A groundbreaking study has upended conventional wisdom, proving autism is a ‘man-made’ condition driven by external factors rather than a genetic defect. Challenging decades of research, the findings dismiss the notion of a clear genetic link, pointing instead to external triggers such as vaccines as the primary cause of autism spectrum disorders.
The study critiques the genetic research industry, which received over $8 billion from the US National Institutes of Health in 2016 alone, yet failed to identify a definitive genetic association with autism or other major conditions. Despite extensive funding and repeated efforts, the focus on genes has yielded incomplete and misleading conclusions, urging a shift toward investigating environmental and societal factors as the true culprits behind autism’s rise.
Expose-news.com reports: “Even if sophisticated genetic and genomic research is able to find ways to reduce symptoms and severity, it is still going to be orders of magnitude more cost-effective (not to mention more ethical) to prevent autism in the first place by keeping toxic chemicals out of children’s bodies,” Rogers writes.
The university restricted the number of words that could be submitted for a doctoral thesis, so Toby Rogers had to reduce his thesis, ‘The Political Economy of Autism’, by 40,000 words when he submitted it in 2019.
Last month, he shared the original, and slightly updated, never-before-seen Chapter 6 of his thesis, which contains approximately 7,100 words. It challenges the paradigm of genetic determinism in disease causation, which has become the dominant narrative in the autism debate. Rogers argues that the genetic approach to autism has crowded out more promising alternatives and has come at a tremendous cost to society.
The following is the gist of Chapter 6 of Rogers’ thesis. You can read the full chapter HERE.
Genetic Cause of Disease Disproved
The study of genetics is defined as the examination of genes and their roles in inheritance, while genomics is the study of all of a person’s genes, including their interactions with each other and the environment. The genome refers to the entire set of genetic instructions found in a cell.
The completion of the Human Genome Project (“HGP”) in 2000 led to high expectations that genetic explanations could be found for various diseases, including autism, with many scientists believing that genetic diagnosis and treatment of diseases would be possible in the near future.
However, even as the HGP was nearing completion, there were signs that the claims of genetic determinism were overblown, with Craig Venter stating in 2001 that the human species’ diversity is not hard-wired in our genetic code and that environments play a critical role.
In the early 2000s, researchers conducted candidate gene association (“CGA”) studies, which reported over 600 associations between particular genes and various diseases. However, the replication rates of the studies were extremely low, with only 3.6% of reported associations being successfully replicated.
The development of genome-wide association (“GWA”) studies, which compare the entire genome between different individuals, was expected to identify the genes associated with various diseases. But despite the completion of over 400 GWA studies at a cost of several million dollars each, the results yielded almost nothing of use.
By 2009, geneticists were “almost back to square one” in knowing where to look for the roots of common diseases, with many experts, including David Goldstein (2009), Nicholas Wade (2010) and Richard Lewontin (2011), concluding that genomic research had been of limited value in understanding the roots of specific diseases.
The “Dark Matter” Theory
The genetic research community has been unable to find a clear association between genes and most major diseases, despite studies such as CGA and GWA, leading to the proposal of the “dark matter” theory, which suggests that these unseen genes exist but are hiding in unexpected places.
This “dark matter” theory has been used to justify continued investment in genetic and genomic research, with billions of dollars being poured into the field. But a growing number of critics argue that genetic theories of disease are outdated, unscientific and ethically dubious.
The discovery of alternative splicing, alternative reading frames and post-transcriptional editing has led to a radically different view of the genome, with coding sequences being seen as resources that can be used in diverse ways to produce many different cellular molecules.
And the concept of a “gene” is being reevaluated, with the understanding that it is not a fixed entity, but rather a complex and dynamic process, and that the traditional shorthand of “the gene for” something must not be taken literally, as it oversimplifies the complex relationships between genes, environment and phenotype (observable physical or biochemical characteristics).
According to Evelyn Keller in the 2013 book ‘Genetic Explanations: Sense and Nonsense’, the interactions between DNA, proteins and trait development are highly entangled, dynamic and context-dependent, making it difficult to define what a gene is or what it does, and biologists are no longer confident in providing an unambiguous answer to this question.
Keller also emphasised that DNA is embedded in a complex system of interacting resources, and its role in development and evolution is crucial but not solitary, highlighting the importance of considering the environment and other biological systems in the body.
