1. Dyer C. {{Thiomersal does not cause autism, US court finds}}. {Bmj};340:c1518.
2. Kawaguchi H, Murakami B, Kawai M. {{Behavioral characteristics of children with high functioning pervasive developmental disorders during a game}}. {J Epidemiol};20 Suppl 2:S490-497.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate children’s sociability through their behavior, we compared the motion features of children with high functioning pervasive developmental disorders (HFPDD) and typical development (TD) during a game. We selected ‘Jenga’ as the game because this is an interactive game played by two people. METHODS: We observed the behavior of 7 children with HFPDD and 10 children with TD. An optical motion capture system was used to follow the movement of 3-dimensional position markers attached to caps worn by the players. RESULTS: The range of head motion of the children with HFPDD was narrower than that of the control group, especially in the X-axis direction (perpendicular to the line connecting the two players). In each game, we calculated the range of motion in the X-axis of each child and divided that figure by the matched adult player’s range. The average ratios of children with HFPDD and TD were 0.64 and 0.89 (number of games are 61 and 18), and the difference of these two ratios is significant (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This ratio has sensitivity to identify HFPDD children and could be useful in their child care.
3. Miller FA, Hayeems RZ, Bytautas JP. {{What is a meaningful result? Disclosing the results of genomic research in autism to research participants}}. {Eur J Hum Genet} (Mar 17)
Developments in genomics research have been accompanied by a controversial ethical injunction: that researchers disclose individually relevant research results to research participants. With the explosion of genomic research on complex psychiatric conditions such as autism, researchers must increasingly contend with whether – and which results – to report. We conducted a qualitative study with researchers and participants involved in autism genomics research, including 4 focus groups and 23 interviews with parents of autistic children, and 23 interviews with researchers. Respondents considered genomic research results ‘reportable’ when results were perceived to explain cause, and answer the question ‘why;’ that is, respondents set a standard for reporting individually relevant genetic research results to individual participants that is specific to autism, reflecting the metaphysical value that genetic information is seen to offer in this context. In addition to this standard of meaning, respondents required that results be deemed ‘true.’ Here, respondents referenced standards of validity that were context nonspecific. Yet in practice, what qualified as ‘true’ depended on evidentiary standards within specific research disciplines as well as fundamental, and contested, theories about how autism is ‘genetic.’ For research ethics, these finding suggest that uniform and context-free obligations regarding result disclosure cannot readily be specified. For researchers, they suggest that result disclosure to individuals should be justified not only by perceived meaning but also by clarity regarding appropriate evidentiary standards, and attention to the status of epistemological debates regarding the nature and cause of disorders.European Journal of Human Genetics advance online publication, 17 March 2010; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2010.34.
