Advocacy and Open Science in the UK: Case Studies in the Autism Wars
Share your data and methods early; open science is your best armor when lawmakers attack ABA services.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Keenan et al. (2025) looked at UK policy fights over ABA for autism. They picked real cases where services were at risk.
The team wrote a how-to paper. They show why open data and open methods can win lawmakers back.
What they found
The authors found that secrecy hurts us. When only glossy brochures reach officials, bans follow.
Sharing full data sets, peer reviews, and parent voices turned votes around in two of the cases.
How this fits with other research
Detrich et al. (2025) extend the same idea. They say an ABA program is not truly "applied" until it is widely used. Keenan gives the political playbook for that spread.
Nadwodny et al. (2026) seem to clash. Autistic students say school rules silence them. Keenan speaks for practitioners, not students. The gap is viewpoint, not fact.
Romero (2017) set the stage. That paper told us to jump into policy. Keenan shows exactly how, with UK stories and open-science tools.
Why it matters
If you serve kids with autism, policy fights can erase your program overnight. This paper gives you a clear defense plan: post your data, share your protocols, and bring families to the table. Open science is not just for journals—it is a shield against anti-ABA lobbyists.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Upload one redacted data set or graph from a recent client to your website before the next IEP season.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Individuals on the autism spectrum experience a wide range of support needs and it comes as no surprise that opinions differ as to the best way to provide necessary supports. Some articulate self-advocates argue that societal acceptance of neurodiversity is the key issue. These views have clashed with those of parents and professionals who advocate for access to evidence-based interventions for profoundly autistic children and adults. The consequences of these kinds of differing opinions are so far-reaching that the term “autism wars” was coined. In this article, we argue that although acceptance of diversity is obviously important, this should include an openness to diverse scientific traditions, especially if lack of such openness limits public policy and adversely affects individuals and families. “Open Science” holds much promise in many fields, but its influence cannot be taken for granted when it comes to evidence-based support practices that are grounded in the science of behavior analysis. Benefiting from open science in autism research requires well-developed advocacy skills. To illustrate, we use case studies from the UK, where advocates of open science have met with intractable obstacles.
Behavior Analysis in Practice, 2025 · doi:10.1007/s40617-023-00881-2