Which were used, and why are they not mentioned in the report?

"We implemented a strict protocol to ensure.. children were not experiencing extreme negative emotions, and none did."
Let's consider this poll, shall we? Over 500 responses from autistic people. (Not research. An indicator).
So, family can rarely spot anxiety.
Which protocol?

Returning to, [the scary events] .."mirrored what the children might encounter in the real world",
How often in the course of a year as a toddler did you encounter a giant mechanical spider, a person in a vampire mask, & dinosaur with red eyes, do you think?

Write up: Autistic toddlers when frightened were less likely to make eye contact to signal distress (!). The authors say 'therapeutic efforts' may need to teach them to make eye contact etc for better life outcomes.
Well. Poll. Over 500 autistic people answered/

This is what happens when one assumes that eye contact leads to better outcomes for autistic people.
"Well gee, it does for me - therefore I shall assume it does for them too!". That's not science. That's a lack of understanding and a lack of engagement with autistic people/

If I'm looking for research that truly wants to improve our lives, this is the kind of checklist I look for:
a) Work with autistic academics and others representing different groups of autistic people. Right from the start.
b) Plan together. Fund together. Empower together/

c) Set out your ethics, throughout. Base those ethical thoughts on actual autistic input, bearing in mind our culture and our genuinely different (not broken) communication style. Have the communities asked for this research? Is the benefit something meaningful and shared?/

d) Check your prejudices at the door, to use a phrase.
Use autistic-affirming language, e.g. autistic people, not People With Autism Spectrum Disorder. No, we don't care that someone wrote it in the DSM-5 - you can put technical language in a footnote or appendix/

e) Check those adverse effects and harms. Make the search for them meaningful for autistic people. Just because it doesn't harm you isn't a test of whether it will harm an autistic toddler. Show your workings throughout that paper, and show clear follow-up/

At the end, this paper is for the autistic communities, isn't it.
It's for the wellbeing of autistic people.
So if you have hundreds of thousands of people saying 'this isn't OK', do you just keeping saying 'yes it is', or do you listen?
Make a choice.

When you're thinking about those ethical dilemmas, SAGE journal extract: Bain, Faegre & Wyly, a study luring children into a box, slamming it shut, and seeing what happens. Testing refrigerator door design. Yes, it 'worked'. At what cost to the children & wider morals?/

1 in every 12 people has a fear of clown masks, for example.
How did the team evaluate which of the children might have such a fear, before implementing the mask tests?
Could such a fear develop *after* implementing mask tests?
Did they discuss this? <stares into paper> Er, no.

Y'see, this is Yale. It affirms a place as one of the top centres of education. medicine and science in the world. It has the budgets to hire in the very best people, the finest minds, the best equipment.
This wasn't an Undergrad student and their mates with a budget of $50.

I'm sure we will all look forward to the team giving us the answers to the above questions.