Researcher Haris Sri Vasan outlines 'Neurodiversity 2.0' calling for institutional redesign

Haris Sri Vasan, a PhD candidate in neuroscience, opened the online panel by proposing a “Neurodeiversity 2.0 Zero” framework that moves the debate about autism from symbolic recognition toward systemic redesign. He said the framework "shifts the focus from identity recognition to institutional redesign," arguing that dignity must be embedded in how systems operate, not only in language.

Vasan said current research and policy too often exclude autistic people with higher support needs because common study methods favor participants who are easy to recruit or assess. "When lives are missing from data, they are often missing from design," he warned, urging methodological changes so the full spectrum informs policy. He recommended a bio–psycho–social approach that aligns scientific methods with lived experience and grounds policy in complex developmental realities.

On technology, Vasan cautioned that tools alone cannot guarantee dignity. "Technology does not determine dignity. Design choices do," he said, calling for governance and policy frameworks that ensure communication technologies expand autonomy for non-speaking and minimally speaking people rather than constraining it. He also noted that ethical AI and alternative communication systems have potential if they are designed responsibly to expand communicative agency.

Panelists responded by amplifying Vasan’s emphasis on systemic change. Vincent Tubisu said dignity is "about appreciation of the individual" and argued that schools and workplaces should adapt to diverse learning and communication styles rather than requiring neurodivergent people to conform. Martin Cortez called for inclusive education year-round and said belonging means being able to "help build the table." Hector Ishikawa offered lived examples of exclusion and later inclusion at work and in music communities, underlining Vasan’s point that environment shapes opportunity.

The Institute for Neurodiversity (the panel host) closed the segment by announcing institutional commitments to advance dignity and inclusive governance: affirm identity rather than correct it, design classrooms and workplaces for diverse cognitive styles, and embed autistic voices from the start of policy design. The panel explicitly rejected narratives of cure or conversion and urged organizations to treat inclusion as structural rather than symbolic.

The discussion highlighted concrete levers for research and policy: broaden recruitment and methods in studies, require participatory design when technologies affect communication, and adopt bio–psycho–social approaches to align health and education services. The panel closed with a commitment from the Institute to pursue those changes and a recommendation that institutions, funders and researchers operationalize inclusion by expanding who counts as evidence in policymaking.