Of Zebrafish and Eugenics: A Hitchhiker’s Guide to Dubious Autism Research

In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. Fast forward several billion years, and we find ourselves grappling with research from Nantong University that suggests disrupted dopamine signaling might just be the thing to blame for autism. One can’t help but wonder if this too will be regarded as a bad move, especially when the faint whiff of eugenics hovers like a Vogon constructor fleet.

Dopamine, it appears, is not just the stuff that makes you feel good when you’ve found a fiver in your coat pocket. No, according to our intrepid researchers, it also plays a critical role in the developmental wiring of the brain. Disrupt this delicate dance, and voilà! You might have yourself an autistic person. The study, which involved both human brain RNA sequencing and zebrafish (because why not?), insists on drawing a parallel between fishy neural circuitry and human neurodevelopmental conditions.

Now, imagine, if you will, a bunch of tiny zebrafish swimming around, blissfully unaware that they are pivotal in unravelling the mysteries of human autism. The researchers found that disrupting dopamine signaling in these fish resulted in behaviours reminiscent of autism (as it is stereotypically seen in young white boys). This might be where one starts to wonder if our understanding of complex human conditions should really be left in the fins of our aquatic friends.

Moving beyond the fish tank, the ethical implications loom large and ominous. The study’s focus on early “detection” and “intervention” for autism brings with it a rather sinister echo of eugenics. In a world where selective abortion based on prenatal diagnostics is a grim reality, this research treads dangerously close to suggesting that the “prevention” of autism might be preferable to supporting autistic lives.

One might reasonably expect the voices of autistic individuals to be front and center in any study about autism. However, this study seems to have missed that memo, possibly lost somewhere in a bureaucratic black hole. Without the input of those who live the experience daily, the research risks reducing autism to a set of “symptoms” rather than recognising the rich and diverse lives of autistic people.

Consider for a moment, China’s complex relationship with disability and prenatal testing. The potential for misuse of such research in a country with a history of problematic views on disabilities is not just an academic concern but a real-world nightmare scenario. What’s presented as a scientific breakthrough can easily morph into a tool for discrimination, pushing us further into a dystopian future where neurodiversity is seen as something to be eradicated.

Arthur Dent might have thought his Thursday was bad, but the implications of this research for ethical science are far worse. It is imperative that the scientific community takes a step back and considers the broader impact of such studies. Research must be guided by principles that prioritise the dignity and rights of autistic peoples, rather than viewing us as problems to be solved.

In the grand scheme of things, the ultimate question might not be about life, the universe, and everything, but rather how we choose to use the knowledge we gain. Will we use it to create a more inclusive world, or will we fall into the trap of trying to eliminate what makes us different? As the great Ford Prefect might say, always know where your towel is, but more importantly, always know where your ethics lie.