It all started with a Slate article that lauded the paper, while stressing what the paper itself said: “some other factor may explain what only appears to be a television-autism relationship”. But then Time jumped into the fray, attacking the paper and calling it “irresponsible.” From there, it was just a hop, skip, and a jump until people started writing articles linking the Cornell researchers with a vast conspiracy including the Rockefellers, the Brookings Institution, and Big Pharma. Meanwhile, Elliott Back labeled the study “total BS” and called it a “bad public relations move on Cornell’s part.” Even if there is absolutely no link between television and autism, the study certainly doesn’t deserve to be called the names it has been called. That Cornell professors are using the tools of their trade in researching possible causes for a societal epidemic and submitting their work for peer review is inherently a good thing—both for Cornell and humanity. Let's remind ourselves of one simple fact: the Cornell professors only conclude by saying that their findings may warrant further research on the subject:
There’s been some public outcry lately over a working paper written by Cornell economists that explores whether or not there may be a link between television watching among youth and autism.
Although our findings are consistent with our hypothesis, we do not believe our findings represent definitive evidence for our hypothesis. We believe the only way to establish definitively whether or not early childhood television watching is a trigger for autism is to more directly test the hypothesis.
Isn’t that what any scientifically-minded research should be all about?
