Write a book encouraging others to defend their academic freedom, get censored by your own dean, fight it but lose . . . what can you do?
Today, my colleague Carl Elliott posted a short note at his blog that surprised me. It was about a new op-ed from Steve Pinker, who has supported my work.
Last night I dreamed I had a date with Donald Trump. We were in the Trump International Hotel and Tower® in Chicago, in a ballroom that looks out over the river. . . .
What yesterday’s take-down of Amantine’s KevinMD post taught me was that Twitter is my new rolodex—it is a place where I can quickly call on a large number of smart, thoughtful, and often-influential people. And that feels comforting and maybe a little hopeful.
A reader has written to correct my representation of the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival in my book, Galileo's Middle Finger. She's right.
Readers of Galileo’s Middle Finger have been asking me some questions about autogynephilia, particularly since Vanity Fair’s coverage of Caitlyn Jenner. I encouraged one reader who contacted me by Twitter today to send her questions by email, and she was kind enough to do so. Here I provide answers to her questions.
In the last twenty-four hours, I’ve been asking myself an interesting question: What if Hunt’s remarks, rather than being purely glib sexist stupidity, actually did represent an ideology he held? What if he genuinely believed that females are bad for science? Would we then worry a little more about academic freedom—about his right to hold an unpopular view and still be a member of the academic community?
About a week ago, I got to see an early copy of the New York Times review of Galileo's Middle Finger, and so naturally I thought that its appearance this weekend was going to be the big event of my life this week.
I was more than a bit incredulous yesterday when a stranger on Twitter sent me news that anti-vaxxers are passing around a particular Guardian article from 14 years ago as if it contains fresh and accurate “vaccine harm” news. In fact, I refer to this Guardian article in my new book that comes out this Tuesday, and to be honest, having this article come back the same week my book comes out seemed almost impossible to believe.
The way “retrospective chart review” works out in practice, patients get used for research they were never asked to be part of, and perhaps more importantly, no one is ever asked to make sure they are notified that their medical records have been used for a published study. They never know they became subjects of research.