Autism has been a subject of scientific study for over a century, and a topic in the public imagination for the past 40 years. In that time, interest in autistic people has grown dramatically, both in academia and the media, creating a booming industry that puts us under the microscope. Yet despite this attention, public attitudes toward autistic people remain overwhelmingly negative, and our life outcomes continue to be poor. This isn’t just a gap in understanding: it’s a crisis with real-world consequences.
Over the past four years, I’ve used my research fellowship to ask a series of uncomfortable but urgent questions: Why do harmful attitudes toward autistic people persist? Knowledge is fragile; human sciences are shaped by people who carry the fingerprints of social and cultural forces that surround us. Whilst research could ultimately be a tool for liberation for autistic people and their families, its often implicated in our harm. So, I ask: Why are researchers so often implicated in our dehumanisation? Why does this matter—and what can we do about it?
Drawing on experimental, quantitative, qualitative, and computational methods, my work Leverhulme fellowship culminates in a new theoretical and ethical framework where I exist for a moment in an imagined future – what would it look like, if we burnt it all down, and dared to start again in autism research?
Please note: this talk contains distress topics around dehumanization of autistic people which some people might find deeply distressing.
