Measuring Babies' Heads: The Cutting Edge of Autism Research?

In a shocking display of scientific regression, the Baby Siblings Research Consortium (BSRC) - yes, that’s a real thing that we discussed last week here on the AutSide - has proudly trumpeted its groundbreaking study on infant head circumference and autism. One can almost hear the ghost of Josef Mengele applauding from whatever circle of hell he’s currently occupying.

The study, ominously titled “Early Head Growth in Infants at Risk of Autism,” reads like a relic from a bygone era when phrenology was considered cutting-edge science. Published in 2014, it’s part of the BSRC’s noble quest to identify “risk markers” for autism in infants. Because apparently, in the 21st century, we’re still trying to spot neurodevelopmental differences with a measuring tape.

Let’s take a moment to appreciate the sheer audacity of an organisation that calls itself a “multidisciplinary, collaborative community of researchers and clinicians” whilst seemingly ignoring decades of progress in autism research. The BSRC, in its infinite wisdom, is “committed to understanding the developmental origins and earliest signs of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) by studying infants at familial risk for ASD.” Translation: They’re poking and prodding the autistic babies in the family, desperately searching for ways to spot - and presumably prevent - the dreaded autism before it’s too late.

Their website proudly proclaims their vision: “To optimize neurodevelopment and wellbeing for infants at elevated likelihood for autism and their families.” One can’t help but wonder if by “optimize,” they mean “make less autistic.” It's a relief to know that in 2024, we have organisations dedicated to fixing infants who haven’t even displayed any signs of being broken.

But let’s get back to the head-measuring study. In this pinnacle of modern science, researchers meticulously measured the noggins of 442 “high-risk” and 253 “low-risk” infants. The suspense is palpable. Did they discover the secret head shape that reveals future autism? Did they uncover the cranial key to unlocking the mysteries of neurodevelopment?

Spoiler alert: No. No, they did not.

After all that measuring, all those babies with tape measures wrapped around their heads, the earth-shattering conclusion was... drum roll, please... head growth is “uninformative as an ASD risk marker.” One imagines the researchers staring dejectedly at their measuring tapes, wondering where it all went wrong.

But fear not! The BSRC isn’t deterred by such trivial setbacks as “results” or “evidence.” Their website assures us they’re still hard at work, “searching for the very earliest signs of autism in elevated likelihood infants.” Because nothing says “respect for neurodiversity” quite like treating autism as a ticking time bomb that must be detected and defused.

It’s truly heartwarming to see an organisation so committed to its mission that it’s willing to ignore the actual genetics of autism. Who needs complex genetic research when you can just measure baby heads? It’s almost as if they believe autism is some sort of neurodevelopmental gremlins that sneaks in during infancy if you’re not vigilant enough.

The BSRC’s approach raises so many questions. Do they also measure foot size to predict future shoe preferences? Perhaps they could weigh infant tongues to forecast potential career paths in food criticism?

In all seriousness, the existence of organisations like the BSRC in 2024 is nothing short of appalling. Their focus on “risk” and “disrupted development” perpetuates harmful stereotypes about autism and autistic individuals. The resources poured into these misguided studies could be better spent on research that actually improves the lives of autistic people - novel concept, I know.

The autistic community has long been saying that autism is not a disease to be cured or a condition to be prevented. It’s a natural variation in human neurology, with its own strengths and challenges. But why listen to actually autistic people when you can measure baby heads instead?

One has to wonder how the BSRC researchers would react if we started measuring their heads to determine their likelihood of producing questionable studies. Perhaps we could develop early intervention strategies to prevent future scientific faux pas. “I’m sorry, Dr. Smith, but your head circumference suggests a high risk of conducting irrelevant autism research. We recommend immediate intervention.”

Thus, whilst the BSRC and its head-measuring antics might be laughable, the implications are far from funny. This type of research perpetuates outdated, harmful views of autism and diverts resources from more valuable pursuits. It’s high time we put down the measuring tapes and started listening to autistic voices instead.

So, to the BSRC and any other organisations still clinging to these antiquated approaches: It’s time to get your heads out of the 1940s and into the 21st century. Autism isn’t a puzzle to be solved or a condition to be prevented. It’s a fundamental aspect of human diversity. And no amount of head measuring is going to change that.