We Have to Hold the Line Against the Cruel Pseudoscience of Facilitated Communication

the New York Times seems hellbent on restoring public faith in the comprehensively discredited practice

a zombie technique that must be defeated over and over again

Please check out this long interview I did with The Republic of Letters and consider subscribing to the ROL, who do a lot of cool stuff. I had fun!

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: The New York Times has again casually endorsed facilitated communication, or FC, a relentlessly-discredited practice that plays on the desperation and credulousness of parents of severely disabled children. As in the past, they’ve done this while barely seeming to understand that they’re doing something controversial at all. The culprit this time is a review of the new novel Upward Bound “by” Woody Brown, a man with severe autism who has been nonverbal his entire life and dictated his book through FC, which is also the means through which he earned a masters degree and other remarkable feats. Brown, like so many others who have been “saved” through FC, was found to have all manner of remarkable intellectual abilities once someone else was “facilitating” his communication.

The review describes Brown “tapping letters on a board” while his mother interprets and voices the words. That is the textbook structure of FC: a disabled person who cannot otherwise communicate produces output while a facilitator mediates, guides, or stabilizes the process. Or so proponents claim. Without the facilitator, the disabled person is mute; with their guidance, they suddenly become remarkably verbally proficient, often learned and verbose. If you’re new to the FC debate, you should trust your skepticism: the fact that the mother has to be present and participating, the fact that Brown cannot manipulate the board without the mother’s involvement, the fact that he has never been subject to rigorous research that involves “message-passing” or “double-blind” tests…. This is the inconvenient, damning reality.

Message passing, or double-blind, tests are simple and remarkably effective. Information is provided to both the disabled person and the facilitator, often in the form of pictures or individual words, with both the facilitator and the test subject receiving the same information some times and discordant information other times. That is to say, the disabled person and the facilitator will sometimes both be shown a star or a watermelon or a flower or a bird, while at other times one might get the star picture while they other gets the bird, etc. If the disabled person genuinely crafts their responses, this should be a trivially easy test to pass: the facilitated communication will produce the information that the disabled subject received. And yet very close to literally 100% of the time in rigorous research, across dozens of studies with thousands of combined attempts, interactions produce the information the facilitator received and not the information the disabled person received. Surveying the literature, the consistency of this finding is remarkable - and there is no coherent explanation for how this could happen if indeed FC results in messages being sent from a conscious and alert test subject. Instead, these findings are perfectly consistent with Occam’s razor and the assumption that the facilitator is the one speaking.

Thanks to this overwhelming body of research literature, professional societies have tended to be unusually blunt about FC. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, the leading professional body in this field, states unequivocally: “Facilitated Communication (FC) is a discredited technique that should not be used.” It continues: “There is no scientific evidence of the validity of FC, and there is extensive scientific evidence… that messages are authored by the ‘facilitator’ rather than the person with a disability.” This is not a marginal view; it reflects decades of careful studies across multiple countries. There are many other statements from relevant medical organizations and expert bodies that reach the same conclusion, which is to be expected, considering that the evidence points in only one direction. Are the facilitators deliberately engaging in fraud? No, it’s very likely that they’re being sincere, at least in the large majority of cases. The explanation is the ideomotor effect, the same unconscious motor influence that drives Ouija boards. The facilitator is not deliberately faking communication but unknowingly producing it, usually to satisfy their own desperate longing to connect with the disabled person.

So how did we get here? I guess the Times feels like it’s fine to smuggle in flagrant pseudoscience under the guise of a book review. Hey, it’s just a book review! But I’m afraid that claims of fact that appear in the paper’s pages are the paper’s responsibility, and this review represents a profound journalistic failure. The review treats FC as valid, when in fact FC has been exhaustively discredited for decades. In doing so, it does something worse than merely misinform; it participates in a harmful fiction that exploits vulnerable families and misrepresents disabled individuals. As I’ve said before, this issue is difficult to address in part because the families who fall for FC are so sympathetic. And the FC community goes to great lengths to enable this form of wishful thinking; they’ve created a number of superficially-different approaches to avoid scrutiny and defy the debunkings of the past, including avoiding the term “facilitated communication” itself. They now tend endorse tools like letter boards and techniques like “spelling,” which they claim are fundamentally different. But it’s all still FC, all still a matter of a verbal and cognitively-unimpaired adult “interpreting” the language of a severely disabled person and producing language that they’re consistently and conspicuously incapable of producing on their own.

The Times article never grapples with the evidence. Instead, it substitutes anecdote for science: the mother “realized” her son understood more than expected; the facilitator “saw tension evaporate.” But these are precisely the kinds of subjective impressions that controlled studies were designed to test and, where appropriate, falsify. The best we get from the review’s author, Alexandra Alter, as far as an acknowledgement of FC’s discredited reality lies in these paragraphs:

Some of the communication methods Mukhopadhyay teaches have drawn criticism from language experts who argue that the person holding the board might be influencing or misinterpreting comments from a disabled person. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association doesn’t recommend the method, and put out a statement in 2019 warning that the resulting words might not reflect the disabled person’s intentions.

There are also skeptics who doubt someone as severely autistic as Woody can form and express sophisticated thoughts, much less write a novel.

