Letter to the editor.
Keep DSM-5 terms for autism in your notes and reports—censoring them clouds meaning and slows science.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Finucane et al. (2023) wrote a short letter to the editor. They spoke up for keeping DSM-5 words for autism features.
The authors warned that banning or softening these terms could slow science and good care.
What they found
The letter does not report new data. It takes the stand that clear, medical language should stay in place.
The team says polite substitutes may feel nicer, but they hide meaning and block progress.
How this fits with other research
Wolfensberger (2011) made a similar call earlier. Both papers say forced "people-first" rules can backfire and urge clinicians to keep natural, exact words.
Smith (2008) looks opposite at first glance. That paper labels "mental retardation" a harmful myth and cheers its removal, while Brenda et al. fight to keep current ASD terms. The gap is about target and timing: David targets an old stigmatizing label; Brenda guards precise, still-useful DSM terms.
Thurm et al. (2022) and Luckasson et al. (2013) also push for careful word choice in intellectual disability. Together they form a chain of warnings: pick terms with clear definitions, use them the same way each time, and do not let outside pressure erase clinical meaning.
Why it matters
If you write reports, present at meetings, or teach staff, keep using DSM-5 wording for autism. Swapping "restricted interests" for "special hobbies" or avoiding "deficit" may please some readers, but it blurs data and makes replication hard. Clear labels protect funding, insurance approval, and cross-study comparisons. Stay exact, stay consistent, and cite the DSM-5 code.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Open your last report, confirm every ASD feature uses DSM-5 wording, and change any softened or vague terms back to the standard label.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
To the Editor, We read with great interest the article by Singer et al. (2023) regarding the potential negative impact of censoring scientific terminology related to the observable features of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), as defined by the DSM-5. This is an important commentary on an increasingly fractious debate within the ASD community, and we applaud the authors' courage in clearly presenting the under-publicized view of many ASD researchers and clinicians. We concur that the proposed limitations on ASD-related word choices, advocated by a subset of individuals with autism diagnoses and other stakeholders, have the potential to stifle future scientific advancement in the understanding of this complex and variable medical condition. Increasing awareness of the broad range of human diversity related to race, sexuality, gender identity, and lifestyle choices has prompted a heightened examination of acceptable language use across many areas of society. Medical practice and research are not immune to changing societal perspectives and should also be compelled to update terminology that has become inaccurate or widely pejorative. That is not the debate here. Instead, the proposed limitations on ASD word choice attempt to selectively excise and de-pathologize core social aspects of ASD while distancing them—as if wholly unrelated—from etiologically linked comorbidities, including intellectual disability, epilepsy, and medical vulnerabilities. Under such a framework, researchers studying PTEN disorder (Frazier, 2019), a genetic cause of ASD, could use standard medical terminology to investigate the known elevated cancer risk in these individuals, while reverting to euphemistic and inaccurate terms to describe their observed symptoms of brain dysfunction. Rather than decreasing stigma, efforts to censure ASD terminology would reinforce the perceived exceptionalism of the brain compared to other body organs, setting it on a path apart from other areas of scientific inquiry. We stand firm with Singer et al. and other colleagues who choose to move forward, rather than backward, in ASD clinical practice and research. Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research, 2023 · doi:10.1002/aur.2921