When the Headlines Echo the Studies
This blog exists to examine how autism is framed in research — but sometimes, the very same framing spills into public media. When that happens, it deserves a closer look.
“Whatever Works” Isn’t a Framework
On June 15, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled “Marijuana to Treat Autism? Some Parents Say Yes” . The piece explores the use of THC and CBD in autistic children, presenting parent anecdotes and cautious expert commentary. The tone is careful — but the frame is familiar.
The children at the center of the story are never quoted. No autistic adults are asked to reflect. The assumptions go unexamined: that aggression and self-injury are solely the fault of the child’s brain; that calming those behaviors is the primary goal; that treatment is urgent and normalization is success.
Same Story, Different Medium
This is not fringe media. It’s a major paper. But the exclusion of autistic perspective mirrors much of what happens in academia: research on us, without us. Pathologizing language, paternalistic framing, outcomes measured not by wellbeing, but by how palatable we become to others.
This article never asks what these children are communicating. It only asks how to stop it.
Still Focused — But Paying Attention
This site is focused on autism research, not journalism. But when a high-profile media outlet amplifies the same frameworks that dominate academic publishing, it’s not mission creep to point it out. It’s pattern recognition.
So, no — this blog is not pivoting. But in moments like this, it becomes clear: the same questions apply. Who is seen as the problem? Who gets to speak? And what kind of story is being told — one of support, or of suppression?
If we want a new paradigm in autism research, we can’t ignore how that paradigm is echoed — or challenged — in public discourse.