Authors: Madeleine Noller, Jess Snyder, & Liv MaceDuring this week’s lab meeting, the B-RAD lab discussed the TED Talk, “Why Autism is Often Missed in Women and Girls” by Kate Kahlem, which draws on her personal experiences with autism. This conversation focused on how gender biases in research and society influence the way autism is recognized and diagnosed. More specifically, our discussion highlighted three key themes: the late diagnosis of autism in women, the role of masking, and the broader implications for research and clinical practice.
A key takeaway from both the TED Talk and our discussion was that autism is often diagnosed later in girls due to differences in how it presents. Historically, autism research has focused primarily on boys, which has contributed to a significant gap in recognizing how autistic traits present in girls. Kahle emphasizes that many autistic girls do not display the “classic” behaviors typically associated with autism, which can delay diagnosis. We mentioned that some of these behaviors can include perfectionism or hyper-fixation in one's interests. As a result, many girls go undiagnosed during critical developmental periods which can impact their access to support. The lack of diagnosis is connected to the concept of masking, which helps to explain why these traits often go unnoticed. Masking was one of the most important concepts explored in both the TED Talk and our lab discussion. Kahle describes masking as the process of copying social behaviors to fit into neurotypical expectations. While masking can help individuals navigate social situations, it often comes at a significant cost. Masking requires constant effort and can contribute to anxiety, depression, and a loss of personal identity over time. Our group expanded on this by discussing how prolonged masking, specifically during adolescence, can create additional barriers to self-understanding and mental well-being. These challenges highlight the need to better recognize and address masking in both research and clinical settings. We also discussed how societal expectations play a role in missed diagnoses. Kahle explains that girls are often socialized to be more emotionally aware and compliant, which can make autistic traits less noticeable. Because girls are expected to “fit in,” they tend to develop stronger masking behaviors than boys, leading clinicians to overlook or misinterpret their symptoms. This reinforces the idea that misdiagnoses are not only biological but are also shaped by cultural norms and biases. Additionally, the underrepresentation of women in autism research contributes to systemic gaps in diagnosis and care. Addressing these gaps requires a shift away from male-centered models toward a more inclusive understanding of neurodiversity. Another takeaway from Kahle’s talk is the impact of diagnosis on self-understanding. Kahle shares that receiving her diagnosis as a teenager helped her make sense of her experiences and provided a new path for accessing appropriate support. Rather than viewing autism as something that needs to be “fixed,” she reframes it as a different way the brain can function. This perspective aligns with our group’s discussion of shifting towards neurodiversity-focused approaches that emphasize accommodations and strengths rather than focusing on the deficits. This connects directly to the broader implications for neuroscience research and clinical practice. The continued underrepresentation of women in autism research contributes to systemic gaps in diagnosis and care. Addressing these disparities requires not only earlier recognition of symptoms in girls, but a difference in how autism is conceptualized. Expanding research to reflect a wider range of experiences is essential for building a more accurate and inclusive understanding of neurodiversity. Overall, our discussion reinforced the importance of inclusion in neuroscience. By recognizing biases in both research and society, we can move toward more accurate diagnoses, better support systems, and a more inclusive understanding of how different brains function.
0 Comments
Authors: Jess Snyder & Cailee NelsonDuring this week’s lab meeting, the B-RAD Lab engaged in a thoughtful discussion on emerging research in neuroscience. More specifically, we talked about a study that explored the use of psychedelic drugs to treat participants with post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. To guide our discussion, we read a recent article by Jane Palmer that described the use of psychedelic drugs in controlled therapeutic settings to treat PTSD. The article outlined the potential benefits as well as the concerns surrounding this approach. A benefit was that the study found psychedelic therapy to be more effective on participants who did not respond to traditional therapies as well. A potential concern was that more research needs to be done for this study to get effective results. The article also explained how the mechanisms by which psychedelics may alter the neural circuits responsible for the fear response associated with PTSD. Using this study as a guide, we discussed how this article may contribute to our understanding of inclusivity more broadly.
First, we talked about whether the specific use of psychedelic-assisted therapy for individuals with PTSD makes treatment more inclusive or more restrictive. If this treatment were to become legalized in the United States, it would likely remain highly regulated and only be administered in supervised clinical settings with extensive safety protocols. We referenced back to a previous lab discussion topic on stigma, thinking about how this treatment structure challenges the societal stigma around psychedelics and their recreational use. The stigma behind psychedelic drugs and their use is that they are frowned upon due to misconceptions on safety and addictiveness which stems back to the War on Drugs era. We also referenced a documentary called How to Change Your Mind which featured an episode highlighting the use of MDMA, commonly known as ecstasy, for psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy. This is another piece of media that challenges drug-related stigma. Ultimately, we agreed as a group that if a treatment meaningfully alleviates suffering and restores a person’s sense of self, it warrants serious consideration for medical use. Psychedelic-assisted therapy aims to address root causes of trauma rather than managing symptoms, which may offer advantages over traditional pharmacological approaches. In this sense, it could expand treatment possibilities for individuals who have not responded to traditional treatments. At the same time, our discussion emphasized that even if psychedelic treatment is beneficial, it is not always accessible to everyone. We found that even though psychedelic drugs are not expensive, psychedelic-assisted therapy definitely is. With a treatment plan that requires trained clinicians, preparation, regulation, and lots of time, costs can be upward of $11,000 per course of treatment. With this, we realized that psychedelic-assisted therapy may not be inclusive of individuals from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. We acknowledged that many individuals with PTSD come from marginalized communities that already face systemic barriers to accessing mental health care. In these cases, psychedelic-assisted therapy could reinforce health disparities if access is limited to individuals with higher socioeconomic status. Ultimately, we recognized that a treatment can be both inclusive by expanding possibilities in the medical field while also being exclusive and inaccessible to others. Importantly, this conversation led to a reflection on our own research practices here at the B-RAD Lab. All of our studies operate within the boundaries that are defined by study-specific research questions and participant criteria. For example, some of our studies may exclude participants who cannot meet certain communication requirements as the research is specifically focused on understanding how individuals communicate. Additionally, some of our studies may exclude participants who are not in a specific age range as a lot of our research currently focuses on adolescents. These boundaries are often study-specific rather than lab-specific and are designed to answer a precise research question. At the same time, we discussed the importance of actively working towards greater inclusivity. One recent way we have done this is by dedicating part of our lab meeting to reworking our diversity and inclusion statement to ensure it aligns with our current practices and our continued commitment to fostering an inclusive and respectful research environment. Psychedelic-assisted therapy, like much of neuroscience research, illustrates that inclusion is not a static achievement but an ongoing process. As a lab, we acknowledge that we are responsible for continuously examining where our work expands access and where it may unintentionally create barriers. |
AuthorB-RAD Lab Members all contribute to our articles. Archives
April 2026
Categories
All
|