Strategic Plan Objective Detail
Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) logo
Office of Autism Research Coordination (OARC) logo

Question 4: Short-term Objective C  

$3,252,940.71
Fiscal Year: 2009

Yellow dot: Objective has some degree of funding, but less than the recommended amount.4SC. Test safety and efficacy of at least five widely used interventions (e.g., nutrition, medications, assisted technologies, sensory integration, medical procedures) that have not been rigorously studied for use in ASD by 2012. IACC Recommended Budget: $27,800,000 over 5 years.

Download 2009 Question 4: Short-term Objective C projects (EXCEL)
Note: Initial Sort is by Principal Investigator. Sorting by other columns is available by clicking on the desired column header.
Project Title Principal Investigator Institution
Communication success and AAC: A model of symbol acquisition Brady, Nancy University of Kansas
Communication success and AAC: A model of symbol acquisition (supplement) Brady, Nancy University of Kansas
Robotics and speech processing technology for the facilitation of social communication training in children with autism Narayanan, Shrikanth University of Southern California
Evaluation of sensory integration treatment in ASD Camarata, Stephen Vanderbilt University

Objective Cumulative Funding Table

IACC Strategic Plan Objective 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total
Test safety and efficacy of at least five widely used interventions (e.g., nutrition, medications, assisted technologies, sensory integration, medical procedures) that have not been rigorously studied for use in ASD by 2012.

IACC Recommended Budget: $27,800,000 over 5 years
4.6
$641,285
8 projects

4.S.C
$3,252,941
29 projects

4.S.C
$1,509,745
18 projects

4.S.C
$2,254,724
18 projects

4.S.C
$1,288,226
17 projects

$8,946,921
4.S.C. Funding: The recommended budget was partially met.

Progress: Several projects were funded in this area, but more work is needed, as this is an area of significant public interest.

Remaining Gaps, Needs, and Opportunities: Experts discussed the best balance between developing new treatments and testing current treatments that lack evidence, especially when funds are limited and conclusive clinical trials are expensive. The group noted that interventions for minimally verbal children are needed; some projects on assistive communication technologies, robotics and speech processing technology to assist with social communication training are funded, but more are needed. There are other projects related to minimally verbal autism in objective 4.S.G. Small pilot studies on nutritional therapies (i.e., GFCF diet studies) have been conducted with inconclusive outcomes, demonstrating the necessity for further exploration of nutritional interventions. Future emphasis on scientific investment in sensory integration and assisted technologies is needed.