TV mom strikes again: Slate’s Eastbrook defends Waldman’s TV/autism study
October 22, 2006 by Kristina Chew, PhD
Filed under Health
Greg Easterbrook, whose article TV might really cause autism appeared on October 16th in Slate magazine, writes that Claudia Wallis’ article A Bizarre Study Suggests That Watching TV Causes Autism in the October 20th Time.com is “awfully casual about accusing others of ‘irresponsibility.’” He writes:
TIME declaring that a statistician who finds a clue should not publish unless he can offer definitive proof is like saying an astronomer who discovers a star should not reveal its location unless he can prove the origin of the universe. And suppose this theory of autism turns out to be true. Should those with suspicions remain silent, offering no caution to parents of young children?
I think that Easterbrook is being “awfully casual” here himself, at least in regard to discussing theories of autism. Easterbrook’s Slate magazine article mentions that there is no “definitive link between autism and vaccines,” but does not take into account the theory of autism aetiology that was widely believed in the not-so-distant past, namely, the refrigerator mother theory of autism which was popularized by Bruno Bettelheim in the 1960s. According to this theory, autism was caused by bad parenting and, in particular, by mothers who were “cold” and “withdrawn” and failed to bond with their children.
And Michael Waldman’s theory of TV causing autism bears more than a casual resemblance to the supposedly outmoded refrigerator mother theory of autism—-what kind of mother parks their young child (their toddler, their baby) in front of the television to be entertained, edutained, and babysat by the likes of Baby Einstein and the PBS kiddie cohort? We have gone, as another mother of an autistic child noted, from refrigerator mother to TV mom. It would be well for Eastbrook to note that the “TV causes autism” hypothesis contains echoes of this terrible and simply incorrect theory that has ruined the lives of autistic persons and of their parents.
Eastbrook concludes by noting that TIME has something at stake in denouncing a study that denounces cable TV: “Since TIME sees fit to accuse others of irresponsibility, it would have been nice if TIME’s article had disclosed that its corporate parent has a financial interest in denouncing this research.” As Eastbrook notes, the same company owns TIME, “leading cable television carrier” Time Warner Cable, and also the Cartoon Network, “which is marketed to young children.” One wonders, what interests, corporate or otherwise, might be those of the authors of a study that suggests that parents are in danger of causing? making? their children autistic by not turning off the TV?
Anrew 
This has received far too much attention, which is probably what the authors wanted. At first I thought that this was merely irresponsible humor; a possible weak minded joke in the faculty lounge. They want this to be taken seriously; great. Have a department head at the Weill College of Medicine at Cornell join in it’s publication. I am sure that any number of medical professionals would love to be associated with the study that finally informs the world as to the true cause of autism.
Professors, I realize that peer review is a bothersome process, but after all you are professionals and I am sure you wish to be taken seriously.
You’re too right, Mike—-and I have to say, I did mean not to post any more on this study after writing Autism Causes TV. I remain baffled as to how the authors conceived of this idea in the first place; are they aware of how the have deflected attention onto themselves when so much else is pressing in regard to the daily needs, the schools and educational and other services, for autistic individuals?
You were right to post, many of us would not hear about this otherwise.
Cornell’s Medical School has a wonderful reputation, let us see if anyone from Weill joins in their paper regarding cable TV. I have to wonder if any of their fellow professors in the Med school were given a copy of the paper for review prior to it’s presentation.
Unfortunately, it seems that some don’t understand how seriously the parents within this community take the care of their children. Most parents place that care above professional advancement, social life and sleep. This is not some parlor game.
You might have seen my critique of this study. I exchanged an email with one of the researchers, and I’m currently awaiting a reply to my latest argument.
I take a different approach to this sort of thing. The most important aspect of a hypothesis is whether it’s true or false. (And I don’t mean whether we want it to be true or false). Politics and societal implications are a different matter.
It’s not surprising that the researchers looked at TV. Look for “TV ADHD” in PubMed. There are 45 entries.