To say that this is putting it mildly would be putting it mildly. We have to be absolutely clear here, we have to hold this line: facilitated communication and all of its various versions and names is a discredited practice that has never withstood rigorous research scrutiny and which have resulted in a number of awful situations, including dozens of false accusations of sexual abuse and the notorious Anna Stubblefield case, where the facilitator insisted that a man with severe cognitive impairment from cerebral palsy had consented to sex with her. (That is to say, she sexually assaulted him and claimed he consented.) It’s important to underline those ugly cases to make it clear that the harms involved with FC are not abstract. The ASHA warns of “extensive evidence of harms related to the use of FC,” like those abuse accusations mentioned above. But there’s also the simple downside of the diversion of time and scarce resources away from actually effective communication methods.

What gets to me is the degree to which FC proponents prey on desperation. Parents of severely autistic children often face immense emotional and practical burdens, and the promise that their child possesses hidden intelligence is understandably seductive. But that is precisely why the standard of evidence must be so high, and why journalists have a duty to resist amplifying false hope. By presenting facilitated communication as a legitimate practice - and, absurdly, as a vehicle for literary achievement - the Times legitimizes that false hope. Alter’s review invites readers to believe that skepticism stems from prejudice rather than from several decades of rigorous scientific testing and the near-unanimous opinion of the research community. The whole framing is deeply misleading. One can fully affirm the dignity, intelligence, and humanity of non-speaking autistic individuals while rejecting a method that has been repeatedly shown not to give them a voice. Amy Lutz’s Chasing the Intact Mind manages this exact balance, as Lutz (the parent of a severely autistic son) demonstrates that the quest to find the brilliant thinker “hidden” in a nonverbal person - the intact mind - not only depends on wishful thinking and self-deception but also ends up undermining the humanity of those who are truly cognitively impaired and truly nonverbal.

Indeed, that’s the cruelest irony. Facilitated communication does not empower disabled people, it erases them, and in so doing implies that the ability to communicate is a necessary prerequisites of having human value and deserving human dignity, when it certainly is not. FC substitutes the unconscious projections of others for the authentic voices of the severely disabled that loved ones long to hear; FC attributes eloquence to people while denying them authorship; FC diverts attention from evidence-based approaches (such as augmentative and alternative communication systems) that can actually foster independence in some disabled people but not in others. The Times review wants to tell a pleasant story about liberation, a “caged” mind finally speaking. But if facilitated communication is what the science says it is, then the story isn’t about liberation at all. It’s about ventriloquism, a profound misattribution of voice.

The question, why is the New York Times so eager to tell that fable? Why does it keep wandering into this particular back alley of pseudoscience and evasion of research lately? Probably because they know who their customers are.

I spend a lot of time criticizing the Times, which is necessary and appropriate; its ever-growing dominance in American newsmedia means the paper has to face intense scrutiny. (If they’d like to trade some market and mind share for less criticism from me, I’d be happy to make that deal.) Because I criticize them so much, I also spend a lot of time laboriously pointing out that they’re an essential journalistic enterprise, filled with talented and well-credentialed staff, who reports out stories that very few competitors still can. Their dogged efforts chasing down the truth behind the bombed Iranian school is a perfect example of an effort that has major moral stakes and which almost no journalistic organizations on earth still have the resources to attempt. As much as they drive me crazy, the staff of the NYT is filled with talented, dedicated people who take their jobs seriously and are making sincere efforts to produce the best possible journalism, political commentary, artistic criticism, and more.

Yes, as usual, that praise is all throat clearing. Because it’s uniquely destructive for the New York Times, the “paper of record,” to indulge a practice like facilitated communication; its level of institutional authority, held by no other publication on Earth, lends unwarranted legitimacy to claims that have already been decisively rejected by the scientific and clinical communities. When a publication of that stature treats a widely-debunked pseudoscientific communication method as a legitimate practice - or worse, as a human-interest triumph, with the research discrediting that method dismissed in parenthetical - the effect isn’t merely misled casual readers but a reshaping of the boundaries of what educated audiences believe is credible. Like it or not, “The New York Times says” has more influence with influential readers than any similar preamble.

Which gets back to the NYT knowing who pays their bills.

As with so many recent bad publicshing decisions, rehabilitating FC reflects the paper’s increasing dependence on a subscriber-driven business model, where maintaining the sensibilities and emotional investments of its core readership - affluent brownstone liberals who would prefer the pleasant version of reality, thanks - often takes precedence over adversarial truth-telling. In an earlier era, when advertising and broad retail circulation were more central to its finances, the Times had greater latitude to challenge its most dedicated audience. Today, with digital subscribers a) the dominant revenue base and b) heavily drawn from demographics that are highly educated, high income, and progressive-leaning, there’s a clear incentive not to alienate a readership that is drawn to narratives of underdog triumphs and redemptive uplift. Facilitated communication fits neatly into that worldview, offering a reassuring story about disability that flatters the moral intuitions of well-meaning readers while sidestepping the far more difficult reality. The result is a kind of audience capture that encourages credulity precisely where skepticism is most needed. Who wants to read a downer story about genuinely non-verbal, deeply disabled people on their phone while they ride the 4 train uptown to take Kayleigh to her $20,000/year dance lessons?

You may complain that this essay is too similar to previous efforts of mine on this subject. I am sorry about that. But when the New York Times keeps lending its institutional voice to a particularly exploitative pseudoscientific practice, what else can I do? I’m just one guy with a moderately-popular newsletter and no illusions. But somebody has to say this stuff. The stakes are high.