Debunking Deficit Thinking: How Early Autism Studies Mislead and Harm

Early research studies on autism, often conducted with small sample sizes and limited data, have long been influential in shaping public and scientific understanding of autistic people. These studies, however, are frequently used to support agendas that do more harm than good, reinforcing deficit-based views of autism and promoting interventions that aim to ‘fix’ or ‘normalise’ autistic individuals. The problem lies in how these early findings are quickly embraced and commercialised, without proper scrutiny or replication, by those looking to capitalise on the neurodivergent experience rather than foster genuine understanding or support.

A recent study challenges one such long-held belief about the amygdala in autistic people. Earlier research, based on small cohorts, suggested that amygdala volume was a marker of autism, particularly in relation to anxiety. This theory gained significant traction but has now been debunked by more rigorous, large-scale research that found no reliable evidence supporting the claim. This case serves as a stark reminder of how premature conclusions can lead us down a path that ultimately fails to serve autistic people, emphasising the need for responsible, ethical science.

The Problem with Early, Small-Scale Studies

Early studies in autism research, particularly those with small sample sizes, often suffer from significant limitations. These studies rely on flexible analytic methods and incomplete data, leading to conclusions that may seem groundbreaking but are ultimately unreliable. Despite these shortcomings, such research can quickly gain attention, generating sensational headlines and widespread influence. The problem arises when these early findings, rather than being treated with caution, are embraced by vested interests, including companies and organisations with a specific agenda to promote. This creates a cycle where early, unverified research is used to justify ‘interventions,’ products, and ‘therapies’ that fail to serve autistic people in meaningful ways.

A prime example is the early research on amygdala volume in autistic individuals. Initial studies suggested that the size of the amygdala was a key factor in understanding autism, particularly in relation to anxiety. These findings quickly took hold and were used to shape public perceptions, as well as interventions targeting autistic people. However, newer, more rigorous studies, such as the 2024 amygdala research, have disproven these earlier conclusions. Despite this, the original studies remain widely accessible, often crowding out updated research in search results and academic databases like Google Scholar. The lack of accountability in the scientific community means that outdated studies are rarely retracted or updated to reflect the newer, contradictory findings.

For the average person searching for information, this presents a major problem. Many will come across these debunked studies and assume that the theories they present still hold true, simply because they’re available in ‘reputable’ sources. This perpetuates misunderstandings about autism and reinforces harmful approaches to treatment, long after the science has moved on. The persistence of these outdated theories serves as a reminder of how early, flawed research can continue to shape beliefs, even after being proven wrong.

Commercialisation and Misuse of Research

The commercialisation of autism research has become a significant issue, particularly when small studies are used to promote harmful ‘interventions’ or ‘therapies.’ Often, these studies are based on a deficit-focused understanding of autism, framing autistic individuals as needing to be ‘fixed’ or ‘normalised.’ Instead of recognising autism as a natural variation in human neurology, the research is manipulated to justify treatments that aim to erase the very traits that make autistic people who they are. The Power Threat Meaning Framework (PTMF) is useful here in understanding the social and systemic forces at play—autistic individuals are not seen as inherently valuable or worthy of support, but rather as problems to be solved, generating profit for those who exploit this perception.

One major driver behind this commercialisation is the Autism CARES Act in the United States, which has funnelled enormous sums of money into autism research, often with little oversight or critical evaluation of the research being funded. This law, originally intended to support autistic individuals, has instead created a market for ‘therapies,’ pharmaceuticals, and ‘behavioural interventions’ rooted in the neoliberal, monopolistic tendencies of the US healthcare system. Large industries, from pharmaceutical companies to behavioural therapy providers, have seized on this opportunity to commercialise autism, turning what should be a focus on thriving and support into a lucrative business model. This system promotes interventions that seek to erase autistic traits rather than celebrate or accommodate them, sidelining the voices and needs of autistic individuals themselves.

What results is a landscape where small, questionable studies become the foundation for entire industries. These interventions, often underpinned by outdated or debunked research, are marketed as solutions to ‘fix’ autism, while the underlying goal remains profit. This commercialisation of research continues to perpetuate harmful myths about autism, marginalising the very people it claims to help, and prioritising financial gain over genuine understanding and support.

The Need for Proper Scientific Research

In the field of autism research, the importance of robust, large-scale studies cannot be overstated. Proper scientific inquiry relies on replicable findings, rigorous data collection, and transparency in methodology. These principles ensure that the conclusions drawn are reliable and reflective of reality, rather than the result of small, unrepresentative samples or flexible analytic methods. Unfortunately, the landscape of autism research has often been shaped by studies that fail to meet these criteria, allowing flawed conclusions to influence public perception and policy for years. This is where large-scale studies, like the 2024 amygdala research, prove essential in debunking earlier claims and redirecting focus toward more accurate, nuanced understandings of autism.

The 2024 study, which examined the functional connectivity of the amygdala in autistic individuals, stands out as an example of well-conducted research. With a large sample size and a carefully designed preregistered approach, it demonstrated that earlier findings suggesting atypical amygdala connectivity were unsupported. In doing so, it highlighted the dangers of relying on small, underpowered studies that do not generalise well across the autistic population. This kind of research is vital for advancing the field, as it builds a stronger, evidence-based foundation upon which real support and understanding can be developed.

