“Debunking Myths: Tackling Pseudoscience in Developmental Disabilities and Autism Care”

         Pseudoscientific practices have gained popularity in the past few years due to the increased incidence of diagnosis of autism. According to Fombonne (2003) , the incidence of autism has surged over the past 40 years in United States of America. There are a lot of confusing and misleading information all over regarding developmental disabilities and practices. In addition to that, technological advancement and easy accessibility of information through social media and mainstream media has made it nearly impossible to totally irradicate pseudoscientific practices. It is important to note that pseudoscientific practices do not only affect just the field of developmental disabilities but is also a problem in medicine. This was evident especially during and after the COVID pandemic due to people’s eagerness to find information and accept information without due diligence. This reflection will focus on the pseudoscientific practices in the field of developmental disabilities, and it would be based on four articles which tackles examples of pseudoscientific practices, ethical responsibilities of a behaviour analyst and ways a behaviour analyst can handle pseudoscientific practices when exposed.

        From all the articles, it was evident the role parents and care givers play in the lives of people with autism and learning disabilities. They seem to be always looking for answers to help their wards live a better life. In pursuit of this, they sometimes fall for these unproven pseudoscientific practices especially when they hear testimonials from people close to them, social media and mainstream media. This is totally understandable as most of these parents may not have in depth knowledge of developmental disabilities as well as what is beneficial for their wards. Parents tend to rely on experts in the field to make decisions so they can be gullible. Some parents are also overwhelmed so tend to sway with the masses when they hear something works. As a first-time parent myself, I know how I used YouTube to find ways to get a toddler to sit on the potty and tried some of the practices forgetting every child is different and what might work for one child might not work for another. It is necessary behaviour analyst realize the parents or caregivers may not understand the interventions being provided and are just encouraging it based on instinct. Based on these reasons, behaviour analysts must be patient. Research papers on suggested pseudoscientific practice by parent or caregivers must be dissected into simple terms which parents and caregivers can easily understand as suggested by Capuano & Killu (2021) and Schreck & Miller (2010). Also, laying down the long-term consequences of using these practices is good however given real life implications maybe more helpful. A practical example can be calculating the costs involved if the pseudoscientific practice is used and is ineffective leading to revisiting evidence-based practice, time wasted in terms of years if the pseudoscientific practice does not work as well as a potential progress report of how their wards will improve if the right intervention is used years to come Etc. This would make it easier for the parents or caregivers to envision what’s ahead and may influence them to make an informed decision.

         Also, the article by Green & Shane (1994) did not just debunk the effectiveness of facilitated communication. The article explained using scientific evidence on how it was very subjective and hence unreliable. The article also raised concerns on the detrimental effects it had on not just the client but also the parents or caregivers. Facilitated communication may put unnecessary pressure on clients as their parents or care givers may be easily frustrated if they are unable to perform the ‘extraordinary’ tasks they have been made to believe they can perform by facilitators. Furthermore, gives facilitators power to manipulate situations especially if parents/caregivers and facilitators are not in agreement on certain issues. An example is if there is a sexual abuse case in court and the facilitator suspects the parent or caregiver may be the culprit, the facilitator may unconsciously assume and insinuate the client is accusing the parent or caregiver through what is being typed out. This assumption may send an innocent person to prison or lose guardianship. If this happens, the client may be placed in a home which would not provide one-one care to meet their care needs, and it also prevents them from growing up in a family environment which is also necessary for their development.

      Another key point noted were the tools that have been provided for behaviour analysts and special educators to use whenever they found themselves being asked to use pseudoscientific methods. The articles by Schrek & Miller (2010) as well as Capuano & Killu (2021) gave different case scenarios and provided ways a behaviour analyst can address it. The articles were pragmatic in their approach knowing that these scenarios may come up as pseudoscientific practices still lingers. Moreover, they left the decision to the behaviour analyst highlighting that it is based on case to case as the behaviour analyst is obligated to investigate further what is beneficial to the client and what is not and decide on the way forward after that.

         Also, an intriguing factor was the role of capitalism in these pseudoscientific practices. Even though people that push these practices are supposed to be advocates for these vulnerable population in contrast they seem to be more invested in the amount of money they are making out of these interventions. These practices sometimes work temporarily or not at all. Imagine if a parent keeps going back to a centre that provides facilitated communication with the unrealistic expectation of his/her ward acquiring groundbreaking skills. After countless sessions for years and the ward is unable to reproduce any of the skills without the same facilitator’s help. The parent or caregiver would have wasted a lot of money and resources. Also, these ‘sensational’ practices are so enticing with the numerous testimonials and advertisement. It provides an illusion which preys on the desperation of these parents who would do anything for their wards. I remember when I was working as a dentist, a patient came in wanting to whiten her teeth because her boyfriend said he did not like her teeth. After assessment, I realized she already had tooth sensitivity and further bleaching it would have exacerbated the sensitivity. My professional advice was not to go ahead with it as teeth sensitivity was a side effect of teeth whitening. She was adamant and insisted on having it as she had seen numerous adverts on Instagram and had a lot of friends also getting it done. She also explained that none of her friends had any sensitivity after teeth whitening so she is no different. She also said she would get it done elsewhere as she did not want to lose her boyfriend. One thing I noticed was that these adverts were sponsored by clinics offering cosmetic teeth whitening and not dentists. This demonstrates how one can be easily influenced by constant advertisement and testimonials from friends.

       Another vital point identified throughout all the articles were how detrimental these pseudoscientific practices could be however the individuals involved in broadcasting and disseminating these unproven ideologies were free of consequences. Repercussions on practice of pseudoscientific ideologies is as important as chastising the ideologies. Even though behaviour analysts have a regulatory body to ensure ethical commitments are followed, it would make it easier if pseudoscientific influencers are reprimanded.

      In conclusion, behaviour analysts must ensure their clients and families have all the right information to make decisions that are beneficial to their daily lives. Policy makers must also draw the line and punish individuals promoting pseudoscientific practices that harm these vulnerable population

References

Fombonne, E. (2003). The prevalence of autism. Jama, 289(1), 87-89

Capuano, A., & Killu, K. (2021). Understanding and addressing pseudoscientific
practices in the treatment of neurodevelopmental disorders: Considerations for applied
behavior analysis practitioners. Behavioral Interventions, 36, 242-260. doi:
10.1002/bin.1750

Green, G. & Shane, H.C. (1994). Science, reason, and facilitated communication.
Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19(3), 151-172

Schreck, K.A., & Miller, V.A. (2010). How to behave ethically in a world of fads.
Behavioral Interventions, 25, 307-324. DOI: 10.1002/bin.305

Travers, J.C. (2017). Evaluating claims to avoid pseudoscientific and unproven
practices in special education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52(4), 195-203