Trial By Error: Some Thoughts About an Upcoming Article

I always hope they do. They might learn something.

 

I agree. I also think it is an abuse of that position to recommend a colleague who has been behaving the same way for a prize for such behaviour.

 

Well, he serves on the board of the organization that awarded the John Maddox prize. So it could be seen as giving himself an award.

(Although it could have been getting one or more BFFs to do it, too.)

 

I was thinking of the single letter on which Esther Crawley's commendation was based.

 

I agree absolutely. These are highly paid, experienced medical healthcare professionals. I personally know many people who are working in low paid care worker roles (in mental health support) who receive face to face death threats from their 'clients' on a regular basis. These workers are not 'registered healthcare professionals' and are paid little more than minimum wages rates, yet are expected to continue working with these individuals and are not permitted to discuss their work on public or social media forums!

 

Given that she is officially under investigation, it might be time to challenge that commendation.

 

It would be a tactical error to use the fact that there is apparently an investigation, to challenge the commendation. What if the investigation clears her? The case for continued opposition would be substantially weakened. The outcome of investigations can never be predicted.

In my opinion.

 

It has been challenged and members of the committee have agreed that evaluation of recommendations was too cursory. I am not sure what more can be achieved. Organisations are entitled to give awards if they want to.

 

Good point. I retract my suggestion. I have no doubt what the investigation SHOULD find, but what it actually will find could be another matter. The academic/medical establishment here seems to have many ways to justify bad behavior, and clearing someone in an investigation despite evidence appears to be one of them.

 

I'm not sure if this is breaking the rules; apologies if it is.



prophetic

 

No problem! I fail to see how posting a slide in which Professor Crawley is accusing me of writing "libellous blogs" could be construed as "harassment."

 

Indeed. Is it in fact libelous to falsely accuse someone of libel?

 

Speaking of awards ... some quotes from the year 2013:

Review of the first three years of the mental health research function at the Science Media Centre, February 2013 by Dr Claire Bithell, Head of Mental Health, Science Media Centre,
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/w...arch-function-at-the-Science-Media-Centre.pdf , p.4

 

Well, basically yes. The problem is that to win a libel case you really need to prove damages. Since Esther's false accusation enhanced my reputation and undoubtedly helped my subsequent crowdfunding, it would be impossible to make any argument that I suffered any damages. Not that I would have sued in any event. I have no interest in suing anyone and certainly I had not one iota of desire to do anything like that in this case.

 

Yeah I wrote about that at some point. It's all an inside job. I like how they "gave" Tom Feilden a story and then nominated him for the prize for the story they gave him. And then he gave a glowing testimonial for SMC's 10th anniversary promotional report. Very cool how they all support each other!

 

Although not allowed to discuss their situation it does get into the media at times. I think many of us are aware of the situation faced by poorly paid allied health workers. I mention this because I think that the 'harassment' narrative is meant to consciously plug into that whole wider context which is in fact real and can be dangerous for the workers. But that problem is a whole other conversation.

Was going to share an opinion on that. Sometimes an emoji says it all.

 

This had largely passed me by, but didn't Tom Feilden really deserve his award for all his hard work and effort in 2012.

www.pressgazette.co.uk/british-journalism-awards-2012-showcase-science-journalist-year-finalists.

So that was one article on animal rights activists-I think we can guess where that came from. One article on Torrent of abuse hindering ME research- not much doubt about that one. And A golden age of discovery in neuro science:

It's a positive view that's warmly endorsed by the professor of Neuroscience at Oxford University, Colin Blakemore. "Undeniably brain research is going through an extraordinary phase of development" he says, "a golden age of discovery fuelled by a combination of all the new knowledge coming from genetics, and the dramatic improvements in imaging technology".

Oh dear, what a giveaway!

You cannot to bribe or twist,
Thank god! the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do unbribed,
there's no occasion to.
Humbert Wolfe

 

Does anyone know if anyone has ever made a formal complaint about this? If not, is it worth considering, or would it be counterproductive at this stage?

 

I made a formal expression of concern to the CEO of SAS and also to the head of the trustees, who referred me to the CEO. I got no reply. I had replies from two members of the committee and from the originator of SAS, Lord Taverne. There was an agreement that the procedures were not robust and that this was regrettable.

I see little point in taking it further since SAS are entitled to award prizes however they like. The identity of the recommender remains technically unknown.

 

Isn’t this a good example of what you once referred to as a “circle jerk”?

It occurs to me that had The Thing Were Are Not Discussing ever been made public, it would almost certainly have been less effective as propaganda. If keeping it private was a calculated decision, rather than a legal necessity, it might be considered an act of Machiavellian genius. These people may be lousy doctors and scientists but they are masters of manipulation and PR.

I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.