Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imprinted brain theory

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imprinted brain theory

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This particular subject, which is speculative and tentative, was already discussed on Talk:Causes of autism. The subject is the very recent research work of Badcock and Crespi. It has not yet been assimilated by academics and it has not been assessed in review articles. In 2010 an article "A meeting of minds" by Nicola Jones appeared in Nature Medicine (Nature Medicine (2010) 16, pages 353–355, doi:10. 1038/nm0410-353 [1]). This report, not mentioned in the article, contains comments by experts on the work of Badcock and Crespi and confirms its speculative nature. There is also a 2009 book by Badcock, "The Imprinted Brain - How Genes Set the Balance Between Autism and Psychosis", not mentioned in the current article. The content of the article is based on primary sources. According to at least one recent survey of possible causes of autism, of which Badcock and Crespi's proposed theory is just one, [2] there are no definitive findings or theories at present. I found two academic reviews of Badcock's book: [3] this confirms that the theory is in an early and untested stage; [4] (from PsycCRITIQUES, Vol 55(24), 2010, doi:10.1037/a0020160) here the ideas are described as interesting but speculative. In the absence of secondary sources, I cannot see that this material is suitable for inclusion on wikipedia at this stage. A brief reference to this proposed theory, without entering into detail, might be appropriate in some other article, possibly evolutionary psychology or Causes of autism. Mathsci (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC) some new material added. Mathsci (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge as proposer. Mathsci (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was proposed on the talk page of Causes of autism that the theory deserved on an article of its own which I have therefore created. A review article is cited in the sources. The sources also include articles in Nature (journal) and The New York Times. The first source Mathsci cites is a student journal and thus not a reliable source which has been pointed out to Mathsci but yet he cites it again. PsycCRITIQUES does not seem to be a peer-reviewed journal. Regardless, none of these sources reject the theory. Regarding evidence see the article. There are more than 50 articles about the theory in Google scholar: [5]. To quote one regarding new genetic evidence in favor of theory in 2010 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America ([6]):

"Here Crespi, Stead, and Elliot extend such analysis of autism and schizophrenia to the impacts of copy number variants (deletions and duplications), further single-gene associations, growth signaling pathways, and brain growth (16). They make a plausible case that the risk of autism is increased by disruption of maternal interests and the uninhibited expression of paternal interests, and that the risk of schizophrenia is increased by the disruption of paternal interests and the uninhibited expression of maternal interests. This is an unconventional but creative approach to serious mental diseases. If it is correct, it will be one of the least expected and most surprising connections in the history of human evolutionary biology."

Also have a look at the 2008 New York Times article: [7]

Here is an quote from an recent, 2011 secondary literature review by Schlomer, Del Giudice, and Ellis in Psychological Review ([8]) regarding the theory:

"Recently, Crespi and Badcock (2008a; Badcock, 2009) argued that genomic imprinting can help explain the evolution of the human brain and the origin of some important psychological disorders. They reviewed a large body of evidence linking imprinted genes to the etiology of autism and psychosis, and proposed that autistic-spectrum conditions are associated with a "paternally biased" pattern of brain development (i.e., over-expression of paternal genes and/or under-expression of maternal genes), while psychotic-spectrum syndromes would be associated to a "maternally biased" development. Although Crespi and Badcock’s model is still speculative in several respects, and has been met with criticism by some researchers (e.g., Dickins, Dickins, & Dickins, 2008; Keller, 2008; Thakkar, Matthews, & Park, 2008; but see also Crespi & Badcock, 2008b; Crespi, Stead, & Elliot, 2009), it does hold considerable promise for an integrated evolutionary theory of psychopathology, and may be useful to understand normal variation in personality as well (see Del Giudice, Angeleri, Brizio & Elena, 2010). A better understanding of the genetic and epigenetic basis of autism and psychosis may also permit the development of improved methods for the early diagnosis and treatment of these conditions."

Miradre (Talk E-mail) 11:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This really shouldn't even be controversial. Articles on high-level topics should avoid primary sources, but that don't apply to subarticles, and the more restricted the topic of an article, the less it applies. The article is well written, neutral, and based on reputable academic sources. Looie496 (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (1) The topic is clearly notable, with multiple independent sources (2) The nominator's rationale is not a deletion argument, since being "speculative and tentative" or "very recent research work" are to do with how to write the article, not whether it should exist (3) The nominator's !vote is internally inconsistent since "merge" contradicts "delete" (4) The article had only existed for 15 hours before nomination, with no attempt and not nearly enough time to resolve notability or sourcing issues on the talk page (5) There are serious questions about the interactions between the nominator and the article creator. Tryphaena (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)— Tryphaena (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. confirmed sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user Echigo mole / A.K.Nole[reply]
Keep Notable. Respectable authors. No more flaky than anything else in the field. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources give it ample coverage. If you think its nonsense, find a reliable source that says so, and quote it in the article. Keep everything neutral and balanced. Dream Focus 15:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.