Thursday Oct 22 2009 Autism

Autism proceedings: End of Story

By Jonathan Rabinovitz

Advocacy groups can play a vital role in advancing treatment of a disease, but a small but vocal group of parents of children with autism may be hindering as much as helping the latest efforts to promote research on the disorder.

Case in point: when the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee meets on Oct. 23 to consider revisions to its strategic plan for autism research, it will no longer include one of its most esteemed scientists: Story Landis, PhD, director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Landis had chosen to step down from the IACC in the face of complaints from some parents that she was dismissive of their concerns about vaccines being a cause of autism. The trigger was a relatively innocuous note that she had scribbled to a colleague during a meeting of an IACC; after the meeting ended, a parent retrieved it from the floor and posted it on the Web site, Age of Autism, claiming it showed insensitivity to parents of autistic children. That, in turn, set off a feeding frenzy on the blogosphere. David Kirby’s blog on The Huffington Post was the first to report that Landis had resigned, apologizing for behavior that “eroded trust at a time when we need to build stronger ties across government and the community.”

Landis’ note questioned whether another panel member, Lyn Redwood, was pushing the idea that autism is a multisystem disorder rather than a neurological disorder because that might lend a bit of credence to the widely debunked idea that vaccines cause autism and to lawsuits seeking damages.

What makes the complaints about Landis’ note so perplexing is that her question was not out of line. Redwood did actually file a lawsuit seeking damages for a claim of vaccine-related harm to her autistic son. (See p. 174 of David Kirby’s book, Evidence of Harm.) She has continued to argue at the IACC that more research needs to be done on vaccines as a cause of autism, even though millions of dollars spent on studies of this issue have failed to find a significant connection. My story in last spring’s Stanford Medicine magazine on "Vaccines under the gun" is one of many documenting how scientists have shown that vaccines are not the cause of the spike in cases of autism, which is now estimated to affect one in every 100 children.

Many parents who once worried about vaccines being a cause of their children’s autism have agreed it’s time to move on. Indeed, the IACC’s strategic plan, issued in January, says that the priority for federal funding on autism research should be studies on the genetics underlying autism and studies on other environmental factors that could play a part in causing the disorder, though it acknowledges that monitoring of vaccines should continue. Nevertheless, there remains a core group of parents who will never change their mind about vaccines, and they routinely accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being part of some government-pharmaceutical industry cover-up. Landis is the latest casualty, though others on the IACC continue to be subjected to a campaign of smears

At the Oct. 23 meeting, the IACC will consider revisions to the plan. It's a very good bet that Redwood and a few of the other IACC members who share her view are going to try to change the language in the report. It would be surprising if they succeeded in changing the plan, as they are a minority on the 18-member panel, which includes a dozen federal officials. Still, their effort could lead to a very contentious meeting. It’s unfortunate that these parents can sidetrack such important work and that their complaints can discourage scientists such as Landis from serving on the IACC. Although another NIH scientist will be taking her spot, her resignation sends a message that joining such a committee involves serious risk of public humiliation.

  •  

    Share Via...

    • email Email
    • del.icio.us Del.icio.us
    • Facebook Facebook
    • Digg
    • Twitter Twitter

Comments

Ginger Taylor

October 23, 2009 5:30 AM

I have a few questions.

You feel that the panel is the worse for having lost Dr. Landis.

What did Dr. Landis bring to the table that has been lost? What accomplishments had she made in the advancement of our understanding of what autism is, how it is caused and how it can be treated?

How many children with autism had she recovered from the disorder?

I have heard her referred to as the Queen of "No". That she merely opposed much of what was proposed to study that might have advanced the ball.

Can you be specific in how the panel is now worse off for her departure? You say she is esteemed, but has she done anything worth grieving the loss of?

linda

October 23, 2009 11:07 AM

It really is a shame, but not surprising. Legitimate autism researchers have been driven from the field by the harassment they get when their results don't please the mercury moms. These so-called "autism activists" do nothing but hold up the search for real answers and help for autistics and their families.

Jonathan Rabinovitz

October 23, 2009 11:36 AM

Story Landis is director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), which plays a leading role in federal efforts to conducts and support research on brain and nervous system disorders. If you are planning out a research strategy for understanding the cause of autism, it is helpful to have at the table a scientist who is actually overseeing these efforts.
Conduct a search of the NIH grants data base by typing in the word "autism" and specifying NINDS, and you get a list of more than 125 projects that the institute is currently funding.

I am not going to repeat the term that you use to describe Dr. Landis, as it is an example of how critics are needlessly slandering honest scientists, rather than engaging in constructive dialogue. My point is that such characterizations make it less appealing for researchers to engage with advocates. The way Dr. Landis was treated will make others more wary about dealing with parents. That is unfortunate.

I believe it is beneficial to have the contribution of established neuroscientists on the IACC. Dr. Landis is an author of more than 100 articles in scientific journals, as well as an editor of the first edition of the textbook "Fundamental Neuroscience." I think it is unfortunate that people would choose to dismiss her work because it does not conform to some thier conception of what causes autism and how to treat it. We want more people involved in the search for a cure, not fewer.

MJ

October 23, 2009 2:51 PM

If Dr. Landis's question was an appropriate one to ask, why didn't she pose it at a question for the whole meeting? Would not that have been the appropriate forum for her concern?

Why did she instead resort to passing a written note to a college?

