For us, autism doesn't feel like some detachable defect.

Take it away – and you don’t leave me, just improved. You change who I am.

This feeling isn’t limited to one ‘type’ of autistic person. Across support needs, most autistic people say the same (refs at the end).

2/11

That idea – that there’s a separable ‘pure self’ – is basically not one that's shared by us.

But it's very popular elsewhere!

Many millions are poured into #autism research every year, in the areas of treatment, intervention, prevention, and the hunt for biomarkers.

💰💰💰

3/11

The implication here – sometimes unspoken, & sometimes not so unspoken – is that autism is something to be reduced, corrected, or even eventually eradicated.

So my questions are:

1/ Whose problem is autism being treated as?
2/ And whose interests are served by that?

4/11

Because a ‘world without autism’ isn't abstract.
It's a world without autistic people. 🙎🏽‍♀️🙎🏾🙎🏻‍♀️

There’s also a deeper issue here.

Autistic people aren't believed about our own experiences. Or we don't get asked at all.

#UtaFrith said it would be unscientific to do so. More on her views here: https://mas.to/@KatyElphinstone/116206483353899881

5/11

Then, as we’re not listened to, society's understanding of autism develops without us.🤷🏽‍♀️

That flawed understanding is then used to overrule us, again.

Strange little loop. ➰

6/11

#EpistemicInjustice #Autism #AutismResearch

So what could ethical research look like, instead?

Here's the proposed researchers’ code of ethics:

1. Co-participation,
2. Respectful language,
3. Autistic differences not always as deficits,
4. No alignment with those promoting ABA, eugenics, and similar harms.

Far from today's reality.

7/11

Thanks @panda for this! And your work is in the references.

@KatyElphinstone I'm reminded of this *intensely* unethical science paper I read some twenty years or so where scientists electrocuted fish.

Why? To find out whether fish felt pain.

Their conclusion? They exhibit some behaviour patterns that suggest they could, but more research (i.e. electrocution) is required. You can't be sure, after all.

If this seems particularly disturbing, as if it's just some psychopaths using science as an excuse to live out their sicko fantasies ...

@KatyElphinstone ...in public, well no, apparently.

Apparently I'm anthropomorphizing animals, which is a science no-no. I am assigning human-like qualities to them, based on the undeniable observation that they act similar to humans when placed into similar situations.

That's not how it's done! *tuts in science*

Clearly it is significantly more ethical to discard the evidence in front of us, so we can continue to abuse other creatures at will.

This is done ...