[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Daniel Bower (North Carolina, USA)
Date: 08 Oct 2011
Time: 17:13:38 -0500
Remote Name: 64.85.180.18
Tom, I quite like your question and eagerly await Dr. Drayna's response. Your intuition regarding effective gene variety makes sense. For me, a lot of the implicit complexity in this context results from the understandably general definitions we have for "stuttering." Most functional definitions at least leave room for a complex interrelated genetic etiology, but indeed there may be numerous subcategories of stuttering and on top of that, gene mutation "A" could certainly result in the same symptoms as gene mutation "B." As you know, the profession has often had to work "backwards" in a sense, starting with the symptoms and working towards the etiology. In genetics it seems we're starting with the (probable) etiology. The problem (with either route) is the absence of end game and reliable data correlation because stuttering has not (from what I've been exposed to) been categorized symptomatically with real detail. So a geneticist, who's already working with many many parts, has his work cut out for him to apply his data to a pathology lacking detailed definition and categorization. I think both the "backwards" and "forwards" research lines will have to meet in the middle eventually. As geneticists do their good work, SLPs and other professionals are going to have to get their hands dirty and amass even more data in order to clarify stuttering further (like how "cluttering" has its own definition) so that genetic research can be properly applied. I am a newcomer to this field so my thoughts surely have holes in them but I appreciate the opportunity to learn from Dr. Drayna as well as yourself! Thank you!