Is Autism Really An Epidemic?

"I'll call a kid a zebra if it will get him the educational services I think he needs."

Judith Rapoport, National Institute of Mental Health Psychiatrist



The incidence of autism today has, indisputably, reached epidemic proportions—but is it actually an epidemic? Perhaps more importantly, does it matter?



Some numbers: autism is said to be diagnosed in 1 out of every 110 children, and 1 in 70 boys. Before 1990, autism reportedly affected fewer than 5 in every 10,000 American kids. This marked exponential rise has experts arguing over causal factors, and whether the increase is in incidence at all, or rather, simply in the diagnostics thereof.



Parallel surges in environmental contaminants and societal exposure to toxins lead many autism spokespeople and researchers to believe there might—or very definitely is, depending on who you ask—be a direct relationship. In other words, the rise of autism is largely due to new or relatively new environmental factors, elements we are, voluntarily or not, exposed to today.



Others find it more convincing that autism itself hasn’t necessary increased or spread, but our definition of it, and certainly its usage as a diagnosis has. The DSM definition of autism has been revised with each edition, and its defining criteria now include more people, such as those with Asperger’s syndrome and PDD-NOS. Also perhaps worth noting, it now includes adults with a recent diagnosis would have eluded census when they were children 20, 30 or 40 years ago, though they were autistic then, too.



Most compelling, in my opinion, is that while a diagnosis of autism is undoubtedly devastating for many parents, today it carries far less earth-shattering despair than in decades past, when autistic people were considered impervious to change. Presently, we have therapies that are proven to help, sometimes drastically. Now we know better than to place blame on "refrigerator mothers." Less shame + more hope = widespread diagnosis? Well, maybe not that simply.



A 2006 study found that the numbers of children receiving special education for mental retardation and other learning disabilities drastically decreased even while those seeking treatment for autism multiplied. In some states, insurance coverage for behavioral therapies and even Medicaid will now be granted to people with autism spectrum disorders, incentivizing doctors, families and schools to readily accept or even seek out the diagnosis when the aid will be of great benefit.



In some ways, predominant blame of environmental factors is comforting: if we caused an epidemic, maybe we can undo it, and quick! If only we could more accurately pinpoint that mysterious link—a task proving to be no small feat. Regardless, in-depth study of the effects of our exposure to environmental pollutants can only be beneficial as an ongoing pursuit, so long as conclusions are saved for conclusive evidence. And as long as broader, even looser diagnostics mean that more children receive the help they need, I see no reason why these two thought camps can’t peacefully co-exist.



Except, where to put the research dollars? Perhaps it makes most sense to work from the inside out: better first to understand what autism is, what it does, what it isn’t. Thanks to modern technology and increased public interest and acceptance, we have better insight into the autistic mind than ever before, and, so to speak, straight from the horse’s mouth. By focusing our purposes on furthering our understanding of this mysterious disorder, on why what helps does help, we might be led to a grasp of where it comes from, and why.