TV mom strikes again: Slate’s Eastbrook defends Waldman’s TV/autism study
Greg Easterbrook, whose article TV might really cause autism appeared on October 16th in Slate magazine, writes that Claudia Wallis’ article A Bizarre Study Suggests That Watching TV Causes Autism in the October 20th Time.com is “awfully casual about accusing others of ‘irresponsibility.’” He writes:
TIME declaring that a statistician who finds a clue should not publish unless he can offer definitive proof is like saying an astronomer who discovers a star should not reveal its location unless he can prove the origin of the universe. And suppose this theory of autism turns out to be true. Should those with suspicions remain silent, offering no caution to parents of young children?
I think that Easterbrook is being “awfully casual” here himself, at least in regard to discussing theories of autism. Easterbrook’s Slate magazine article mentions that there is no “definitive link between autism and vaccines,” but does not take into account the theory of autism aetiology that was widely believed in the not-so-distant past, namely, the refrigerator mother theory of autism which was popularized by Bruno Bettelheim in the 1960s. According to this theory, autism was caused by bad parenting and, in particular, by mothers who were “cold” and “withdrawn” and failed to bond with their children.
And Michael Waldman’s theory of TV causing autism bears more than a casual resemblance to the supposedly outmoded refrigerator mother theory of autism—-what kind of mother parks their young child (their toddler, their baby) in front of the television to be entertained, edutained, and babysat by the likes of Baby Einstein and the PBS kiddie cohort? We have gone, as another mother of an autistic child noted, from refrigerator mother to TV mom. It would be well for Eastbrook to note that the “TV causes autism” hypothesis contains echoes of this terrible and simply incorrect theory that has ruined the lives of autistic persons and of their parents.
Eastbrook concludes by noting that TIME has something at stake in denouncing a study that denounces cable TV: “Since TIME sees fit to accuse others of irresponsibility, it would have been nice if TIME’s article had disclosed that its corporate parent has a financial interest in denouncing this research.” As Eastbrook notes, the same company owns TIME, “leading cable television carrier” Time Warner Cable, and also the Cartoon Network, “which is marketed to young children.” One wonders, what interests, corporate or otherwise, might be those of the authors of a study that suggests that parents are in danger of causing? making? their children autistic by not turning off the TV?
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Diagnosis, Environment, Health, Media, Parenting, Psychology, Technology
21 opinions for TV mom strikes again: Slate’s Eastbrook defends Waldman’s TV/autism study
Mike
Oct 22, 2006 at 10:58 pm
This has received far too much attention, which is probably what the authors wanted. At first I thought that this was merely irresponsible humor; a possible weak minded joke in the faculty lounge. They want this to be taken seriously; great. Have a department head at the Weill College of Medicine at Cornell join in it’s publication. I am sure that any number of medical professionals would love to be associated with the study that finally informs the world as to the true cause of autism.
Professors, I realize that peer review is a bothersome process, but after all you are professionals and I am sure you wish to be taken seriously.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Oct 23, 2006 at 1:26 am
You’re too right, Mike—-and I have to say, I did mean not to post any more on this study after writing Autism Causes TV. I remain baffled as to how the authors conceived of this idea in the first place; are they aware of how the have deflected attention onto themselves when so much else is pressing in regard to the daily needs, the schools and educational and other services, for autistic individuals?
Mike
Oct 23, 2006 at 7:52 am
You were right to post, many of us would not hear about this otherwise.
Cornell’s Medical School has a wonderful reputation, let us see if anyone from Weill joins in their paper regarding cable TV. I have to wonder if any of their fellow professors in the Med school were given a copy of the paper for review prior to it’s presentation.
Unfortunately, it seems that some don’t understand how seriously the parents within this community take the care of their children. Most parents place that care above professional advancement, social life and sleep. This is not some parlor game.
Joseph
Oct 23, 2006 at 11:15 am
You might have seen my critique of this study. I exchanged an email with one of the researchers, and I’m currently awaiting a reply to my latest argument.
I take a different approach to this sort of thing. The most important aspect of a hypothesis is whether it’s true or false. (And I don’t mean whether we want it to be true or false). Politics and societal implications are a different matter.
It’s not surprising that the researchers looked at TV. Look for “TV ADHD” in PubMed. There are 45 entries.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Oct 23, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Thanks, Joseph—-I’ve been exchanging some emails with Michael Waldman. My own critique here does tend to be more interpretative and analytical—-I am a literary/humanities scholar by training.
Mike
Oct 25, 2006 at 8:41 am
Joseph,
I have now read your critique of this study and it is far more than I had expected. You were very helpful to them, pointing to flaws and even redirecting it’s focus. I am glad that you are writing in this analytical sphere. You have shown them a degree of professionalism and courtesy that they are unlikely to encounter in the near future.