The traditional view of genes as causal agents, with DNA being a master instruction-giver or a computer code, is no longer supported by modern biology, with Keller arguing that DNA is better understood as a standing resource that cells can draw upon for survival and reproduction, rather than a determinant of traits.
The traditional view of genes as the primary factor in disease causation, including autism, has been called into question, with the concept of DNA as the “master molecule” being overly simplistic and potentially influenced by class, race and gender biases.
In the same 2013 book, David Moore argued that most scientists who study DNA no longer believe in the traditional notion of genes as determinants of characteristics. Moore noted that the concept of genetics and its relation to characteristics and diseases had undergone a significant shift, with biologists now understanding that traits emerge from the interaction between DNA and environmental factors, including non-genetic factors such as hormones.
He also noted that even in cases where a single gene was thought to cause a disease – such as phenylketonuria, cystic fibrosis and sickle-cell anaemia – it is now recognised that the symptoms are the result of complex interactions between multiple factors during development.
Another chapter in ‘Genetic Explanations: Sense and Nonsense’ was written by Stephen Talbott. Talbott explained that genetics research had shown that the same entity, such as a protein, can express itself in different ways depending on the environment. And that the same protein with the same amino-acid sequence can have distinct physical and chemical properties in different environments.
Genetic Engineering Is Not Predictable
The biotechnology industry’s claims that it can anticipate and direct the functions of DNA sequences are not supported by evidence, and genetic engineering can have three possible outcomes: the inserted DNA sequence may not produce the intended protein, it may produce the desired protein or it may have unpredicted and unintended consequences, such as disrupting vital functions of the host organism.
The introduction of genetically engineered vaccines, including the Hepatitis B vaccine in 1987, raises concerns about their potential impact on autism prevalence, with some researchers suggesting a possible link between the Hepatitis B vaccine and the surge in autism cases.
Ruth Hubbard wrote the first chapter in ‘Genetic Explanations: Sense and Nonsense’. She argued that genetic engineering is still in its infancy and unable to accurately predict its effects, which has significant implications for policymakers, who require medical interventions involving genetically modified organisms from birth, potentially opening the door to unintended consequences. It highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of the complex relationships between genes, proteins and the human organism.
The concept of genetics and its relation to autism is often misunderstood, with the cell nucleus being more like an organism than a machine, and its performance cannot be reduced to a computer-like genetic code, as noted by Talbott.
The idea that genetics can be explained by mechanistic explanations and genetic codes is problematic, and the more scientists discover about genetics, the more it reveals how little we know about disease causation, particularly concerning psychiatric disorders like autism spectrum disorder (“ASD”).
The Notion that Autism is Genetically Determined Shifts
Martha Herbert’s chapter of the book argues that the conception of autism was shifting from a genetically determined, static condition to “a multiply determined dynamic systems disturbance with chronic impacts on both brain and body,” and that environmental theories of causation, such as brain inflammation and immune activation, should be considered.
The documentation of brain inflammation and immune activation in autism suggests that the brain is not inherently “defective” but rather “obstructed” by health problems, and that clinical observations of improvement and remission indicate that the brain capacity is present but that there is a problem with organising sensations into perceptions and constructs.
Herbert portrayed the field of genetics as being blinded by its own hubris. She argued that the alarmingly high and rising autism rates require a public health campaign to reduce environmental risks, rather than solely focusing on genetic explanations.
She also suggested that alternative treatments used by parents, which have been successful in reducing the severity of autism symptoms, should be given serious scientific attention, and that the traditional epistemological hierarchy of mainstream science and medicine, which places medical specialists above doctors and parents, may be backwards in the case of autism.
Herbert further argued that the observations and intuitions of parents may be more accurate than those of medical specialists in understanding the causes of autism, and that the search for monogenic (regulated by one gene) explanations for disease, promoted by biotechnology companies, popular media and the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), is overly simplistic and not consistent with the scientific evidence of how most diseases work.
Why Do They Persist With Genetic Determinism?
The short answer is that there is a lot of money to be made.
With genetic engineering, DNA sequences and cells can be patented, allowing them to become intellectual property. This has led to the science and business of genetic engineering becoming intertwined, with efforts for basic understanding competing with the pursuit of profits.
