⬇️ Prefer to listen instead? ⬇️
- Over 70% of scientists could not copy what other scientists did in experiments, which makes you wonder if the research is correct.
- Many big studies say shots do not cause autism.
- Genes probably matter a lot, maybe about 80% of it is passed down.
- Pictures of the brain might help find autism early, but we need to do these tests again to be sure.
- False stories about shots keep us from learning useful things about autism.
Science earns our trust by checking itself, being open to questions, and sticking to the truth—even when that means changing old ideas. In autism research, these things are key. But while asking questions keeps science honest, going back to the wrong idea that shots cause autism can waste time, money for research, and the public’s trust. In this article, we look at what autism studies really need to be done again, why we must stop talking about the shot myth, and how better ways of doing things, tests, and being open are showing us the way forward.
Doing It Again: Basic to Science Progress
Doing it again means that if someone does a study and finds something, other people should be able to do the same study in the same way and find the same thing. This is a basic rule that separates science from just guessing. Related to this is when researchers do their own experiments—sometimes changing small things—to see if they still find the same thing in different situations.
Doing things again is even more important in areas like psychology and brain science. People are different, things are hard to measure, and ways of doing studies can be different, and all of this can change what you find. A worrying report in 2016 showed that over 70% of researchers could not do another scientist’s work again, and more than 50% had trouble doing their own experiments again (Baker, 2016). These results were a shock in many fields and started a push for being more open, sharing data, and using good methods.
For autism research, doing things again is not just about science—it’s about doing what’s right. Families, doctors, and teachers depend on research they can trust to decide about care, treatment, and help in the community. When research is not checked by doing it again, it might give false hope or send people in the wrong direction for help.
How the Shot-Autism Story Started—and Fell Apart
The wrong idea that shots cause autism started with a study in 1998 in a journal called The Lancet, led by Dr. Andrew Wakefield. This paper said there was a connection between the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) shot and autism-like actions starting. Even though the study only looked at 12 children and didn’t have the right controls, it was talked about a lot—making parents scared and causing worry about shots everywhere.
Later checks found serious problems with how it was done. It became clear that Wakefield had changed data and had not told people that he had money reasons to do the study. In 2010, the journal took back the study and Wakefield could no longer be a doctor (The Lancet, 1999).
Even so, the harm stayed. Worry about shots got worse, causing fewer people to get shots and leading to sickness outbreaks that used to be gone. The myth would not die, kept alive by wrong information, social media, and not trusting doctors and hospitals.
Importantly, many good studies proved the shot-autism link wrong. For example, the National Academies of Sciences did a big review and said there was no proof shots cause autism (National Academies, 2004). Bigger studies in places like Denmark and the United States with hundreds of thousands of children have shown again and again that there is no link.
Yet, even in 2024, people still talk about it—keeping a wrong idea going even though it has been taken apart. This shows how wrong information can last longer than facts, especially when people feel strongly about it.
The Trouble with Repeating Wrong Ideas
In science, doing things again tests ideas to see if they are strong. But not all ideas need to be tested forever. When an idea has been tested well and shown to be wrong many times, continuing to check it can be a waste of resources—and even bad for people.
Going back to the autism-shot link causes three problems
- False Belief in Truth: Talking about it makes it seem like there might still be “two sides” to the question when there is really strong agreement.
- Wasted Resources: Time, money, and scientist work spent checking a wrong idea is energy that could be used for important questions about autism that we still don’t know about.
- Public Health Dangers: Keeping this talk going can make people not want to get shots, hurting community health and risking sickness for everyone (BBC, 2024).
When the news talks about the autism-shot question without saying that scientists agree it is not true, it makes people doubt. For worried parents, the best way to keep kids safe is by getting shots and using good, proven healthcare—not by chasing untrue ideas from bad science.
Where Autism Research Can—and Should—Be Repeated
Even though we should not spend energy going back to wrong myths, doing things again is still key to moving autism research forward. Unlike the shot and autism case, many research areas are still new or have mixed results that need to be checked.
Here are three important areas where doing things again is not just good—it’s needed
Brain Picture Studies
Modern tools that take pictures of the brain like fMRI, MEG, and EEG help researchers see brain activity, structure, and connections in people who are alive. In autism studies, brain pictures have shown differences in how brain areas talk to each other or act when things happen. But these studies often use small groups of people and can be explained too much.
For example, early results from studies of babies who have siblings with autism show different brain growth in babies who later get autism. These finds could change early help—but only if they are done again with more people from different groups.
Gene and How Genes Act Research
Autism is often passed down in families, with big studies showing that up to 80% of autism risk is from genes. Researchers have found many rare new gene changes and common gene types linked to autism.
However, gene ways of working are varied and hard to understand. One study might find a gene related to autism in one group, but the same link might not be found in another group.
Good doing things again needs studies across different groups of people, sharing data around the world, and progress in how genes act, which looks at how outside things change how genes work.
Early Finding Tools
Finding autism early can make things better over time by starting help sooner, like behavior help or speech therapy. Tools like the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (M-CHAT) are helpful, but not always right for everyone.
New tools using eye-tracking, speech study, and even computers looking at baby movements are being studied. While exciting, these tools often stay new because they are not checked well. Only doing things again widely can show if they work.
