A very well argued and polite request. If the Vice Chancellor of Bristol University has any integrity he will act swiftly to withdraw his complaints to Berkeley, and apologise to them and to David.
Excellent response. I certainly hope Dave will get a positive response but I'm not holding my breath, I just don't have any faith in the integrity of UK academic establishments, well actually UK establishment in general.
We shall see. I have a feeling they will not file further complaints, in any event. They obviously know they are in the wrong. Whether that will prompt them to act I have no idea. But that's no reason not to remind them publicly that their "actions and behaviour" cannot be justified.
Turns out the complaints were vexatious and unfounded. In other words: lies. Who could have seen this coming? The claims of harassment were also vexatious and unfounded, a tribunal actually scolded them. Not exactly paragons of integrity, or even seemingly capable of basic ethics. However this is not a record that can be retroactively fixed. This apology is needed. As will be an apology for lying to and about us, in due time. I for one do not appreciated being lied about in general terms, but this here is more personal and direct and should be done ASAP.
Technically I only asked for the complaints to be withdrawn, not an apology. An apology would be nice, of course.
It's just absurd how bad Bristol have been. Thanks to @dave30th for putting himself through this nonsense.
I sent the following follow-up letter this morning to Jane Bridgwater, director of legal services at Bristol University. Dear Ms Bridgwater— I have not heard back from Bristol regarding my request of October 29th that the university withdraw its complaints to my own academic institution about my “actions and behaviour.” Under the circumstances, I wanted to share with you and the vice-chancellor's office the gracious letter that Teresa Allen, chief executive of the Health Research Authority, sent on October 30th to Carol Christ, chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley. (As you know, the HRA oversees research ethics as part of the National Health Service.) Below is the text of the HRA letter: Dear Chancellor Christ, You may be aware that we recently responded to concerns that David Tuller shared with us about several research studies involving patients with CFS/ME. This response, made in line with our processes for complaints and concerns, has taken a significant amount of time as we have had to work across a number of organisations and we are grateful to David for his patience. As the concerns raised with us were wide-reaching, unfortunately we were unable to answer questions which fell outside the remit of the Health Research Authority (HRA). You can read a full statement on our website https://www.hra.nhs.uk/…/outcome-expert-panel-review-eleve…/ We have identified and implemented a number of improvements to procedures as a direct consequence of David’s concerns together with similar questions raised by other individuals. We constantly review, with our Research Ethics Committees, the ways in which we work to ensure that they remain fit for purpose, and we are grateful when potential issues are brought to our attention. We fully understand and support the need for more comprehensive research into this dreadful condition which affects so many people’s lives. With Regards Teresa Allen The HRA appears to appreciate my efforts, and the efforts of others, to shed light on irregularities in the literature on the illness variously known as chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), CFS/ME, and ME/CFS. For my part, I appreciate that Teresa Allen took the time to alert Chancellor Christ to the outcome of this investigation into the work of Professor Esther Crawley, a pediatrician and specialist in this domain. In a statement two years ago, Bristol declared that "the University has previously reviewed Professor Crawley’s research projects and found they are being conducted in line with applicable research ethics and governance requirements." Last June, however, Archives of Disease in Childhood appended a 3,000-word correction to Professor Crawley's Lightning Process trial. Professor Crawley has since been ordered to correct the ethics statements in 11 other papers. It is therefore evident that Bristol's prior review of Professor Crawley's research reached erroneous conclusions. Perhaps this failure in oversight will lead Bristol to examine how its internal vetting processes could have missed substantive methodological and ethical issues that were obvious to others. Given the documented facts, it is troubling that Bristol, in contrast to the HRA, has sought to cast blame on those who have highlighted such matters. I am cc-ing the vice-chancellor's office on this letter. I am also cc-ing Vincent Racaniello, Higgins Professor of Microbiology and Immunology at Columbia University and the host of Virology Blog, the science site on which I post my findings about research from Bristol and elsewhere. And since the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is currently creating new guidelines for ME/CFS, I am cc-ing several individuals involved with the process to keep them abreast of relevant research developments. Specifically, I am cc-ing three physicians (Dr Luis Nacul, Dr William Weir, Professor Jonathan Edwards) as well as two patients serving as lay members of the NICE guideline committee (Adam Lowe and Sally Burch). Best--David David Tuller, DrPH Senior Fellow in Public Health and Journalism Center for Global Public Health School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley
Hasn't David written elsewhere that he is still contemplating an appeal against the findings? If time for lodging any appeal has not yet expired are Bristol not justified in remaining silent? It could be argued that to comment might prejudice the outcome of any appeal.
