As the definition of autism has broadened, most autistic people today can speak for themselves, and many have become active voices in research. They've advocated for studies on the issues that matter to them, and researchers have responded by designing studies around their needs. That's a good thing. But it has also meant that many studies now rely on surveys, lengthy assessments, or verbal feedback, which can unintentionally exclude people who are nonspeaking or have an intellectual disability.
Consent adds another barrier. Many people with profound autism can't give informed consent on their own, so a parent, guardian, or other legal representative must consent for them. That requires extra review and safeguards, and some researchers choose to avoid it by limiting studies to people who can consent for themselves.
One review found that only about 6% of participants in clinical autism research had an intellectual disability (Russell et al., 2019). When people with profound autism aren't included or clearly defined in research, service systems fail to plan for their needs, workforce training doesn't prepare clinicians for real-world challenges, and funding and policy decisions lack reliable evidence.