Assignment 3 Week 4

For my assignment I chose to analyze an online article, from the Slate Magazine website. Gregg Easterbrook calls the article, “TV Really Might Cause Autism,” Easterbrook uses his article as a reference for a larger study. The study was a quantitative analysis done at Cornell University. The Cornell study is by Michael Waldman, a professor in the school’s Johnson Graduate School of Management, Sean Nicholson, an associate professor in the school’s department of policy analysis, and research assistant Nodir Adilov. Waldman, Nicholson, and Adilov said, “We empirically investigate the hypothesis that early childhood television viewing serves as such a trigger (for autism). Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ American Time Use Survey, we first establish that the amount of television a young child watches is positively related to the amount of precipitation in the child’s community. This suggests that, if television is a trigger for autism, then autism should be more prevalent in communities that receive substantial precipitation.” The study also examines the link between increased autism diagnoses in counties that had more cable versus counties that did not.

The National Bureau of Economic Research discussed the original study. Easterbrook’s uses his article as a reference for the larger quantitative analysis. In the article, he uses the results in percentages from the original analysis to make his point and ask questions. Easterbrook uses lines such as, “Waldman and Nicholson employ statistical controls” and “Waldman and Nicholson conclude that, just under 40 percent of autism diagnoses in the three states studied is the result of television watching.” Using these references gives strength and validity to his article. Easterbrook also provides a link to the original research for those who want to see and read the study for themselves. This further adds to Easterbrook’s credibility, because he invites the reader to further investigate findings and make a decision for him or herself.

The publication published this article because it would readily cause debate. This was evident by the number of messages that readers posted in response to the article. Beyond this there were many links to articles that debate the study. The fact still remains that there is no one known definitive cause of autism; therefore, any new findings on the subject will be cause for discussion.

I thought the article was interesting. I discussed the article with friends and we debated about the findings. I must admit that being able to see the actual research myself did play a role in convincing me about the claim. However, I did question the background of the researchers. I wondered why economic scholars where doing research on a medical issue. It was helpful to know that the researchers are not claiming to have found the cause of autism, as suggested by the article title, but rather a link. If nothing else people are talking.