The International Society for Autism Research (INSAR) was founded in 2001, providing a platform for autism researchers to come together annually to share their research. As a doctoral student starting my journey as an autism researcher in 2003, INSAR (or IMFAR- the International Meeting for Autism Research, as we used to call it), quickly became an annual tradition. It gave new researchers an opportunity not only to present their own work, but to learn from well-established academics from around the world. After immersing ourselves in the autism literature, we got to meet the authors of papers we often cited (this felt like celebrity sightings) and hear about new discoveries before they made it to publication. I first presented at INSAR in Boston in 2005, a bundle of nerves as I delivered my practiced fifteen minute presentation on eye tracking and facial recognition in autistic adults. It was an exciting time, the early days of collaborative autism research that set the foundation for work that proliferated over the next two decades.
Over the years, INSAR became an international reunion of sorts, with academics and researchers meeting, collaborating, and discussing future directions for autism research. We felt like we were really contributing to a dynamic body of literature, with the ultimate goal of generalizing our findings to applied clinical settings. In other words, the purpose was for the research to impact actual lives.
Attending the most recent conference in Seattle, I was struck by some notable changes in INSAR that reflect the landscape of the neurodiversity movement. Neurodiversity refers to the idea that neurological differences are welcomed variations in brain development. Rather than problems that need to be treated or cured, these differences are celebrated. The diverse strengths in autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and even OCD are recognized, and the unique perspectives held by neurodivergent people are valued. With this new framework, it can seem unbelievable that my first job in the autism world was at a foundation called Cure Autism Now, which seems inappropriately named. However, this wonderful foundation was established by parents of autistic children to partner with talented researchers; it was ahead of its time in creating a collaborative national gene bank, pioneer novel studies, and increase autism funding exponentially. We can appreciate the sentiment and goals and know that the name was born out of the motivated parents searching for answers, urgently. We now appreciate that autism should not and does not need to be cured. Rather, we celebrate the amazing strengths while validating what might be hard, living in a world that was not build around the needs of neurodivergent people.
The 2025 INSAR meeting reflected this changing appreciation, acceptance, and celebration of neurodiversity. The biggest change over the years has been the inclusion of neurodivergent researchers themselves as well as accommodations throughout the conference to support people with neurological differences. Examples included a sensory break room, a quiet viewing hour for poster sessions, and networking events to facilitate collaboration among neurodivergent researchers. To minimize sensory overload, audience members used ‘silent jazz hands’ to show their appreciation rather than clapping after each presentation. There was a growing number of neurodivergent researchers, most of whom are ‘early career’, with growing visibility and credibility within the field. For the first time, a neurodivergent researcher, Dr. Dora Raymaker, gave a keynote lecture, “Transdisciplinary Co-Produced Futures in Autism Research”, to an audience of thousands.
In her presentation, Dr. Raymaker emphasized the importance of leadership in autism research resting with those most impacted. She explained that those who have lived the issues have the strongest epistemological grounding in them. They should be at the center of change. Yet, those voices have historically been the most silenced and left out of the conversation. This is especially relevant for autistic and other neurodiverse people who are non-speaking or have other co-occurring disorders that have prevented them from self-advocating.
Dr. Raymaker further emphasized that therapy should support function and quality of life, not identity change, normalization, or masking. To that end, neurodiversity-affirming intervention should be strength-based, client-led and flexible. Differences should be embraced and not fixed.
Another interesting approach to assessment was discussed, with an emphasis on identification rather than diagnosis. In other words, identifying differences, strengths, and challenges is neurodiversity-affirming. This identification would also, theoretically, help identify areas that require more support (e.g., daily living skills) without using pathologizing, disparaging language or intent. The term “diagnosis”, and the process of diagnosing someone with a disorder, inherently rests on the assumption that there is something wrong that needs to be treated. In our own clinic, we rely on the diagnostic criteria (i.e., list of symptoms) to confirm a diagnosis when warranted, as we are beholden to the medical model. In conversing with clients, and in our writing and description of their experiences in reports, we aspire to use neuro-affirming language and to ask clients how we can communicate in ways that are both respectful, affirming, and clear.
Overall, INSAR 2025 helped solidify our commitment to neurodiversity-affirming care, and reminded us to consistently check in with those most affected to ensure their voices are consistently part of the ever-evolving conversation.