Leila

October 23, 2009 5:14 PM

MJ, very simple answer; because she didn't feel like it was safe to share her concern with the whole audience and would rather share that with the colleague in private. This type of note exchange is common in meetings around the world, when people want to talk to the colleague next to them discreetly and without disturbing everyone else or interrupting the current speaker. Maybe the stay-at-home or non-professional folks can't understand that type of thing.

MJ

October 24, 2009 2:07 PM

Leila, making assumptions about the profession of another commenter is never a good idea. I am neither a "stay-at-home" nor a "non-professional" and I am quite familiar with what is involved in "professional" meetings.

If Dr. Landis felt that she had a legitimate question she should have either raised it or brought it up privately with her colleges after the meeting and discussed it then.

Putting her comments in writing and passing disparaging notes is not a professional behavior - especially if you are talking about a fellow member of your committee.

However, since Dr. Landis choose to do this, she has to be willing to accept the consequences of her actions.

If this same scenerio had occurred in a business environment, the end result would have been the same - the guilty party would have removed themselves from the committee.

(FYI, your page is giving mysql errors when I click the comment submit button, so if this is a duplicate comment, I apologize)

John Stafford

October 24, 2009 3:01 PM

My apologies for the MySQL errors. We are migrating servers today, which may have caused the errors. These issues should be resolved by 8:00 p.m. Pacific.

Jonathan Rabinovitz

October 24, 2009 3:44 PM

I am a 48-year-old professional who does occasionally pass notes in meetings. I don't think that should be grounds for my losing my job or being forced off a committee. I find it disturbing that someone would go through the trash after a meeting and then post it on the Web. I think that behavior is a clear violation of privacy and shows intent to do harm. While such a move is perfectly legal, I would prefer not to be in a work environment in which people are rifling through my papers, trying to find some faux pas of mine that they can subject to public ridicule. To quote the Bible, “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone . . . ”

The point is that a core group of anti-vaccine activists routinely cross the boundaries of common decency. This latest episode is part of their pattern of behavior to portray negatively and undermine anyone who has a different view than their own. It is emblematic of an intolerance that we don't need in the efforts to build a wide coaliton of people to find treatments for autism.

MJ

October 25, 2009 7:17 AM

It was not the passing notes per-se that is the problem, it was the contents of the notes. I am not sure if you understood all of the nuances of the Dr. Landis's comments but, in my opinion at least, there was enough there to be upset about.

Would you, as a professional, pass a note at a meeting that was critical of a college or put something in a note that would be very embarrassing if someone else read it?

Also, from my understanding, no one went through the trash to find these notes. They were left on the table or on the floor and picked up from there. it is a small point, but an important one. There was no actual malice involved.

Your comments about the actions of "anti-vaccine" groups such as age of autism strike me as ironic.

All of the groups involved in autism try to do this to the "other side". This is one of the reasons there is so little trust in this community and one of the reasons that Dr. Landis's comments were a problem.

Evelyn Pringle

October 28, 2009 4:00 PM

I'm an investigative journalist who has no dog in this hunt, other than years of investigating and following the vaccine-autism debate.

I have never heard of the "esteemed" scientist, Dr Landis and couldn't help wondering why she was on this committee to begin with.

Being my tax dollars are paying for the work of this committee, first and foremost I want a study conducted to compare autism rates in vaccinated children verses unvaccinated children.

Until that study is done, my tax dollars are being wasted.

Evelyn Pringle

David Gorski

November 1, 2009 1:15 PM

Here's why a "vaxed versus unvaxed" study is highly unlikely to shed any light on the question:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=939

No doubt Ginger Taylor will now smear me as being a "pharma shill," as she has before. Oh, and she's also posted private e-mail exchanges we had in order to try to embarrass me. Such are the tactics of the fringe of autism "advocates" who still believe against all scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism.

Matt

November 1, 2009 11:26 PM

Until that study is done, my tax dollars are being wasted.

Either you have a hidden agenda, or your ignorance could cost my kid a lot.

Your tax dollars should go into helping autistics live a better life. A vaccinated/unvaccinated study will not do that.

Are you the same Evelyn Pringle quoted by the epic antivaccine (and junk science) website, "Whale.to"?
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/tax.html

If you don't understand why a director of one of the National Institutes of Health should be on the IACC, one of the institutes that supports a lot of autism research, you really don't know what you are talking about.

Story Landis is the director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Autism is a Neurological Disorder.

If it isn't obvious why she was on the IACC now, I would sincerely question your journalistic chops.

Sullivan

November 2, 2009 11:41 AM

Landis’ note questioned whether another panel member, Lyn Redwood, was pushing the idea that autism is a multisystem disorder rather than a neurological disorder because that might lend a bit of credence to the widely debunked idea that vaccines cause autism and to lawsuits seeking damages.

This is not the case. This is the spin placed on the note by Katie Wright, blogger for the Age of Autism and daughter of the founders of Autism Speaks. She misquoted the note.

Dr. Landis' note stated:
"I wonder if Lyn Redwood is pushing autism as a multi-symptom disorder in order to feed into vaccine injury"

Katie Wright added the word "awards" to the end of that statement:

"I wonder if Lyn Redwood is pushing autism as a multi-symptom disorder in order to feed into vaccine injury awards".

We have no way of knowing if Dr. Landis was discussing the litigation or not. We know Katie Wright's interpretation, and we know that Katie Wright misquoted Dr. Landis in order to put that spin on the note.

Add a Comment

Stanford Medicine Resources: