Experts FINALLY pinpoint cause of autism - landmark discovery paves the way for drug treatments
While it has long been understood that autism often runs in families, exactly how inherited changes in DNA lead to the condition has remained unclear.
Now, researchers at Kobe University in Japan have found that many of the mutations associated with autism appear to disrupt the brain's natural 'maintenance' system—the internal process that clears out waste and damaged material, allowing brain cells to function as they should.
When this clean-up system fails, as the study suggests it does in many cases of autism, waste begins to build up inside nerve cells, damaging their ability to send and receive signals.
This breakdown may help explain some of the core features of autism, including difficulties with learning, language and social interaction.
The research, published in Cell Genomics, focused on identifying what different high-risk genetic variants actually do inside the brain.
Scientists have known for years that certain genetic mutations are more common in people with autism—but until now, there was no standardised way to study the effects of those mutations in the lab.
To solve this, the Kobe team created a library of 63 specially engineered cell lines—groups of cells grown in the lab that are genetically identical, allowing researchers to conduct consistent experiments.
Each line carried one of the genetic mutations most strongly associated with autism spectrum conditions (ASC).
These cells were created using mouse embryonic stem cells—taken from early-stage mouse embryos—which have the unique ability to develop into any kind of tissue in the body, including brain cells.
No human embryos were used.
To introduce the mutations, the scientists used CRISPR, a gene-editing technology that allows precise changes to DNA.
It enabled the team to effectively model autism in the lab—creating what some researchers describe as 'autism in a dish.'
From these modified cells, the team was able to grow various types of brain tissue—and even generate adult mice with the same mutations—giving them a powerful way to study how genetic changes affect both brain structure and behaviour over time.
What they found was striking. Across many of the mutations, a common problem emerged: the brain's waste-disposal system wasn't working properly.
Brain cells—particularly neurons, which carry electrical signals and control thought, emotion, and behaviour—were struggling to get rid of faulty internal components.
As the study puts it, 'a lack of quality control of these proteins may be a causal factor of neuronal defects.'
The authors note this is 'particularly interesting since the local production of proteins is a unique feature in neurons.'
In simple terms, neurons are constantly producing new components to help them send messages.
But if they can't clear out old or broken parts, the system becomes clogged and starts to malfunction—potentially disrupting the brain networks that support communication, learning and social development.
The implications may go beyond autism.
Many of the same genetic mutations are also found in people with other mental health conditions, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
As the authors note: 'Interestingly, the genetic variants we studied are also implicated in other neuropsychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
'So, this library may be useful for studying other conditions as well.'
The researchers hope that by better understanding what these mutations do, scientists will be able to identify new drug targets—and eventually, develop treatments tailored to a person's unique genetic profile.
While any clinical application is still likely years away, the discovery marks a turning point in autism research—moving beyond simply spotting risk genes to uncovering the biological chain of events that may cause the condition in the first place.
It follows soaring rates of autism—with a 787 per cent rise in the number of diagnoses in the UK between 1998 and 2019 reported in a 2021 study.
Last month NHS data showed that more than 200,000 people—triple that in 2021—are waiting for an autism assessment in England.
Famous figures with ASC include environmental activist Greta Thunberg, 22, and billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, 53, founder of Tesla and owner of X (formerly Twitter).
As the condition affects people in many different ways, some autistic individuals do not view it as an illness requiring a 'cure'.
Instead, they see it as a difference—one that should be understood and accommodated, rather than treated or fixed.
The Kobe University research is not the first to examine genetic links to the condition to provide an answers.
Earlier this year, experts found some cases of autism may be caused by the genetic condition myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1).
Those with the little-known genetic condition were found to be 14 times more likely to develop autism.
Other studies have suggested environmental factors could be a potential cause of autism.
Last year, research found a common plastic additive found in everything from pacifiers to metal foods had been linked to an increased risk of autism in boys.
It found that higher levels of chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in a pregnant mother's urine more than tripled the chances a young boy developing autism symptoms by the age of two.
Those same boys were six times more likely to be diagnosed with autism by age 11 — compared to those whose mothers had lower BPA levels during pregnancy.
The chemical BPA is intended to harden plastics and prevent metals from rusting, among other uses.
It has also been dubbed a 'gender-bending' chemical due to its apparent role spurring hormonal and sexual disruptions in humans, fish and other species.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The voice of our own inner critic can be strong. How can we break free from the mental prison?
The Buddha was bold in his approach to human psychology. He described psychological suffering as pervasive and inherent to the human experience. Suffering is present not only in moments of loss and pain, but in how the mind contracts, shaped by past actions and entrenched habits. In this sense, we live in a mental prison of our own making with walls continually constructed and reconstructed largely out of conscious view. Thoughts, perceptions and feelings appear solid and true, and a relentless internal voice tells us who we are, what we ought to be and do and what the world must deliver. At its worst, our psyche can feel like 'a bad neighbourhood' that we might avoid walking through alone, to quote writer Anne Lamott. During such times, support, friendship and self-nurturing are crucial. But even outside more troubling mental states, the walls of our minds can limit the view. Sound familiar? It's no coincidence that in contemporary life, the pursuit of mental freedom has become mainstream – even commercial. Modern seekers are microdosing psilocybin, participating in ayahuasca ceremonies, experimenting with cognitive-enhancing supplements like nootropics, and trying biohacking techniques – cold plunges, saunas, sensory deprivation tanks to name a few. And then, of course, there are silent meditation retreats: two days, 10 days, 30 days, even three months. On these retreats, participants report glimpsing a reality beyond the known self, a shift so impactful it can redirect the entire course of their lives. In fact, many committed to Buddhist meditation speak of such moments as pivotal. While sudden breakthroughs can be transformative (particularly when integrated well), once the intensity fades, familiar anxieties return. The architecture of our inner world, temporarily dismantled, rebuilds itself. The Buddha might have recognised the yearning behind this search, but cautioned that while insight can arise spontaneously, the path is ultimately gradual and gentle, requiring ethics, restraint, mindfulness and mental persistence. We chase instant fixes, hoping the next practice or product will deliver, only to feel let down. Caught in this need for immediate release, we often avoid examining the quieter mechanisms that keep us trapped. One such mechanism is what modern Buddhists refer to as the judgmental or comparing mind – not to be confused with wise discernment. As our awareness deepens, we begin to see the extent to which we internalise rules, expectations, and criticism. The comparing mind isn't kind or reasonable. When triggered, it can be oppressive, self-flagellating and cruel. It can appear in the body as constriction and discomfort – a tightening of the jaw and chest, a sinking feeling in the pit of the stomach. Sometimes it's so constant we only notice it when we pause and tune in. Western thinkers like Sigmund Freud and Michel Foucault explored how we internalise authority, self-police, and punish ourselves. Foucault described how we internalise the gaze of those in power, monitoring our behaviours, actions and even our thoughts. Freud referred to the 'superego,' which tames instinctual desires, but also devolves into shame and guilt; essential to social cohesion, he said, but when overactive, the cause of neuroses and mental distress. Buddhism recognises similar dynamics, albeit through a different lens. As a way to work with the inner critic, we are first invited to actively extend a spirit of non-harm toward all beings – this includes ourselves. This elicits an ever-deepening awareness of how we move through the world and treat others, as well as our own hearts, in the pursuit of mental liberation. Then, through meditative inquiry, we begin to see our punishing thoughts with greater clarity – their shape, origin and propensity. Shame and blame aren't repressed, but understood and, where possible, gently disarmed and pacified. What does this look like, practically? First, notice how it lives in the body and stays with it. Offer yourself some mercy. This is part of being human – a mind that grasps, compares, and cajoles. As calm returns, a small sense of freedom may emerge. Don't miss that. From here, trace what gave rise to the pattern: fatigue, an interaction, a memory or something else. Notice the belief or storyline the mind clings to. In other words, what is the sticky thought at play? In seeing this clearly, the mind may loosen its grip. Over time, and with continued observation, these habits may naturally dissipate. During a retreat, I once became struck by the cruelty of my thoughts. I hadn't noticed it in the rush of daily life, but in stillness, it hit me in a visceral way. Every time I meditated, my mind scorned me: I wasn't doing it well enough, this wasn't the practice for me, I was too sleepy, hungry, or ill-suited. I had a bad temperament, the voice said, and I might as well give up. Exhausted, I went to the teacher to report on my experience, and she said very directly, as if she already knew, 'it's remarkable how violent we can be to ourselves'. It's hard, this being human thing. But the Buddha's path, like many spiritual paths, is a hopeful one. It teaches us how to alleviate suffering through humility, curiosity and patience, rather than fighting fire with fire. To paraphrase the Buddha, 'hatred is never appeased by hatred … but by love alone'. With practice, the grip of the inner critic is released, and space for something else emerges. It may happen suddenly, but it's more likely to happen over time. As the punishing narrator recedes into the background, we access greater moments of mental release and ethical clarity. Then, one very fine day, we might walk straight out of the prison's doors, and as we do, we might realise the doors have been wide open this whole time. Dr Nadine Levy is a senior lecturer at the Nan Tien Institute. She coordinates its health and social wellbeing program and the graduate certificate in applied mindfulness
The Guardian
6 hours ago
- The Guardian
Science could enable a fascist future. Especially if we don't learn from the past
Science is in crisis. Funding infrastructures for both basic and applied research are being systematically decimated, while in places of great power, science's influence on decision making is waning. Long-term and far-reaching studies are being shuttered, and thousands of scientists' livelihoods are uncertain, to say nothing of the incalculable casualties resulting from the abrupt removal of life-saving medical and environmental interventions. Understandably, the scientific community is working hard to weather this storm and restore funding to whatever extent possible. In times like these, it may be tempting to settle for the status quo of six months ago, wanting everything simply to go back to what it was (no doubt an improvement for science, compared to the present). But equally, such moments of crisis offer an opportunity to rebuild differently. As Arundhati Roy wrote about Covid-19 in April 2020, 'Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew. This one is no different. It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next.' What could science look like, and what good could science bring, if we moved through the portal of the present moment into a different world? At worst, science will play its part in accelerating us toward a tech-obsessed end-times-fascist future. At best, science will broaden its power as a positive force, serving the wellbeing of humans and nature alike. Imagining this latter vision in exquisite detail is essential, and we argue here that to first envision and then work towards the best version of science, we need to reckon honestly with science's past and present. Most crucially, we need to confront the commonplace claim that science is – or ought to be – objective and apolitical, uninfluenced by human culture, norms, or values. The current moment has rudely awakened many scientists to the fact that research is indeed political, and further makes clear that scientists' attempts to distance themselves from politics will backfire. Denying the inherent entanglements of science and politics leaves scientists lacking the capacity and tools to mount effective defenses against bad-faith political attacks. This denial also allows science to go unquestioned when it undermines the needs and rights of marginalized beings and places. As much as scientists might wish for science to be cleanly separable from politics, decades of research demonstrates that this has never been true, and never could be. The field of science studies examines the inherently human processes of science – who defines what science is, who gets to conduct scientific research, who pays for it, who benefits from it, who is harmed by it – and how these human dynamics shape scientific knowledge. Feminist science studies in particular documents how power and oppression shape scientific findings and applications, demonstrating that even 'science at its most basic' is in fact inextricable from politics. Some of the most compelling, and consequential, examples of such entanglement can be found in human and animal biology. Consider an analysis of 19th-century science on human race and sex from Sally Markowitz, which clearly reveals the influence of white supremacism on basic biology. Markowitz shows how 19th-century scientists not only asserted that human races are biological categories, but also that the so-called white race is evolutionarily superior. To 'prove' this politically-motivated claim, these scientists first decided that the degree of distinction between men's and women's bodies (or 'sexual dimorphism') was proof of evolutionary superiority, and then claimed, on the basis of selective measurements, that sexual dimorphism is supposedly greater in Europeans than in Africans. Women of African descent were thus mismeasured as both less female and less human than their white counterparts – rendering all people of African descent