However, large-scale studies that challenge earlier, more profitable research often face significant financial barriers. In a capitalist system, funding is disproportionately allocated to research that promises marketable outcomes, such as new ‘therapies,’ pharmaceuticals, or ‘interventions.’ Studies that seek to debunk these profitable ventures rarely receive the same level of support because they do not directly contribute to the bottom line. This creates a bias in the research landscape, where findings that could challenge or disprove existing commercial interests struggle to gain traction.

The result is a skewed research environment where flawed studies promoting ‘solutions’ for autism are more likely to receive funding and attention than those aiming to advance genuine understanding. This imbalance harms autistic people, as the focus remains on fixing or eradicating autism rather than supporting autistic individuals in a way that honours their neurodiversity. In contrast, the 2024 amygdala study exemplifies the kind of research that needs to be prioritised—large, thorough, and focused on the truth, even when it challenges established narratives or threatens the profits of powerful industries. Only by committing to such rigorous research can we hope to develop a more accurate and compassionate understanding of autism that genuinely supports autistic people in thriving.

How this Impacts Autistic Individuals

The impact of early, inaccurate research on autistic individuals is profound and far-reaching. When small studies, often with flawed conclusions, are used to promote ‘treatments’ and ‘therapies,’ they reinforce harmful societal expectations. Again, these studies tend to feed into the medical model of disability, which views autism as something that needs to be ‘fixed’ or ‘cured.’ This framework reduces autistic people to a set of deficits, ignoring the richness of their experiences and the diversity of our cognitive, sensory, and emotional lives. Instead of offering support for us to thrive, these approaches impose damaging interventions aimed at making us conform to neurotypical standards.

The PTMF is essential in understanding how these dynamics unfold, which is why you see me talking about it so much. Autistic people often face threats not from our own neurology, but from a society that views our differences as inherently negative. The threat comes from a world structured around neurotypical norms, where autistic individuals are marginalised, misunderstood, and subjected to ‘therapies’ designed to erase our authentic selves. These ‘therapies,’ often based on outdated ‘research,’ force us to mask our natural behaviours, contributing to a cycle of stress, anxiety, and internalised stigma. The pressure to ‘fit in’ rather than be accepted for who we are can be traumatising, leading to long-term harm rather than the support and understanding that we need to flourish.

A key example is the widespread use of behavioural therapies, such as Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA), which stems from early, flawed research. ABA is rooted in the idea of training autistic people to suppress traits that are inconvenient to others, often through repetitive tasks and compliance-focused exercises. While the intent may be framed as helping autistic people adapt, the reality is that it teaches us to mask our identity, increasing the likelihood of burnout, anxiety, and depression. The underlying assumption is that being autistic is ‘a problem to be solved,’ reinforcing the deficit model rather than recognising autism as a natural, valid part of human diversity.

The social expectations created by these early studies compound the harm. Autistic individuals are often seen as ‘broken’ or ‘deficient,’ needing external intervention to become ‘normal.’ This perception isolates us, making it harder to access supportive environments that nurture our strengths. Society’s insistence on viewing autism through a medicalised lens perpetuates marginalisation, focusing on intervention over acceptance. Autistic people are threatened not by our neurology but by a world that refuses to recognise and celebrate our differences.

By framing autism as a condition that requires ‘fixing,’ then commercialises the results, these early studies contribute to the ongoing oppression of autistic individuals. They perpetuate the idea that autistic people are ‘less than,’ feeding into a system that marginalises and devalues us. A shift in understanding is desperately needed—one that recognises autism as part of neurodiversity and moves away from trying to erase autistic traits. True support for autistic people involves creating a society that embraces difference, not one that seeks to stamp it out.

Final thoughts …

The future of autism research must be grounded in ethical practices that prioritise the well-being of autistic people over profit, sensationalism, and the drive to ‘normalise’ neurodivergent traits. Too often, early studies with flawed conclusions have been hijacked by industries and organisations that focus on erasing or ‘fixing’ autism, rather than supporting autistic individuals in our everyday lives. Ethical research demands a shift in focus—away from interventions designed to suppress autistic traits and toward an understanding that respects and embraces neurodiversity. This means conducting studies that consider the whole person, acknowledging their strengths, needs, and the environments in which they can thrive.

Future research must take a neurodiversity lens, reframing autism not as a disorder to be treated, but as a natural and valuable variation in human experience. Rather than concentrating on what makes autistic people different in ways that are pathologised, studies should focus on creating systems and supports that allow autistic individuals to live fulfilling lives on their own terms. Research should aim to uncover how society can adapt to meet autistic people’s needs, rather than forcing autistic people to adapt to a neurotypical world. This approach will not only help to dismantle the harmful structures that have marginalised autistic individuals but also foster environments where they can flourish.

As such, early, small-scale studies can easily be co-opted by those with an agenda, often harming the very people they claim to help. Only through rigorous, ethical research that truly understands autistic experiences can we move toward a world where autistic people are not merely accommodated, but celebrated and supported in their uniqueness. Proper, large-scale studies that embrace neurodiversity are essential for enabling autistic individuals to thrive, free from the pressures of conforming to an unjust system.