Dame Uta Frith’s claims on the “collapse” of the autism spectrum prove that autistic people are still being excluded from autism research
Dame Uta Frith’s article published in Cambridge University Press’s psychological medicine claims that the autism spectrum has become “overinclusive”. The Professor of cognitive science at University College London has previously been credited with conducting extensive psychological research into those with autism, and has recently spoken out against the criteria currently applied in the diagnosis of the condition.
Her most recent article has sparked considerable debate online regarding the legitimacy of her claims, with many claiming that the Professor’s comments are both selective and geared towards the separation of the wider autism community.
Frith cites evidence published by Zhang (2025) that indicates considerable differences between those diagnosed at an early age and those diagnosed later in life, suggesting that autism has become an umbrella term for what is she believes to be several separate conditions.
Whilst Frith’s article appears to draw on a range of sources – including both genetic and socioliterary studies – autism advocates have been quick to point out several key pitfalls.
Much of the Professor’s article references the differences observed between those diagnosed as children and those diagnosed later in life. Whilst her evidence for this certainly implies a difference with the potential for a genetic basis, Frith presents these findings as evidence of two keenly separate sub-categories of autism, whilst Zhang et al. openly states that;
“We use earlier and later diagnosed autism as relative terms, reflecting that developmental and polygenic differences represent a gradient, rather than being discrete categories.”
Advocates have also pointed out Frith’s omittance of Zhang’s comments on Overshadowing – the risk of a person being denied a diagnosis as a result of possessing other conditions (such as ADHD).
Frith goes on to cite the 3:1 sex ratio of those diagnosed with ASC, noting that in those diagnosed at an early age, girls are three times less-likely to be diagnosed than boys. In those diagnosed later in life however, this nears a 1:1 ratio. Frith indicates that this is because they are two difference conditions, however this ignores the possibility that adult self-referrals constitute a considerable number of girls who might otherwise be undiagnosed. Indeed, Firth acknowledges the impact of self-referrals herself.
“the popularity of the concept of autism boosted numbers via self-diagnosis”
Much of Frith’s claims are not new. The diagnostic criteria for Autism and Asperger’s Syndrome were only merged in 2013 following the work of Lorna Wing, and there remains much speculation regarding the potentially holistic nature of the current diagnosis. Uta Frith’s article pays considerable attention to the idea that “individuals with an intellectual disability have become a minority”, failing to note that those with intellectual disabilities might be more easily identified in youth, contributing to an uneven distribution of intellectual impairments among those diagnosed as children and those diagnosed later in life. Standardised testing and the social environments provided by schools often assist in identifying such traits early in life, and will inevitably contribute to such uneven distribution.
Even amongst such critique, the most alarming aspect of Dame Uta Frith’s article is the opinions held on autistic voices in autism research. Among Frith’s possible reasonings for the theoretical expansion of the diagnostic criteria, the professor claims that both lived experience and “looping” (the concept that autistic memoirs and writings convince people to mimic these representations of autism) are potential risk factors that have contributed to a widening of the diagnostic criteria. She goes on to cite the work of Canadian philosopher Ian Hacking, who’s 2009 article on ‘Autistic Autobiography’ criticises the idea of literary ‘insights into the autistic mind’, stating that such works risk generalising the concept of how an autistic person’s mind works.
Professor Frith’s article also continues an alarming argument against the idea of autistic masking – the tendency for individuals on the spectrum to gradually camouflage behaviours that others may perceive as abnormal. Frith has previously claimed that there is limited evidence of autistic masking, despite extensive autobiographical testimonies on the contrary and evolving studies into the experiences of autistic individuals relating to such behaviour. Frith’s refusal to acknowledge the voices of autistic people as reliable accounts continues a trend of dismissal that many have since spoken out against.
A response from the National Autistic Society stated that,
“Autistic people need better access to quality autism assessments and tailored support. The real debate about autistic people is how to address the chronic inequalities they face. It is unhelpful and a false choice to pit autistic people against each other.”
Activists Professor Tony Attwood and Dr Michelle Garnett echoed this sentiment;
“Embracing autism as a spectrum and understanding how very diverse the people are within that spectrum provides a pathway forward – to understanding what people need and being able to address those needs as a community.”
At a time when autistic young people continue to face diagnosis inequality and growing concern surrounding access to education, Uta Frith’s comments demonstrate a lack of regard for the autistic community whilst providing little in the way of solutions for the issues she describes.
