It's incredibly hard, essentially impossible, to prove biological causality for anything we label as a mental condition or experience. Here's an article that, in my mind, correctly questions the limits of attempting to make a hypothesis such as epigenetic inheritance.
Whether intended or not, this post feels like it's implying autism is unwanted. That might be reading my own bias into it, but it nonetheless raises the concern in my mind. And, as a mental health professional, it's important to develop safe space and actively work to normalize and de-stigmatize differing mental experiences whenever possible.
Also, while the cause of eye-gazing discomfort for you was intimacy, that doesn't make it the clear generalized cause of discomfort for everyone. It can and should be enough to believe others when their preferences and discomforts don't match our own, even if it's hard to relate. Glad you gained something from the exercise, and I still recommend that UGL host continuing education training from lived experience trainers (budget and time permitting and we all know social services don't have much access to either of those).
Here's the article with some extracts highlighted...
Excerpt 1
"These are, in fact, extraordinary claims, and they are being advanced on less than ordinary evidence,” said Kevin Mitchell, an associate professor of genetics and neurology at Trinity College, Dublin. “This is a malady in modern science: the more extraordinary and sensational and apparently revolutionary the claim, the lower the bar for the evidence on which it is based, when the opposite should be true.”
Excerpt 2
The critics are far from persuaded. “It’s all very nice work, and yes, there are changes in the testicular cells,” said John M. Greally, a professor of genetics, medicine, and pediatrics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. “But as usual, the story that’s often told is overblown relative to the results, and too much causality is claimed.”
And this debate concerns only the animal research. The human studies thus far are much less persuasive, most experts agree, and have identified no plausible mechanism for epigenetic transmission. Some of the studies have focused not on small RNAs but on an altogether different chemical signature, called cytosine methylation, that could very well be added after conception, not before, Dr. Rando said.
The idea that we carry some biological trace of our ancestors’ pain has a strong emotional appeal. It resonates with the feelings that arise when one views images of famine, war or slavery. And it seems to buttress psychodynamic narratives about trauma, and how its legacy can reverberate through families and down the ages. But for now, and for many scientists, the research in epigenetics falls well short of demonstrating that past human cruelties affect our physiology today, in any predictable or consistent way.
Article Link
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1...he%20gene%3B%20there's%20no%20mutation.