Researchers often try to determine whether there are causal relations between several phenomena, and this question is of great importance to medical workers, especially epidemiologists. Austin Bradford Hill introduced a set of criteria that could help to evaluate the causation or prove or disprove its validity. This paper is aimed to discuss a review article Theoretical Aspects of Autism written by Helen Ratajczak (2011). The author discusses various empirical studies that examine various causes of this disorder. On the whole, it is possible to say that the standards set by Austin Hill cannot be always met, in part because the physiological aspects of this disease have not been fully investigated. This is the main issue that should be kept in mind.
Overall, Helen Ratajczak (2011) applies some of the criteria established by Hill, but she does not completely follow his guidelines. First of all, Helen Ratajczak points out that autism may be attributed to multiple causes (2011, p. 68). To explain causality, the author applies several criteria. In particular one can speak about the temporal relationship and the relationship between the dose and response. These are the criteria identified by Hill. For instance, the author notes that children who have been to a vaccine preservative called thimerosal are more likely to have autistic disorders (Ratajczak, 2011, p.70). Additionally, the researcher applies such a standard as consistency, especially when she argues that patients with this problem often had such infections as Stealth virus, measles, or measles (Ratajczak, 2011, p.74). This is one of the trends that researchers often identify. To a great extent, exposure to such viruses can be called a risk factor that is associated with the disease (Aschengrau & Seage, 2008, p. 388. Nevertheless, one cannot say that the author applies each of the criteria identified by Austin Bradford Hill. For instance, one can note that the gradient or reversibility criterion is not met. The thing is that the causal relationship can be reversed only by the experiment, but at this point, such experiments can be dangerous.
It should be noted that in their article Kenneth Rotman and Sander Greenland (2005) identify the difficulties of assessing causality. One of their main arguments is that researchers should focus on the validity of the study and quantitative evaluation of error (Rotman & Greenland, 2005, p. 150). Similarly, Helen Ratajczak (2011) also pays attention to the reliability of the studies that are included in the review. On the whole, one can say Hill’s guidelines are not fully applicable to this review article by written Helen Ratajczak. The problem is that physiological aspects of autism have not been fully examined and one can only find associations between a certain factor and this disease. Moreover, Hill’s guidelines imply that a researcher can conduct an experiment. However, this is not possible when one examines possible triggers of autism. This is the main limitation of Hill’s guidelines.
Certainly, the criteria introduced by Austin Bradford may not be applicable in every situation; they are still useful tools that can be applied by researchers. If there is a possibility to test a hypothesis against these standards, researchers should do it. In this way, they can test the validity of their conjecturers. This issue is particularly important in those cases when scholars discuss the causal relations between different phenomena.
Reference List
Aschengrau, A. & Seage, G. (2008). Essentials of Epidemiology in Public Health. New York: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Ratajczak, H. (2011). Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes–A review. Journal Of Immunotoxicology, 8(1), 68-79.
Rottman, K. & Greenland, S. (2005). Causation and causal inference in epidemiology. Journal of Immunotoxicology, 95(51), 144-150.