more 'animal-like'. This 19th-century research has had far-reaching consequences, from justifying enslavement, to supporting eugenic sterilization practices well into the 20th century, to contemporary controversy around the 'femaleness' of elite Black and brown female athletes, among other examples. It may be tempting to relegate such blatant instances to the past, and claim that scientists have since corrected such mistakes. But in fact these ghosts continue to haunt us. In our new book, Feminism in the Wild, we – an evolutionary biologist and a science studies scholar – dive deep into how contemporary scientists describe and understand animal behavior, and find the dominant political perspectives of the last 200 years reflected back to us. Scientific research on mating behavior in species ranging from fruit flies to primates is entangled with patriarchal expectations of masculinity and femininity. Scientists' understanding of animals' foraging behavior mirrors a capitalist theory of economics, based upon assumptions of scarcity and optimization, and expectations of individualism are pervasive throughout scientific research on how animals behave in groups. Contemporary researchers express surprise, for instance, at elephants who alter their eating habits to accommodate a fellow herd member disabled by poachers, at ravens who alert one another to the presence of food in the dead of winter, or at female dolphins who begin lactating without having given birth in order to nurse calves whose mothers have died. Dominant evolutionary theories do not explain such instances of care on their own terms, but instead insist that these behaviors must ultimately be self-interested. Not coincidentally, these theories rooted in individualism only rose to dominance in the last 50 years or so, alongside the rise of neoliberalism. Meanwhile, eugenic perspectives, rooted in racism, classism, and ableism, constrain how scientists understand sex, intelligence, performance and more, in humans and animals alike. For example, today's scientists are still somewhat shocked by lizards who successfully navigate tree trunks and branches with missing limbs, as these agile lizards undermine the presumed correlation between an animal's appearance, performance, and survival that's captured in the phrase 'survival of the fittest'. Other scientists continue to argue that peahens (for instance) choose to mate with the most beautiful peacock, despite his expansive tail's costly impediments, because beauty is a 'favorable' trait even if it doesn't promote survival. Such arguments about female mate choice are rooted in a theory developed decades ago by mathematician and evolutionary biologist Ronald A Fisher, a vocal advocate of 'positive eugenics', which means encouraging only people with 'favorable' traits to reproduce. Leonard Darwin (son of Charles Darwin), in his 1923 presidential address to the Eugenics Education Society, made this connection between Fisher's theories and eugenics explicit, stating: 'Wonderful results have been produced…by the action of sexual selection in all kinds of organisms…and if this be so, ought we not to enquire whether this same agency cannot be utilized in our efforts to improve the human race?' Leonard Darwin then went on to deliver an astoundingly modern-sounding description of sexual selection before considering its implications for effective eugenics propaganda. We offer these examples (and many more, in our book), to show that scientific research on the evolution of animal behavior remains thoroughly and undeniably political. But the moral of our story is not that scientists must root out all politics and strive for pure neutrality. Rather, feminist science studies illustrates how science has always been shaped by politics, and always will be. It is therefore incumbent upon scientists to confront this reality rather than deny it. Thankfully, for as long as science has been aligned with systems of oppression, there have been scientists and other scholars resisting this alignment, both explicitly and implicitly. In Feminism in the Wild, we detail the work of scientists developing new mathematical models about female mating behavior that discard old assumptions aligned with patriarchy and eugenics, instead demonstrating that it's possible and even likely that female animals are not necessarily concerned with mating with the 'best' males and that mate choice can be a more flexible and variable affair. We discuss a rich history of theories about animals' behavior in groups that take both individual and collective well-being seriously. And we explore alternatives rooted in queer, Indigenous, and Marxist standpoints, which counter the dominant view that animal behavior is all about maximizing survival and reproduction. Ultimately, we show that it is possible—and even desirable—to fold political analysis into scientific inquiry in a way that makes science more multifaceted and more honest, bringing us closer to the truth than a science which denies its politics ever could. In this historical moment scientists must embrace, rather than avoid, the political underpinnings and implications of scientific inquiry. As Science's editor-in-chief Holden Thorp put it in 2020, 'science thrives when