"The Trouble with Brain Science"

In my recent post "Fact or Fiction: MSG-free Diet as Cure for Autism?" I complained about the lack of objective criteria for diagnosing autism:

***

In my view, one of the main problems in the diagnosis and treatment of autism is that the diagnosis continues to be based on observable behavioral criteria -- does a person display atypical social behavior and language and perseverate over special interests? It is a very superficial way of making a diagnosis. There could be any number of underlying causes of the behaviors. Unfortunately, science does not yet have the tools to diagnose according to any more objective criteria. Autism research is being pursued in many different directions, and brain science is still at an early stage. I do not claim to be an expert on this. But it does seem clear that there are many sub-types of autism that have distinctly different flavors. These different forms of autism are all called autism, currently, although they probably have a wide variety of causes, because they have similar behavioral hallmarks. Many different genes have been identified as having a role in causing autism, but science does not yet know how they interact with each other and with environmental conditions. 

***

And so I was happy to see Gary Marcus's recent op-ed in the New York Times addressing basically the same topic: "The Trouble with Brain Science". Marcus isn't talking specifically about autism, but of brain science in general.