Thanks, Joseph—-I’ve been exchanging some emails with Michael Waldman. My own critique here does tend to be more interpretative and analytical—-I am a literary/humanities scholar by training.
Joseph,
I have now read your critique of this study and it is far more than I had expected. You were very helpful to them, pointing to flaws and even redirecting it’s focus. I am glad that you are writing in this analytical sphere. You have shown them a degree of professionalism and courtesy that they are unlikely to encounter in the near future.
It still appears to be a good example of bad science.
Joseph, what responses have you received from the researchers concerning your critique?
Kristina: I only got one response. They made a couple points, both of which I addressed, pretty clearly I think. I did not hear back from them after that.
“And Michael Waldman’s theory of TV causing autism bears more than a casual resemblance to the supposedly outmoded refrigerator mother theory of autism—-what kind of mother parks their young child (their toddler, their baby) in front of the television to be entertained, edutained, and babysat by the likes of Baby Einstein and the PBS kiddie cohort?”
Oh come on. Are you trying to imply that the refrigerator mother theory of autism came about because someone conducted a fairly careful statistical analysis of the nature of the relationship of the incidence of “cold mothering” and autism?
Since up until now there has been no known link between the rise of autism diagnoses and television watching, it would be VERY wrong to blame anyone with an autistic child for allowing their children to watch television, even if such a link is established. One might as well blame parents of autistic children for their childs autism because they might have passed on a genetic trait to their child that predisposes their child toward autism.
The knee-jerk negative reaction to this study is a diservice to society. Unfortunately there have been many poorly conducted scientific studies that have been hyped in the media. This has lead to a general skepticism and apathy to scientific studies reported in the media (though a more healthy skepticism would be to media reports about studies rather than to the studies themselves).
Occasionally well conducted studies get done that produce unusual (counterintuative) results. The Cornell study is a case in point (and if you want to claim the study is scientifical
ly flawed, please read the study, and please be specific as to exactly why it is junk science).
It would be a pity if the knee-jerk reaction to this study resulted in the abandoment of this line of research. It would be even worse if it were to turn out that the link is real. Then there would really be something to feel guilty about.
Since I mentioned scientific flaws, I have now seen something that does in fact suggest a potential fatal flaw in the study, see:
http://autismnaturalvariation.blogspot.com/2006/10/precipitation-rates-vs-population.html
This offers an alternative explanation to the rise in autism rates and availability of cable TV. In particular autism rates are correlated with population density, and it seems likely that population density drives adoption of cable TV. I don’t buy that this could also explain the rainfall-autism link, but the cable TV – autism link is required to jump from a link between rainfall and autism to a link between TV and autism.
I am guessing that it will be possible to put population density into the analyses that the study authors conducted. Hopefully they will do this, it will be interesting to see if this will explain the observed relationships or not.
Thanks very much for your thoughtful comments. I am familiar with the analysis (by Joseph above) that you cite and much appreciate your drawing it to others’ attention.
Do you have an autistic child?
As to why the refrigetrator mother theory of autism arose, one needs to consider the history of psychology and psychoanalysis in the 20th century.
I have taught the Preschool Program for Children with Disabilities for 23 years. I have had children from all levels of the autism spectrum. While teaching in Houston, we had several children from the same village in Nigeria with autism – genetic? Where I can support Waldman is that I see more children with communication disorders whose parents have used the TV as a babysitter. These children are talked ‘at’ not with. Then they wonder why the children start talking when they enter my class. I also think a certain amount of ADHD can be contributed to the fact that so much of the programs are such a fast pace that it affects the child’s ability to focus on an activity for an extended period of time. We have also seen an enormous amount of children that are diagnosed, correctly or not, with ADHD.
Dear Ms. Kirby,
Thanks very much for sharing your obeservations and experiences here—are the children from Nigeria all of the same age? I gather from the Wall Street Journal article that featured Waldman’s thesis (I posted on it