Scientific and societal interest in autism has burgeoned in the past decade, as documented by over 40 million websites, almost 10,000 entries in PubMed, and a weekly focus on autism by the national media. But with this surge of scientists and society turning their attention toward autism, it becomes exceedingly important to distinguish uninformed stereotype from scientific reality, to move beyond myths and misconceptions. In one line of my autism research I have empirically questioned several commonly held assumptions (click on bolded text):

• Is autism an attachment disorder?
• Do autistics really "lack a theory of mind?"
• Why do autistics avert their face-to-face eye gaze?
• Is there an epidemic of autism?
• Does ABA therapy cure autism?
• What does it mean to lack reciprocity?
• Is autism "common, heritable, and harmful?"
• What is neural diversity?
• How do autistics learn?
• What is the level and nature of autistic intelligence?
• Is joint attention related to language development?

In autism research, are we reaching for relevance, drawing biased interpretations, from the eye of the beholder, ignoring the true meaning of research participation, and dehumanizing autistics?

In another line of research I have empirically explored the question of why some autistics struggle with speech and manual gestures, investigated the overlap between language delay within and outside the autism spectrum, and differentiated between speech and language.

Lastly, I am involved with Professor Hill Goldsmith (who also happens to be my husband) to explore the heritability of autism, as currently defined.