Why Generation Rescue shouldn’t be on the IACC

I have been very critical of the lobbying efforts of Generation Rescue. I have found their actions to be far from helpful in the struggle to obtain quality research for people with autism. One issue I haven’t covered is the fact that Generation Rescue has been lobbying hard for a seat on the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC).

The IACC, as you might guess, coordinates research efforts amongst various government agencies. They do this by creating a “strategic plan” which puts forth initiatives that should be funded. For example, one “short term goal” listed on the Strategic Plan is:

Launch at least two studies to assess and characterize variation in adults living with ASD (e.g., social and daily functioning, demographic, medical and legal status) by 2011. IACC Recommended Budget: $5,000,000 over 3 years.

We need a lot more research like that if we are to serve our existing adult population and prepare for the kids of today to transition into adulthood.

This sort of research, oddly enough, isn’t supported by many of the autism advocacy organizations. Instead, they see the IACC as a pathway to their singular goal: recognition of the supposed link between vaccines and autism.

The fact of the matter is simple–Generation Rescue should not hold a seat on the IACC. The reasons are simple, and are below:

1) Generation Rescue’s position is already represented on the IACC.

I have never heard any complaints from the Generation Rescue team about Lyn Redwood. Lyn Redwood represents, quite vocally mind you, the “autism is caused by vaccines” segment of the community. She pretty much dominates much of the discussion, steering it towards vaccines as much as possible.

Ms. Redwood is ably assisted in steering all discussions towards vaccines in one of the working groups by Mark Blaxill. Again, I have never heard anyone from Generation Rescue say, “Dang, that Mark Blaxill just doesn’t get our point of view!”

So, if the Generation Rescue position is already represented, why give GR an official position?

2) Just because there are multiple organizations, doesn’t mean that the IACC has to include them all.

Besides their position on vaccines, what do Generation Rescue, Safe Minds, TACA and the National Autism Association have in common?

You can’t join them and vote for their leadership.

I just see these as different faces to the same overall autism group. Actually, I see them as mostly vaccine oriented advocacy groups, not autism advocacy groups, but the point is the same: why give each of these groups their own seat on the IACC.

Think for a moment—why should a few people be allowed to create an “organization” and ask for separate representation? If each subgroup wants to have control over their own budgets and give each member big titles, that’s just fine. But, when it comes to representation on a government body, why should every faction of what is, really, one big vaccines-cause-autism group be given a seat at the table?

Yes, this is much like item (1)—all of these groups already have their opinions represented by Lyn Redwood. There is no need or value in giving them more seats on the IACC.

3) This would lead to even more wasted time.

The IACC is a group that has very limited time to work on a research plan. Work being the operative word. Already, a LOT of time is taken up carefully crafting each and every phrase that might give credence to the vaccines-cause-autism story.

Imagine now if even more time were taken up in these discussions. Please, no. There is a great deal of expertise represented by the scientists on the IACC. We as taxpayers and as members of the greater autism community deserve to benefit from their expertise. We don’t need to hear twice as much (or more) vaccine-oriented discussions.

4) Generation Rescue has clearly demonstrated itself to be anti-science.

Generation Rescue’s recent “study” on vaccines and health outcomes around the world was, in a word, dishonest. The fact that they would promote such a manipulation of facts should disqualify them from sitting on a research based committee.

They either don’t understand research, or they are willing to misuse “research” to promote a political agenda. Either way, I don’t see why good researchers in the field should have to share a committee with Generation Rescue. Moreover, I really don’t see how Generation Rescue can lead the way in directing autism research given their demonstrated lack of understanding of the principles of research.

5) They don’t want their voice heard, they want to be able to outvote the scientists.

As noted above, Generation Rescue’s positions are very clearly communicated on the IACC already by Ms. Redwood. What Generation Rescue wants is a large enough voting block to outvote the scientists on the committee.

Read that again—they want to outvote scientists on a committee designed to coordinate research.

Sorry, you don’t vote down science.

And, once again, why should all the different heads of the same beast (TACA/Generation Rescue/SafeMinds/NAA) be treated as separate entities?

6) They are rude.

The culture of Generation Rescue is not one of working as a team with others. You either agree with their position, or people shout “BullShit” loudly at you.

Yes, there is already rude behavior on the IACC. Mark Blaxill, for one, has spent considerable amounts of time calling anyone who disagrees with his untenable position on mercury “Epidemic Denialists”. We don’t need more of that, and Generation Rescue goes well past that level on the impoliteness scale.

Sorry, I just can’t find any advantage to having Generation Rescue represented on the IACC. I can see a LOT of disadvantages, though