Jeremy Gruber wrote the conclusion to ‘Genetic Explanations: Sense And Nonsense’. He stated that the political economy of genetic research is troubling, with a large gap between basic research and clinical applications. It has become filled with exaggeration, hyperbole and outright fraud, and current genetic research is “full of hubris and bordering on faith,” he said.
Gruber concluded that genomics had not delivered on its early promise. And the turn towards this sort of research had resulted in a decline in useful innovations, with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies focusing their research and development investments on genomics, leading to a corresponding and precipitous drop in productivity.
Genetic and genomic research is driven by a unique combination of government funding, created by biotechnology lobbying, and speculative investment, which is trading more on hope and hype than evidence of effective treatments, Gruber noted.
The biotechnology industry has significant financial resources, with the total market capitalisation of the top 25 biotechnology companies reaching $1.047 trillion in 2016. The US spends more than any other nation on genetics research, with one-third of the total coming from government and two-thirds from private investment.
The Biotechnology Innovation Organisation (“BIO”) is the primary trade association for the genetics and genomics industry, with over 1,100 members – including genetics and genomics firms, pharmaceutical, agricultural and medical companies – and it has been successful at lobbying the US government for funding, regulatory rules and tax provisions that benefit member companies. From 2007 to 2016, BIO spent an average of $8 million a year on lobbying, and its lobbying has been remarkably successful.
For example, from 1993 to 2014 the budget of the NIH increased from $10 billion to over $30 billion. In 2016, the NIH budget was $32.6 billion of which $8.265 billion was devoted to genetic and genomic research which includes the categories Genetics, Gene Therapy, Gene Therapy Clinical Trials, and Genetic Testing. But this underestimates the total spent on genetic research because there is also genetic research happening within other disease categories in the NIH budget. BIO secured $1 billion in tax credits for biotech companies in the 2011 federal health-care legislation. BIO routinely pushes the FDA for faster approval times for medical interventions.Nearly everything that we’ve been told about genes and autism is wrong, Toby Rogers, 19 May 2025
The influence of the biotechnology industry, including the lobbying efforts of BIO, has contributed to the growth of the industry. This raises concerns about the interlinking of government, universities and industry and the potential for conflicts of interest, which can impact the evaluation and critique of proposed scientific models or their practical implementation.
As Gruber noted, many academics and university science departments have formed close ties with biotechnology companies, which has led to a significant amount of wealth for these institutions – it has also compromised their ability to maintain a healthy scepticism of scientific claims.
The focus on genetics has led to poor decision-making by policymakers and has failed to improve public health. The promise of genomics has provided a simple narrative for health research investment but has ultimately proven to be an insufficient standard bearer in the fight to improve the human condition, Gruber said.
The current system for assessing research productivity puts pressure on researchers to make and publicise “breakthrough” discoveries, which can lead to a distortion of science, and few genomics researchers publicly speak out against this.
In 2010, Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson sharply criticised the political economy of genetic determinism, arguing that politicians, corporations and medical researchers all benefit from this theory because it reduces their responsibility for people’s ill-health and allows them to raise research dollars more easily. And this mindset is reflected in the media’s coverage of genetic associations and environmental links to disease.
Autism Is Not Determined by Genes
The initial theory that genes are responsible for autism has been largely refuted, yet the industry and public health infrastructure built around this idea continue to persist, driven by financial interests rather than concern for public health, Toby Rogers said.
The search for a genetic cause of autism has evolved into the search for “missing dark matter,” allowing the industry to maintain funding and continue research, despite producing little to no reduction in human suffering.
Studies by researchers such as Gilbert and Miller (2009), Landrigan, Lambertini and Birnbaum (2012), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (2013) and Bennett et al.(2016), have concluded that autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders are likely caused by environmental triggers and are preventable through law and policy.
Preventing autism by removing toxic chemicals from children’s environments, “by keeping toxic chemicals out of children’s bodies,” is a more cost-effective and ethical approach than relying on genetic research to reduce symptoms and severity, Rogers said.
Yet, the majority of autism research funding is currently allocated to genetic research, which is hindering the development of more effective prevention strategies, and appears to be influenced by the political power of biotechnology firms rather than scientific best practices or the best interests of society.