It still appears to be a good example of bad science.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Oct 25, 2006 at 9:54 am
Joseph, what responses have you received from the researchers concerning your critique?
Joseph
Oct 25, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Kristina: I only got one response. They made a couple points, both of which I addressed, pretty clearly I think. I did not hear back from them after that.
aetheogamous
Nov 2, 2006 at 9:09 pm
“And Michael Waldman’s theory of TV causing autism bears more than a casual resemblance to the supposedly outmoded refrigerator mother theory of autism—-what kind of mother parks their young child (their toddler, their baby) in front of the television to be entertained, edutained, and babysat by the likes of Baby Einstein and the PBS kiddie cohort?”
Oh come on. Are you trying to imply that the refrigerator mother theory of autism came about because someone conducted a fairly careful statistical analysis of the nature of the relationship of the incidence of “cold mothering” and autism?
Since up until now there has been no known link between the rise of autism diagnoses and television watching, it would be VERY wrong to blame anyone with an autistic child for allowing their children to watch television, even if such a link is established. One might as well blame parents of autistic children for their childs autism because they might have passed on a genetic trait to their child that predisposes their child toward autism.
The knee-jerk negative reaction to this study is a diservice to society. Unfortunately there have been many poorly conducted scientific studies that have been hyped in the media. This has lead to a general skepticism and apathy to scientific studies reported in the media (though a more healthy skepticism would be to media reports about studies rather than to the studies themselves).
Occasionally well conducted studies get done that produce unusual (counterintuative) results. The Cornell study is a case in point (and if you want to claim the study is scientifical
ly flawed, please read the study, and please be specific as to exactly why it is junk science).
It would be a pity if the knee-jerk reaction to this study resulted in the abandoment of this line of research. It would be even worse if it were to turn out that the link is real. Then there would really be something to feel guilty about.
aetheogamous
Nov 3, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Since I mentioned scientific flaws, I have now seen something that does in fact suggest a potential fatal flaw in the study, see:
http://autismnaturalvariation.blogspot.com/2006/10/precipitation-rates-vs-population.html
This offers an alternative explanation to the rise in autism rates and availability of cable TV. In particular autism rates are correlated with population density, and it seems likely that population density drives adoption of cable TV. I don’t buy that this could also explain the rainfall-autism link, but the cable TV - autism link is required to jump from a link between rainfall and autism to a link between TV and autism.
I am guessing that it will be possible to put population density into the analyses that the study authors conducted. Hopefully they will do this, it will be interesting to see if this will explain the observed relationships or not.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Nov 3, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Thanks very much for your thoughtful comments. I am familiar with the analysis (by Joseph above) that you cite and much appreciate your drawing it to others’ attention.
Do you have an autistic child?
As to why the refrigetrator mother theory of autism arose, one needs to consider the history of psychology and psychoanalysis in the 20th century.
Autism Vox » Of older dads, TV, and other hazards to your health
Nov 28, 2006 at 11:50 pm
[…] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. RelatedPosts: […]
Autism Vox » Sure, there’s an autism epidemic (but watch your words)
Jan 20, 2007 at 4:49 am
[…] Rodgers’ question here is rhetorical; her thesis is indeed to make a case for ultrasound as a potential cause of autism. But correlation does not imply causation. Rodgers does not take into account the changes in the criteria for autism in the DSM-IV in 1994, changes which significantly broadened the criteria for an autism diagnosis, and, indeed, the evoluation of our understanding about autism from the time Leo Kanner first described what he called “infantile autism.” Like Michael Waldman’s theory that TV causes autism (which fueled some fervid discussion in Autismland), the suggestion of a link between autism and ultrasounds is a finding without a theory. […]
Autism Vox » Blame the Parents for Autism
Feb 27, 2007 at 4:37 pm
[…] Or how about the theory that TV causes autism, which appeared in the middle of October, thanks to one its authors, Professor Michael Waldman of the Johnson Graduate School of Management of Cornell University, making his paper available for downloading from his website? […]
Jan Kirby
Apr 6, 2007 at 11:16 pm
I have taught the Preschool Program for Children with Disabilities for 23 years. I have had children from all levels of the autism spectrum. While teaching in Houston, we had several children from the same village in Nigeria with autism - genetic? Where I can support Waldman is that I see more children with communication disorders whose parents have used the TV as a babysitter. These children are talked ‘at’ not with. Then they wonder why the children start talking when they enter my class. I also think a certain amount of ADHD can be contributed to the fact that so much of the programs are such a fast pace that it affects the child’s ability to focus on an activity for an extended period of time. We have also seen an enormous amount of children that are diagnosed, correctly or not, with ADHD.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Apr 6, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Dear Ms. Kirby,
Thanks very much for sharing your obeservations and experiences here—are the children from Nigeria all of the same age? I gather from the Wall Street Journal article that featured Waldman’s thesis (I posted on it
Autism Vox » Autism, Melamine, Pet Food?
