Dear Autism Speaks,
We read your recent press release, “Shakespeare Therapy for Autism,” with great interest. Shakespearean plays are certainly among the most famous and important of the genre in Western literature. Your article discusses how actress Kelly Hunter has developed the “Hunter Heartbeat Method,” which uses aspects of Shakespearian acting, such as exaggerated voices and facial expressions, as well as iambic pentameter, in role playing and turn-taking exercises for children with autism. While it is encouraging that the pilot program yielded significant improvement in communication, social relationships and language skills in participants, it is important to be clear that it is just an initial investigation. Having some preliminary research on this topic is wonderful, but as scientific researchers across a wide array of disciplines know, a single study does not prove efficacy of a particular method. Instead, one study should lead to more research. Therefore, using the term “autism therapy” could be misleading for consumers—especially parents.
We applaud Ms. Hunter for recognizing the need for further study on the use of her method, and would encourage you to make that very point — the need for additional research — focal in future articles about new approaches. This is especially true when printing claims such as, “the rhythm of Shakespeare’s iambic pentameter creates the sound of a heartbeat, which helps children feel safe.” These kinds of statements have appeal to parents; and yet, because scientific evidence is lacking, they can be potentially detrimental and even dangerous (as in the case of chelation therapy) to consumers looking for autism treatment.
Ideally, more complete information about the protocols, participants, length of intervention, target skills and data collection methods would have provided readers with a clearer picture of this investigation for your readers. We would also encourage you to carefully select your language in future articles. Using the term “therapy” implies that a particular approach produces a quantifiable and significant effect, and that a peer-reviewed body of scientific research supports that effect.
Countless families who have a child with autism face the challenge of sifting through a sea of information about so-called “therapies” that are advertised to treat autism, many of which lack science-based evidence. Unfortunately, based on the language used in your article, a reader may infer that this approach is promising or even effective, contributing to confusion for a consumer searching for viable autism treatment options. Potentially, this could lead to a family that postpones or declines other interventions grounded in science such as Applied Behavior Analysis. That would be a sad outcome, indeed.
Mark Sullivan, BA and Lauren Schnell, MEd, BCBA
Association for Science in Autism Treatment
