It is through a provocative statement that Hacking proposes a ratio to represent the relationship between science and activism in shaping autism. According to him, 99 % of the current definition and understanding of autism comes from people “personally connected to an autistic person (p-c-a)” rather than from science. Kendler rejects such a view by suggesting, on the contrary, that our understanding of autism is the result of extensive scientific work, especially in the results of genetic research. I consider this disagreement to be based on a false dichotomy that only scientific research is able to consider autism empirically, whereas “the discourse of p-c-a” people would build a socio-cultural understanding of autism. I consider the ethical problems inherent in such a ratio and suggest that the perspective of autistic people themselves is a necessary step towards achieving scientific validity.