NAIO Ethics and Standards of Practice

This presentation-discussion introduces the NAIO Ethics by going over the following:

• Purpose
• Goal
• Pre-amble
• Definition of NAIO
• Practitioner Role

A review of the NAIO Code of Ethics, which has 11 codes. 

A review of the NAIO Scope of Practice.

Recent research involving a large survey of more than 900 adults in the United Kingdom who identify as autistic, ADHD, or dyslexic shows that neurodivergent individuals have nuanced and varied views about the term “neurodiversity”and related language. Almost everyone in the study had heard the term and most used terms like neurodivergent to describe themselves, but there was significant ambivalence about how these words are used. Many participants value the concept as an inclusive umbrella that avoids listing multiple diagnoses, helping reduce stigma and simplify communication. However, there is frustration when the language is misused—for example, when organisations use neurodiverse incorrectly or employ the terms superficially without real inclusion, which can feel disrespectful or tokenistic. Some respondents also felt that broad umbrella terms can be too general to capture individual experiences and needs, diluting recognition of specific conditions such as autism or ADHD. These findings highlight that language preferences among neurodivergent people are meaningful and that careful, accurate terminology matters for identity, respect, and inclusion.

Across science, history, and philosophy there is strong consensus that race is not a biological or genetic reality, even though racism is very real and has profound material effects. Modern genetics shows that humans share the vast majority of their DNA, with more variation within so-called racial groups than between them, and no genes that map onto racial categories. Despite this, beliefs in biological race persist due to historical misuse of science, colonial and political agendas, and the everyday visibility of physical traits being mistaken for deep biological difference. Over the 20th century, anthropology and genetics decisively rejected racial typologies, yet racial categories continued to operate socially, shaping access to power, health, and opportunity. Philosophically, this shows that race functions as a social construct with real consequences, much like laws or money: not natural, but still powerful. Understanding this distinction helps clarify that rejecting biological race does not deny racism—it exposes how racism works by falsely naturalising inequality.