its advocates are shrewd politicians but suffers when its opponents are better at politics.' We agree, and further insist: scientists must reckon honestly and explicitly with the ways in which the knowledge they produce, and the processes by which they produce it, are already and unavoidably political. In doing so, scientists may lose the shallow authority they have harbored by pretending to be above the political fray. They will instead have to grapple with their own political perspectives constantly, as part of the scientific process—a rougher road, no doubt, but one that will lead us to a stronger science, both more empirically rigorous and more politically resilient. Imagine if scientists seized this moment to remake science even while fighting for it. As MacArthur Genius and feminist science studies scholar Ruha Benjamin recently stated: imagination is '[not] an ephemeral afterthought that we have the luxury to dismiss or romanticize, but a resource, a battleground.' And, she continues: 'most people are forced to live inside someone else's imagination.' United in the goal of building a stronger science, we call upon scientists to put our imaginations to work differently, in ways that move us through this nightmare portal into a dreamier world, where justice is not cropped out of scientific endeavors but rather centered and celebrated. Ambika Kamath is trained as a behavioral ecologist and evolutionary biologist. She lives, works, and grows community in Oakland, California, on Ohlone land Melina Packer is Assistant Professor of Race, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, on Ho-Chunk Nation land. She is the author of Toxic Sexual Politics: Economic Poisons and Endocrine Disruptions
The Guardian
a day ago
- The Guardian
China calls for global AI cooperation days after Trump administration unveils low-regulation strategy
Chinese premier Li Qiang has proposed establishing an organisation to foster global cooperation on artificial intelligence, calling on countries to coordinate on the development and security of the fast-evolving technology, days after the US unveiled plans to deregulate the industry. Speaking at the annual World Artificial Intelligence Conference (WAIC) in Shanghai, Li called AI a new engine for growth, adding that governance is fragmented and emphasising the need for more coordination between countries to form a globally recognised framework for AI. Li warned Saturday that artificial intelligence development must be weighed against the security risks, saying global consensus was urgently needed. His remarks came just days after US president Donald Trump unveiled an aggressive low-regulation strategy aimed at cementing US dominance in the fast-moving field. One executive order targeted what the White House described as 'woke' artificial intelligence models. Opening the World AI Conference, Li emphasised the need for governance and open-source development. 'The risks and challenges brought by artificial intelligence have drawn widespread attention … How to find a balance between development and security urgently requires further consensus from the entire society,' the premier said. Li said China would 'actively promote' the development of open-source AI, adding Beijing was willing to share advances with other countries, particularly developing ones in the global south. The three-day event brings together industry leaders and policymakers at a time of escalating technological competition between China and the United States – the world's two largest economies – with AI emerging as a key battleground. Washington has imposed export restrictions on advanced technology to China, including the most high-end AI chips made by companies such as Nvidia and chipmaking equipment, citing concerns that the technology could enhance China's military capabilities. Li did not name the United States in his speech, but he warned that AI could become an 'exclusive game' for a few countries and companies, and said challenges included an insufficient supply of AI chips and restrictions on talent exchange. At a time when AI is being integrated across virtually all industries, its uses have raised major ethical questions, from the spread of misinformation to its impact on employment, or the potential loss of technological control. Earlier this week, news companies were warned of a 'devastating impact' on online audiences as search results are replaced by AI summaries, after a new study claimed it caused up to 80% fewer clickthroughs. The World AI Conference is an annual government-sponsored event in Shanghai that typically attracts major industry players, government officials, researchers and investors. Saturday's speakers included Anne Bouverot, the French president's special envoy for AI, computer scientist Geoffrey Hinton, known as 'the godfather of AI', and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who has in past years regularly appeared at the opening ceremony both in-person and via video, did not speak this year. The exhibition features predominantly Chinese companies, including tech companies Huawei and Alibaba and startups such as humanoid robot maker Unitree. Western participants include Tesla, Alphabet and Amazon. With Reuters and Agence France-Presse
