Why autism must be taken apart.

Waterhouse et al. (2014) wrote a position paper. They said autism research should stop hunting for one broken brain circuit.

Instead, teams should map each person’s unique brain-behavior mix. Then pick treatments that match that profile.

The paper did not test people. It argued the old ‘one-size-fits-all’ model slows progress.

The authors claim we will find better fixes when we split the big autism label into smaller, precise targets.

Later papers extend the same idea. Mottron (2021) and Fein et al. (2021) say stop using broad DSM criteria and pick ‘prototypical’ cases by expert vote. Levy (2021) goes further, calling for dimension scores across all kids, not just an autism bucket.

But Müller et al. (2017) push back. They warn dumping the ASD label now could stall real-world trials and funding. The clash is mostly timing: Lynn wants precision first, Ralph-Axel wants to keep the category until new tools are ready.

Müller et al. (2018) then show middle ground: use the label short-term but collect individual brain data in teen years to see true growth, not noise.

For you at the clinic, the fight over labels is not abstract. If future trials use brain-behavior profiles, you may get medication or teaching tools matched to each client’s wiring, not to the word ‘autism.’ Until then, keep the diagnosis for insurance, but collect detailed skill and sensory data on every kid. That list will be gold when precision treatments arrive.