Academic freedom may be the best tool in the internal battles within a medical school/hospotal as typically the university chancellor adjudicates on disagreements with the medical school dean.
Academic freedom may be the only avenue possible for settling some sorts of high level problems at the institution.
And, I think more importantly, the power to give funds should be dispersed. And, somehow, the right and even obligation to run experiments with CONTRARY hypotheses must be made part of the process. One team trying to prove the vax. Another team trying to discredit the vax.
Huh. Former NIH Director Harold Varmus thinks it’s a bad idea to link NIH funding to academic freedom. Well, that’s just too back for Harold Varmus. OF COURSE funding should be in line with freedom of expression. Didn’t Varmus get the message? WE ARE KILLING SCIENCE-LIKE NARRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES.
Another on point commentary by Dr. Prasad. What he leaves unstated is that Dr. Vamus is the former administrator of an entity that vehemently opposes scientific discourse, "veritas" in general, and is its own customer. What the NIH currently believes is "the only truth" hence his concern like so many like him is to stop anyone getting leadership positions at HHS, NIH, FDA in general who will actually ask questions.
Vaccines are not settled science. I thought forever they were indeed. Research and personal scientific investigation participation has taught me otherwise. As a principal investigator for the Gardisil vaccine, all of us involved, were directly misinformed it was a true placebo controlled trial... it was not. Adverse events would be recorded appropriately.... out of ~30 trials across the world for approval only 14% recorded any adverse events... the list goes on and on. Why are we so frightened to re-evaluate and confirm safety? Let alone appropriate dosing (1 vs 3) from the national European data set.
There are major problems at the NIH and academia. Let's start by protecting science by guaranteeing freedom of academic speech to receive federal research funds.
Thank you for another well-argued and thought-provoking commentary, Dr Prasad.
I can't resist throwing in some information that does run counter to the lung cancer example you offered. I would be interested in your reaction to this paper:
Disclosures: My employer, Pinney Associates, Inc., provides consulting to Juul Labs on nicotine vapor for tobacco harm reduction & Philip Morris Intl solely on US regulatory pathways for non-combustible, non-tobacco, nicotine products.
The Great Barrington Declaration doesn't have a single reference. There isn't one study, one piece of evidence or research to support its flawed recommendations, all of which were wrong.
Grant proposals should be, I think (after a long discussion with my partner) based only on whether the research is thought to be worth doing and if the person who is requesting funds to do it is an appropriate person to do that research (capable of it, including of course, necessary resources).
I think you are really on a slippery slope if you suggest otherwise. It appears to me to be the same issue as having DEI requirements on government grants, or requirements to say that there is systemic racism (presumably in the US) as part of grant applications, which I hear has been the case recently.
Maybe one can say there is less institutional overhead allowed for grants at institutions which do not adequately support academic free speech, thus penalizing the institution but not the research. (I recall someone suggesting a "tax" on some grants, f the institution has issues, but of course that might make some grants less viable for non-content related reasons, so back to the original problem.)
It is also unclear how to determine the level of free speech on a campus, the surveys by FIRE are a good start but with higher stakes they have to be extremely good and can one do them well enough?
Great writing. One point of contention however is that addiction is not a happy place to be. I’m not saying that you should tell your patient to stop smoking because that usually does no good. I’m recommending that you tell your patient to stop and pay attention when they smoke. Check out www.cravingtoquit.com. My husband’s father stopped drinking when he got his terminal diagnosis of lung cancer. That allowed him time abstinent to spend with his family or with his maker. As a recovering addict, addiction times are not good times.
I have to agree with him on the "outlandish" comment, that is to say if he is currently living or desires to live in a communist dictatorship. But if he is living in the US and desires to live in the US, then it seems more that his fear of academic freedom is outlandish.
Since very few (if any) universities show a true commitment to free expression, the question is "academic". The only rational position is to eliminate all government funding to universities for research or any other purpose. Then each individual or group can decide where to donate based on their own goals and values. To coerce anyone to contribute (through involuntary taxation) is immoral.
Academic freedom may be the best tool in the internal battles within a medical school/hospotal as typically the university chancellor adjudicates on disagreements with the medical school dean.
Academic freedom may be the only avenue possible for settling some sorts of high level problems at the institution.
