Autistic 2 year-olds respond differently to visual and auditory cues presented in cartoons, an observation that could help diagnose the condition earlier and perhaps encourage development of interventions that favorably alter the course of the disease.

To reach this conclusion, Ami Klin and colleagues at Yale showed specially prepared animations to 21 toddlers with autistic-spectrum disorders, 39 normally developing children and 16 that had developmental problems other than autism.

The cartoons were specially designed versions children’s games like ‘peek-a-boo’ and ‘pat-a-cake.’

In some versions, the images appeared upside-down. In others, they were not.

In addition, some versions featured audio cues like the sounds of clapping hands, while others were silent. 

The Yale scientists showed that normally developing toddlers and those with non-autism related developmental problems showed a clear preference for the upright animations whether or not audio cues were present.

Toddlers with ASD did not demonstrate this preference when shown silent versions of the cartoons, but when audio cues were added, they did prefer the upright versions over the upside-down versions 66% of the time.

Apparently, sound helped grab their attention.

The write-up appears in Nature.

“In autism, genetic predispositions are exacerbated by atypical experience from a very early age, altering brain development,” Klin told the BBC.

“Attention to biological motion is a fundamental mechanism of social engagement. We need to understand how this process is derailed in autism, starting in the first weeks and months of life,” he added.

“This line of research holds promise for development of new therapies based on redirecting visual attention in children with (autism),” said Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health.

Senators John Rockefeller (D-WVa) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) have introduced new legislation designed to supersize current US defense systems against cyberattacks.

The proposal would empower the Feds to establish and enforce security standards governing the private sector for the first time.

In the US, private networks control key infrastructure such as electricity, water and sewage, and nuclear power, not to mention most financial and traffic control systems.

The new bill reached the docket just days after national security officials announced that Russian and Chinese cyberspies had hacked their way into the nations’ energy grid and inserted applets that could be activated remotely resulting in massive blackouts, gridlock and who knows what else.

The legislation suggests appointing a cybersecurity czar that would report directly to the president. This person would be empowered to disable computer networks, including those in the private sector, in the event of a cyberattack.

The Senators’ bill was drafted with input from the Big O’s people, although he has not officially endorsed it yet. It is based on recommendations made in a report drafted last year by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

It’s not clear how industry groups will respond. Jim Dempsey, a VP for public policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology, which advocates for civil liberties groups and the private sector, told the Washington Post that such standards have long been a “third rail of cybersecurity policy.”

Federal regulations, he added, might actually stifle innovative approaches to cybersecurity by requiring companies to adopt a singular approach.

Recently, Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence told reporters he expected there will be privacy concerns regarding the new proposal. Any program has to be designed to assure citizens it is “not being used to gather private information,” he told reporters.

The FDA has told 14 pharmaceutical companies to bag certain drug ads that accompany search results generated by Google because they don’t include adequate risk information and sometimes suggest non-approved uses.

The directive represented the first salvo in what will likely become a new regulatory frontier, as Big Pharma has begun a major push to redirect marketing dollars towards Internet advertising.

The ads in question are known as “sponsored links.”

These short teasers appear alongside search lists generated in response to keyword strings that include certain diseases or drug names.

Biogen Idec has received notice from the FDA regarding its MS drug Tysabri, for example.

The drug has been linked to progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, an often fatal viral infection of the brain.

One sponsored link for Tysabri asks “(are you) satisfied with your MS medication or looking for something different?” The ad mentions nothing about PML.

This “casual approach to Tysabri treatment is extraordinary in light of the potentially lethal risks of the drug and the stringent controls over its distribution,” wrote the FDA in a letter to Biogen that was obtained by the Wall Street Journal.

Biogen spokesperson Naomi Aoki said her company is working to resolve the situation, and that it takes seriously its responsibility to convey the truth about the risks and benefits of its drug.

The Biogen ad includes a link to the Tysabri Web site which does provide ample risk information, but the FDA was having no part of it. The link “does not mitigate the misleading omission of risk information from these promotional materials,” it wrote.

Sanofi-Aventis received a similar letter for Plavix, its anticlotting blockbuster. Pfizer was cited for 6 of its drugs including the antismoking drug Chantix and Celebrex, an arthritis drug.