Last month’s annual meeting of the International Society for Autism Research (INSAR) was one of its biggest gatherings to date.
It also saw an increase in presentations focused on basic science, according to Christine Wu Nordahl, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of California, Davis MIND Institute and scientific chair for this year’s gathering in Prague. This was the result of a concerted effort to attract basic scientists, some of whom have previously expressed uncertainty about attending the meeting because of tensions among various stakeholders in the community, she adds.
“There has been this perception that basic biologists have stopped coming to INSAR,” Nordahl says. “One of the charges to me as the scientific program chair this year was to try to bring more biologists back.”
Nordahl spoke with The Transmitter about how she, along with her scientific co-chairs and dozens of other conference organizers, worked to increase the presence of basic science at this year’s conference.
This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
The Transmitter: Why was bringing basic science back a priority at this year’s meeting?
Christine Wu Nordahl: INSAR started as a conference focused on two areas: neuroscience and clinical behavioral research. As INSAR has grown, it has become more global and more interdisciplinary. We’ve added a lot of areas that weren’t necessarily basic-science oriented, such as lived experience, adult outcomes and implementation science. At the same time, the proportion of purely basic science abstracts diminished. Out of our 25 topic areas, only 7 are purely biological, like molecular cell biology, genetics, biomedical interventions, and brain structure and function.
This year, we really wanted to bring back the interdisciplinary nature of our conference. Out of 30 panel sessions, half had at least one presentation with basic science mixed in. For example, for one of our panel sessions on adult outcomes, which could have been purely focused on behavior, we selected talks that included genetics and epigenetics.
This movement started several INSARs ago with a roundtable discussion that included lived experience and basic science. The INSAR community started saying, “Let’s not just let all the basic scientists leave, but let’s integrate everything into the meeting better.”
TT: Why was there an impression that basic scientists were leaving?
CWN: For a few years, we didn’t have questions in our oral sessions, because sometimes they were not about the science but about theoretical battles like: Should we be doing genetics research in autism? Some students and trainees felt targeted and uncomfortable. I think some people didn’t want to come to the meeting for that reason. But I’ve also heard from basic scientists who say they feel there’s just not a big enough community of basic scientists at INSAR.
Some of the discourse around tensions started with changes in language—specifically, the move to avoid ableist language that came out of the neurodiversity movement. Personally, I have learned tremendously from that movement in terms of using respectful and appropriate language, and I think maybe we’ve moved past the biggest conflict in that area.
TT: What were some of the strategies used to boost basic science this year?
CWN: Each year, the scientific program committee actively goes out and finds people and invites them for invited panel sessions. This year we reached out to people focused on genetics and molecular therapeutics to try to infuse the meeting with basic scientists who potentially wouldn’t come otherwise. We invited people who we knew would be sensitive and acknowledge the ethical challenges. We wanted to invite a whole range of geneticists who can coexist and do very important research with people with lived experiences.
We also introduced master classes as a way of bringing biology back to the meeting. The idea was to give people a foundation in areas that they aren’t familiar with so that they could be better equipped to attend those sessions at the main meeting. We did sessions on genetics, epidemiology and on translating research to policy. I met with those master class presenters several times before to help guide them on how to talk and how to shape their presentations to reach a broad audience without antagonizing anyone.
TT: Was there any hesitation or reluctance on the part of people who came?
CWN: Some of the geneticists we had invited to come speak at the meeting had concern about the kinds of questions they might get, and whether some would be very antagonistic, having heard experiences from colleagues in prior years.
We did have some tough questions. There was a question about eugenics in the genetics keynote. But the speaker handled it beautifully. And I think that’s what moves the field forward—it’s talking about these issues in a nonconfrontational or less confrontational way.
TT: Are there strategies that you’d recommend for basic scientists studying autism who want to share their work with many different stakeholders in the autism research community?
CWN: Talking to autistic people and their families has really changed how I view autism research. Not just people who can advocate for themselves, but also families of children with profound autism. You’re not going to please everybody. You’re not going to get it right every time. But it’s important to have humility about it. If you do make a mistake, acknowledge it and try to do better.
TT: What does INSAR mean to you?
CWN: INSAR is what gives us the identity of being autism researchers. It’s where I go to immerse myself in all aspects of autism research. It’s really about building these bridges between the different areas. I love to get to hang out with people who study behavior and then with people who study organoids. You see that whole diverse array of autism science, and I think that that’s really special.