May 2, 2007 at 1:03 am
[…] eaten off of—in the same category as other common items of everyday life (cell phones, iPods, TV, wi-fi) now under indictment for causing autism. What, one wonders, will not be said to cause […]
Anrew
May 22, 2007 at 7:58 pm
We have an autistic daughter who didn’t get vaccinated, never had any ear infections, didn’t take any antibiotics, never ate dairy, and mom was super-healthy and took many supplements all through pregnancy. The only thing we slacked off on is TV. We let her watch more than her share of TV since birth. I don’t know whether TV causes autism, but this is the last remaining factor for us. Since stopping TV, we have seen significant improvements. I am a scientist, and I am generally skeptical about these things, but in this case I do not care whether this study is peer reviewed or scientifically rigorous. It makes sense to me, and that’s all that matters.
All parents should be alerted that there could be a link between TV and autism, however weak that link may be. The American Academy of Pediatrics says children under age 2 should not watch any TV at all. They probably did not have autism in mind, but I find that connection way too close for comfort.
I am not taking any more chances. My kid is not going to spend any more time in front of the TV.
If the study is proven wrong ten years from now, I am not going to worry about all that TV time I have lost. But on the other hand, what if the study is proven to be correct? Are you ready to face that?
Although TV has not been proven to cause autism, no one in their right mind would claim that TV is a good thing for kids. It is like smoking or drinking. Even if you don’t believe they can cause cancer or heart desease, you can’t claim that smoking and drinking are good for you. I can get along with those who question the validity of this Cornell study, but what I find irresponsible is when they say TV is a good thing for autistic kids. That can cause great harm.
Kristina Chew, PhD
May 22, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Thanks, Anrew—how old, if I may ask, is your daughter? Professor Waldman made the paper available on his website before it was actually published in a journal and seems to have based his research on observing only a few autistic children (one of whom was his own son). My son watched almost no TV when he was an infant and toddler (and he still watches almost none). He was born autistic, we think. I am quite ready to face any research about autism if it is valid and credible.
Andrew
May 23, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Kristina,
Thanks for your comments. I think it is important that these topics be discussed openly. My daughter is 2 years old, and she defies most of the theories about autism. I have no doubt that autism has a genetic base. But genetic mutations do not cause an epidemic in just one generation. It takes many generations. So obviously there are other factors beyond genetics. What they are, no body knows. Some say it is vaccines, but in our case that was clearly not the case. Others say it is due to dairy intake, and again that is not the case for us. However, I would not tell other parents to throw out those theories because we have a kid who does not fit that profile. My mother had lung cancer, but she never smoked a cigarette in her life. Does it mean smoking does not cause lung cancer? I also know people who eat burgers and fries every day for lunch (plus who knows what for dinner), but are skinny and have no cholestrol issues. Does that mean eating fries and burgers everday does not cause weight and cholestrol problems? I know it does for me; one bowl of ice-cream and I can almost feel my weight being added to!
Even the top autism researchers don’t have an answer to what causes autism. Until there is an answer, all options should be open.
We can debate at length about whether TV causes autism. I don’t know if it does. But what I do know is that TV is not good for anyone, autism or not, especially kids. No parent has every looked back and regretted not letting their children watch more TV. I find it irresponsbile when people say watching TV is a good thing for autistic kids (see articles on about.com).
Once a link has been shown between TV and autism, it would be unwise to ignore it while the debate rages on, especially since there is nothing to lose even if that theory is proven to be wrong.
Most medical professionals in the field of autism work to earn an income. They don’t go home to face an autistic child. The few medical professionals that do have autistic children are the ones who pioneered the alternative therapies and bio-interventions. I truly believe these are the people who will find the ultimate answer. The 9-5 professionals do not have a vested interest or a sense of urgency to solve this problem.
Waldman’s work was inspired by a personal experience, and as far as I know he did not receive any external funding for this work. That should be applauded. Surprisingly, I have heard many negative comments because his work was not funded by NSF/NIH. That seems backwards to me. I know NSF and NIH very well, and I have received funding from them, and I also serve as their panelist. There are thousands (possibly millions) of useless papers written from NSF/NIH funding cluttering up our databases.
What puzzles me is why so many people are taking this study as a personal attack. Autism is wide open territory, and no one knows much about it. If we clamp down on every person who comes up with a potential theory, we are not helping anything.
OK, I will get off my soap box.
The Money Question
May 26, 2007 at 11:13 am
[…] to Mercury Blaming. Too right: Since I have been writing this blog, I’ve noted anything from TV to environmental toxins to mothers, the MMR, and mercury and older fathers as supposed […]
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: