This thread focuses on the news about Esther Crawley in David Tuller's recent blog. It has been split from this thread which focuses on the information about the Australian situation in David Tuller's recent blog. http://www.virology.ws/2018/03/14/t...ituation-and-professor-crawleys-new-position/
Nope. Bristol just seems determined to morph into a blatant quackery-oriented university I'm sure they can use the Lightning Process to change the outlook of any students concerned about the quality of their education.
Actually, I should retract that about the Peter principle. It does imply that she has been competent to date.
Except that the limiting state seemed to have already been reached long before now. Edit: I see people got there before me.
Is that based on the Dilbert principle of promoting someone to a job where they can't do any harm? Maybe the question for Bristol University is does it signal a change in policy over getting ethical approval (i.e. don't bother or run a feasibility study and switch into a full study).
I think many of us got the thought behind the use of 'Peter Principle' EC is in charge of this centre and all it's activities. I share the concern. But she is also responsible for everything it does - risky on their part, I'd say. Has she the potential to discredit not just her own work, but that of an entire centre? Edit to add I see a thread has been started specifically to discuss Esther Crawley's new appointment here: https://www.s4me.info/threads/esthe...r-of-child-and-adolescent-health-aagghh.2995/
If we consider EC as competent in such tasks as progressing the harmful biopsychosocial approach, spreading misinformation about a neurological disorder, succeeding in conducting unethical research and getting in published in journals, then let's hope the Peter Principle does apply.
Shrewd move by Bristol. Now the parents of children harmed by her "clinic" will feel even more intimidated to lodge complaints or pursue legal action.