Last month, the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) met for the second time this year. Part of their discussion touched on how to make selections for their Summary of Advances, a list of studies given to policymakers to represent "groundbreaking and significant progress" in the field. This led to an important question: What counts as groundbreaking and significant? One committee member, Paul Wang of the Simons Foundation, wondered if it might be valuable to include not only significant positive findings, but also those that found null results, or, as he called them, "papers that perhaps show we do not have an answer." (The Simons Foundation is Spectrum's parent organization.) "Can we recognize these, you might call them negative results, as important publications?" Wang asked.IACC is still putting together its list, but here at Null and Noteworthy we routinely recognize those results. Spectrum has reported on several recently, including an intranasal oxytocin trial that found no benefit for autistic children and two studies rebutting a proposed association between labor epidurals and autism; a third is discussed below, along with other results. Thanks, as always, for your feedback, and please continue to send your thoughts, ideas, interesting studies and cat photos to