Lessons from Alzheimer’s Research
A recent big case about Alzheimer’s disease research shows the dangers of science that is not checked and goes wrong. In 2024, Nature took back a very important paper about amyloid-beta plaques, a main part of the Alzheimer’s idea, because the data was changed (Nature, 2024).
This paper sent almost 20 years of drug making and billions of research dollars in the wrong direction. If its results had been checked quickly and by others, the field might have changed course much sooner.
Autism research must learn this: even ideas that everyone accepts need checking and re-proving.
When Research Doesn’t Repeat, It Still Teaches Us
When research doesn’t repeat, it doesn’t always mean someone cheated or was bad at their job. Research with people has many things that change: differences in money and class, culture, how autism is found, and even how data is understood.
Also, how autism is found often uses personal views of actions, which can change depending on who is watching or where it is. Different ways of doing studies or tools used also make it hard to repeat things.
These failures still tell us things. They help make questions better, improve rules, and lower mistakes. They make science make better definitions, especially in areas like autism where one person’s experience can be very different from another’s (Weissgerber et al., 2018).
Finding Autism: From Actions to Scans
In the past, finding autism focused on watching actions: slow language, not wanting to be with people, or doing things over and over. While watching is still a basic way to find it, it can be seen differently, affected by culture, and have long waits to see special doctors.
New ways of taking brain pictures give numbers that show how the autistic brain works differently. For example, differences in brain size, thickness of parts of the brain, or how brain areas talk to each other can now be seen in children as young as six months.
Still, these finds need to be checked a lot. Different groups of people might have brain differences that are not related to autism, and computer tools trained on small groups of data can make mistakes because of hidden problems.
For brain scans to be good tools for finding autism, they must be tested by science that can be repeated—across countries, cultures, and doctor offices.
Genes and Autism: Repeating in the DNA
The passing down of autism in families is one of the most sure things in this area. Twin studies show that if one twin who is exactly the same has autism, there’s an 80–90% chance the other one will too. Progress in reading all of someone’s genes has found hundreds of gene types related to autism.
However, autism is not caused by just one “autism gene.” It seems to come from many genes working together—and between those genes and outside things like sickness in the mother or stress before birth.
This complex way is why doing things again across big, world data sets is needed. Things like race, where you live, food habits, and getting healthcare can change results, so working together like the Simons Simplex Collection or SPARK is needed.
Trust Through Being Open
Without being open, science ideas can’t be checked by others or repeated. That’s why today journals and groups are asking for
- Open access to raw data
- Saying trials ahead of time
- Telling about all money sources or reasons for bias
Being open is not just about stopping cheating—it’s about making people trust and believe in science (UKRIO, 2024). When results are shared openly, mistakes can be fixed, unseen problems can be found, and working together can grow.
Especially in sensitive and argued areas like autism research, being clear and honest is a must.
Science Must Value Sureness, Not Just Newness
In science today, new ideas often beat out proving what is already known. Researchers have pressure to publish or lose their jobs, pushing them to find new results instead of proving old ones.
This way of doing things makes doing studies again seem less important—even though they are very important. Because of this, “hot” results get talked about before they are proven, making people confused when later research says something different.
But this is slowly changing. Journals and groups are starting to reward doing things again and being open about methods. Groups like the Reproducibility Project show why it’s important to prove old data instead of always looking for the next new thing.
Smart Money Makes Smarter Autism Science
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has acted on the doing things again problem with a special plan to check and repeat medical finds before using them for treatments (NIH, 2024).
This change in what money is used for is very important. But it must stay focused on new or not tested areas in autism research. Going back to wrong ideas, like the shot and autism myth, wastes limited money.
Instead, giving money to repeat studies on early finding tools, gene ways, and helpful treatments can speed up big changes and make lives better.
What You Can Do to Help Good Science
You don’t need to be a doctor to help research you can trust. Here’s how anyone can help good autism science
- Check for agreement: Claims you can trust are supported by many different studies.
- Trust being open: Choose sources that tell you how they do things and any reasons for bias.
- Don’t believe exciting headlines: Look deeper into studies before sharing.
- Be careful about stories from people: Personal stories can be helpful but don’t take the place of proven facts.
- Help good funding: Ask groups and hospitals to support research areas that can be repeated and have a big effect.
Let’s Go Forward—Not in Circles
Autism research has come far—from watching actions to brain ideas. The future includes using brain scans, using gene progress, and making early helps better.
But we can’t go forward if we keep fighting the same wrong ideas. It’s time to stop talking about the shots and autism myth and instead put money into science that gets us closer to understanding and truly helping people with autism.
Let’s build science that lasts—by valuing truth, testing claims, and going strongly into what we still don’t know.
Citations
- Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists show problems with repeating studies. Nature, 533, 452–454. https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2004). Shot Safety Review: Shots and Autism. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
- Weissgerber, T.L., et al. (2018). More than just bar and line graphs: Time for new ways to show data. PLOS Biology, 16(1), e2000200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2018.10.004
- United Kingdom Research Integrity Office. (2024). Research Truth: A Study of What’s Happening. Retrieved from https://ukrio.org/news/publication-of-research-integrity-a-landscape-study/
Want more like this? Sign up for The Neuro Times for honest news on autism research, brain science, and healthcare that works. Or share this article with someone who is confused by autism information—they need clear facts, not confusion.
