text_1: MRI Might Screen for Autism
text_2: The story presents almost no information from the research study. We just know it was about MRIs in males with autism and that the researchers found something abnormal. We don’t know what the abnormal findings were, except they were related to how the hemispheres communicate. We don’t know whether the findings fit with a theory about the biology of autism or whether this was simply a fishing expedition. We don’t know how many of the 80 patients had the abnormality, if the MRI required special equipment or software, and if these were findings that any radiologist could detect. That’s simply too many gaps to make the story reliable. Study authors’ comments came from a news release. To its credit, the story did include cautious comments from one observer at the end. The challenge for this story is they are reporting on a basic science study, just one that happens to use MRI rather than bench techniques and one that was published in a specialized, technical journal. Autism is one of the most polarizing subjects in health, and the press can bear a big part of the blame. Reporting on autism tends to rely heavily on celebrity spokespeople, anecdotal profiles and advocacy organizations. It also has relied too much on science that has been improved upon or even discredited. That’s why it is even more important for reporters covering new research in autism to bring a very critical eye to the topic and to make good use of independent experts who can separate the emotions that understandably run high around the disorder from the science behind the research.