Autism Is Not a Disease to Be Cured: Understanding the History and Evolution of Autism Spectrum Disorder

Recently, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made a public statement suggesting that autism should be “cured.” While such sentiments may reflect a desire to help, they also reveal a deep misunderstanding of what autism is—and what it is not. As a licensed educational psychologist and mental health clinician who works daily with neurodiverse children and adolescents, I believe it's crucial to challenge this narrative with compassion, evidence, and historical perspective. Autism is not a disease—it is a neurodevelopmental condition with a wide spectrum of presentations, strengths, and support needs. To better understand why “curing autism” is both scientifically misguided and socially harmful, we must revisit the complex history of this diagnosis and how it evolved into what is now known as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in the DSM-5.

The Early Roots: Autism and Schizophrenia

The word "autism" was first used by Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler in 1911 to describe the withdrawal and inward focus seen in individuals with schizophrenia. It wasn’t until the 1940s that autism began to take shape as a distinct developmental condition.

Leo Kanner, a child psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins, observed 11 children who exhibited what he termed "early infantile autism." In his landmark 1943 paper, “Autistic Disturbances of Affective Contact,” Kanner described these children as intelligent but socially withdrawn, with an insistence on sameness and intense sensitivity to change. These children showed restrictive and repetitive behaviors, which remain a key feature in modern diagnostic criteria.

The Rise of Harmful Theories: Cold Parenting and Psychoanalysis

At the time, the field of psychiatry was heavily influenced by psychoanalysis. Kanner, along with others like Bruno Bettelheim, began to theorize that emotionally distant, overly intellectual parents—especially mothers—were to blame for their children’s autism. This harmful belief came to be known as the “refrigerator mother” theory.

Bettelheim’s 1967 book, The Empty Fortress, went so far as to compare the experience of autistic children to those of concentration camp prisoners, portraying parenting environments as traumatic and cruel. He even advocated for removing children from their families in what he called "parent-ectomies." These ideas stigmatized parents and did untold damage to families for decades.

A Turning Point: Bernard Rimland and the Biological Model

The tide began to shift in the late 1950s thanks to Bernard Rimland, a psychologist and parent of an autistic child. Rimland rejected psychogenic theories and proposed a biological basis for autism in his influential 1964 book Infantile Autism: The Syndrome and Its Implications for a Neural Theory of Behavior. He emphasized the need for rigorous research, parent advocacy, and better support systems.

Rimland helped found the National Society for Autistic Children (now the Autism Society) and launched efforts to promote neurological and genetic research into autism, opening the door to the modern understanding of autism as a neurodevelopmental condition.

The Diagnostic Evolution: From Subtypes to a Spectrum\

For decades, autism was fragmented into multiple categories, such as Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, and PDD-NOS. These distinctions often created confusion, as individuals with similar challenges could receive different diagnoses depending on which practitioner they saw.

This changed with the release of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) in 2013, which merged these separate labels under the single term Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). This approach reflected a shift in thinking: autism was no longer seen as a set of discrete disorders but as a spectrum of neurodevelopmental profiles with varying degrees of support needs.

To help describe individual differences within the spectrum, clinicians now use:

• Specifiers (e.g., with or without intellectual impairment or language impairment)

• Severity levels ranging from Level 1 (requiring support) to Level 3 (requiring very substantial support)

In 2022, the DSM-5-TR (Text Revision) was published to refine diagnostic language and criteria. However, it is important to acknowledge that the DSM—while a useful clinical tool—is not perfect. Diagnostic categories evolve as science advances, and our understanding of autism will continue to grow. The DSM is a living document shaped by research, clinical experience, and—critically—feedback from the autistic community.

We must resist the temptation to see any one version of the DSM as the final word. Science evolves. And as it evolves, so must our compassion, humility, and willingness to question outdated assumptions.

Why “Common Sense” Can Be Misleading

Throughout the history of autism, many ideas once accepted as “common sense” have proven harmful. It once seemed reasonable to assume that emotionally cold parenting caused autism. It once seemed logical to think autistic children needed to be “fixed” or removed from their homes. These ideas were not based on science—they were rooted in cultural bias, stigma, and a desire for simple explanations.

Even today, calls to “cure” autism may feel like common sense to some. But they are not grounded in the realities of neuroscience, developmental psychology, or lived experience. Research shows us that autism is multifactorial—shaped by a combination of genetic, environmental, and neurological factors. It is not a single disease with a single cause or cure.

When we rely on intuition alone—without data or peer-reviewed evidence—we risk repeating the mistakes of the past.

Conclusion: Supporting, Not Curing, the Spectrum

Autism is not an enemy to be defeated. It is not a condition to be "cured." It is a way of being—often misunderstood, but full of potential. At the same time, we must acknowledge that the diagnostic tools we use today—such as the DSM-5-TR—are imperfect reflections of our current knowledge. What we know about autism today may not be what we know tomorrow. This is the nature of science: it grows, it self-corrects, and it listens.

Public figures must be held to a higher standard when speaking on issues that affect millions. We need more thoughtful dialogue, not soundbites. More empathy, not fear. More science, not “common sense.”

As we continue to better understand autism, let us center the voices of those who live it—not erase them. Let us offer support, not shame. And above all, let us strive for truth over tradition.

About the Author

Ryan Yam, Psy.D. - Licensed Educational Psychologist (LEP4497) and founder of Dual Minds Psychology. Dr. Yam specializes in ADHD treatment, executive functioning skill development, and culturally sensitive care for children and adolescents.