BTDT
And, I think more importantly, the power to give funds should be dispersed. And, somehow, the right and even obligation to run experiments with CONTRARY hypotheses must be made part of the process. One team trying to prove the vax. Another team trying to discredit the vax.
To your title: yes!
Huh. Former NIH Director Harold Varmus thinks it’s a bad idea to link NIH funding to academic freedom. Well, that’s just too back for Harold Varmus. OF COURSE funding should be in line with freedom of expression. Didn’t Varmus get the message? WE ARE KILLING SCIENCE-LIKE NARRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES.
Another on point commentary by Dr. Prasad. What he leaves unstated is that Dr. Vamus is the former administrator of an entity that vehemently opposes scientific discourse, "veritas" in general, and is its own customer. What the NIH currently believes is "the only truth" hence his concern like so many like him is to stop anyone getting leadership positions at HHS, NIH, FDA in general who will actually ask questions.
Vaccines are not settled science. I thought forever they were indeed. Research and personal scientific investigation participation has taught me otherwise. As a principal investigator for the Gardisil vaccine, all of us involved, were directly misinformed it was a true placebo controlled trial... it was not. Adverse events would be recorded appropriately.... out of ~30 trials across the world for approval only 14% recorded any adverse events... the list goes on and on. Why are we so frightened to re-evaluate and confirm safety? Let alone appropriate dosing (1 vs 3) from the national European data set.
There are major problems at the NIH and academia. Let's start by protecting science by guaranteeing freedom of academic speech to receive federal research funds.
Noel R Williams MD
Thank you for another well-argued and thought-provoking commentary, Dr Prasad.
I can't resist throwing in some information that does run counter to the lung cancer example you offered. I would be interested in your reaction to this paper:
https://www.jto.org/article/S1556-0864(21)03404-3/fulltext
Thank you.
Joe
Disclosures: My employer, Pinney Associates, Inc., provides consulting to Juul Labs on nicotine vapor for tobacco harm reduction & Philip Morris Intl solely on US regulatory pathways for non-combustible, non-tobacco, nicotine products.
The Great Barrington Declaration doesn't have a single reference. There isn't one study, one piece of evidence or research to support its flawed recommendations, all of which were wrong.
It has no bibliography.
Is that how one does research?
Grant proposals should be, I think (after a long discussion with my partner) based only on whether the research is thought to be worth doing and if the person who is requesting funds to do it is an appropriate person to do that research (capable of it, including of course, necessary resources).
I think you are really on a slippery slope if you suggest otherwise. It appears to me to be the same issue as having DEI requirements on government grants, or requirements to say that there is systemic racism (presumably in the US) as part of grant applications, which I hear has been the case recently.
Maybe one can say there is less institutional overhead allowed for grants at institutions which do not adequately support academic free speech, thus penalizing the institution but not the research. (I recall someone suggesting a "tax" on some grants, f the institution has issues, but of course that might make some grants less viable for non-content related reasons, so back to the original problem.)
It is also unclear how to determine the level of free speech on a campus, the surveys by FIRE are a good start but with higher stakes they have to be extremely good and can one do them well enough?
Great writing. One point of contention however is that addiction is not a happy place to be. I’m not saying that you should tell your patient to stop smoking because that usually does no good. I’m recommending that you tell your patient to stop and pay attention when they smoke. Check out www.cravingtoquit.com. My husband’s father stopped drinking when he got his terminal diagnosis of lung cancer. That allowed him time abstinent to spend with his family or with his maker. As a recovering addict, addiction times are not good times.
Kuldorff and Offit participated in a Munk debate. Kuldorff was Forced to resign from Harvard—which makes your point. https://munkdebates.com/podcasts/vaccine-mandates/
I have to agree with him on the "outlandish" comment, that is to say if he is currently living or desires to live in a communist dictatorship. But if he is living in the US and desires to live in the US, then it seems more that his fear of academic freedom is outlandish.
Princeton canceled Joshua Katz on the thinnest of grounds. It is a symbol of the absence of intellectual freedom, not its presence
Well stated.
ummmmm…ABSOLUTELY-FRIGGIN-LUTELY!!
Varmus is a jackass
Since very few (if any) universities show a true commitment to free expression, the question is "academic". The only rational position is to eliminate all government funding to universities for research or any other purpose. Then each individual or group can decide where to donate based on their own goals and values. To coerce anyone to contribute (through involuntary taxation) is immoral.