Sandra Jones is pro vice-chancellor of engagement at Australian Catholic University in Melbourne, Australia. As an academic, she has researched autistic adolescent development, public understanding and acceptance of autism, and autistic people’s lived experiences of inclusion and exclusion. As an autistic woman and the mother of two adult autistic sons, she is a passionate advocate for the inclusion of autistic people in all aspects of society.

Sandra Jones
Pro vice-chancellor of engagement, Australian Catholic University
From this contributor
How the loss of Asperger syndrome has lasting repercussions
Some people who have lost the diagnosis of Asperger syndrome say they feel a loss of identity and worry about a loss of services.

How the loss of Asperger syndrome has lasting repercussions
Explore more from The Transmitter
Machine learning spots neural progenitors in adult human brains
But the finding has not settled the long-standing debate over the existence and extent of neurogenesis during adulthood, says Yale University neuroscientist Juan Arellano.

Machine learning spots neural progenitors in adult human brains
But the finding has not settled the long-standing debate over the existence and extent of neurogenesis during adulthood, says Yale University neuroscientist Juan Arellano.
Xiao-Jing Wang outlines the future of theoretical neuroscience
Wang discusses why he decided the time was right for a new theoretical neuroscience textbook and how bifurcation is a key missing concept in neuroscience explanations.
Xiao-Jing Wang outlines the future of theoretical neuroscience
Wang discusses why he decided the time was right for a new theoretical neuroscience textbook and how bifurcation is a key missing concept in neuroscience explanations.
Memory study sparks debate over statistical methods
Critics of a 2024 Nature paper suggest the authors failed to address the risk of false-positive findings. The authors argue more rigorous methods can result in missed leads.

Memory study sparks debate over statistical methods
Critics of a 2024 Nature paper suggest the authors failed to address the risk of false-positive findings. The authors argue more rigorous methods can result in missed leads.