New research warns that treating neurological differences as national security threats isolates vulnerable people and denies them real care.
A qualitative interview study with counter terrorism professionals explored how security frameworks interpret neurodivergent individuals.
The findings show that institutional systems often view neurological variations as individual pathologies rather than diverse ways of being.
Key Points
- A qualitative interview study reveals that UK counter terrorism practitioners often view neurodivergence through a deficit lens, misinterpreting autistic traits as inherent security risks.
- There is no empirical evidence linking neurodivergence directly to terrorism, yet traits like deep specialist interests are frequently pathologised as red flags for radicalisation.
- Critical systemic gaps in mental health, social care, and education cause vulnerable individuals to fall through the cracks, often defaulting them into police oversight rather than support systems.
- Half of the surveyed practitioners reported receiving zero formal training on neurodiversity, leading to inconsistent accommodations and reliance on personal assumptions.
The Hazard of Misinterpreting Deep Interests
Security practices frequently view the traits of autistic individuals through a medical deficit lens. Specialist interests and deep focus are often treated as steps down a dangerous online rabbit hole.
“You can’t change that fixation. You can maybe replace that, but it’s not always a guarantee of where that fixation lies.”
This perspective treats natural cognitive traits as inherent vulnerabilities to exploitation. Security systems focus heavily on individual identity while ignoring the broader online environments, platform algorithms, and social isolation that drive behavior.
Systemic Gaps and Deflected Support
The research points to a fragmented support landscape across education, social care, and mental health sectors. When these crucial services fail to coordinate, individuals lack proper care.
The security apparatus often becomes the default responder when public services fail. This dynamic pulls vulnerable individuals into a policing framework instead of providing them with supportive welfare.
Practitioners noted that when individuals receive genuine structural adjustments, such as changing schools or accessing tailored social services, measured risks decrease substantially.
This highlights that vulnerabilities stem from systemic neglect rather than personal neurological deficits.
The Gap in Professional Knowledge
The study exposed significant gaps in institutional training. Out of ten interviewed specialists, five reported receiving no formal training on neurodiversity whatsoever.
Unprofessional improvisation increases the risk of biased assumptions. It also makes the implementation of standard accommodations highly inconsistent across investigations.
Why It Matters
This study reveals how security policies can pathologise normal human variations. When everyday mental health needs and cognitive differences are treated as security threats, it breaks down public trust and blocks access to real support.
For clinicians and educators, the study underscores the urgent need to protect neurodivergent individuals from unnecessary state surveillance.
True safety does not come from increased policing, but from building supportive, accessible, and community led care systems.
Reference
Siberry, A., & Sian, K. (2026). Deconstructing Discourses on Neurodivergence and Extremism: Challenging Practitioner Perspectives on Risk, Bias and Online Vulnerability. Neurodiversity, 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/27546330261462269
