The Simons Foundation has an article discussing their choices of Notable papers of 2011 . Below are their choices and links to the Simons Foundation blog ( SFARI ) articles which discuss them. Also given are links to pubmed for the original research articles.
Hello friends -
I remember specifically that in older posts a commentor had noted that the Simons foundation in particular was heavily invested in genetic funding for autism. This listing of their 'important' findings would seem to bolster that argument.
I find particular amusement that in the AS list of 2011 studies they list the California twins study, and in this list, it is noted as 'Experts critique statistics, conclusion of autism twin study', which isn't even a study. No bias on display here.
I am saddened to see that the absurd Korea study made it into both lists.
How is the Korea study "absurd"? It is the only total population study so far. Autism Speaks considers the idea good enough that they are funding a total population study in the U.S..
Dorothy Bishop who serves as assistant editor on autism related peer reviewed research journals has dissected the Korean study brilliantly and would agree more with pD than Sullivan:
Funny, I too have worked as an editor on peer reviewed journals. As has at least one of the authors of the Korean study.
She makes a very strange statement: “Reliance on expert clinical judgement is all very well, ”
Clinical judgement is the gold standard for such work. And multiple clinicians agreed. In general, the problems with clinical judgement come in where individuals are placed on the spectrum, not whether they belong in the spectrum at all.