Esther Crawley gets 'commendation' at 2017 Maddox Prize awards.

I wonder if anyone from Sense About Science fancies trying to defend the SMILE trial?

The judging panel consisted of Professor Colin Blakemore FRS, Tracey Brown OBE (Sense about Science), Sir Philip Campbell PhD (Nature) Lord Rees of Ludlow OM FRS, Natasha Loder (the Economist). The judges sat in a personal capacity and the choice of the award does not indicate the view of any organisation they are associated with. This year the prize received over 100 nominations from 25 countries. The judges were struck not only by the diverse circumstances in which nominees persevered with communicating science – which may indicate growing recognition among the international research community of the value of engaging in society – but by the often extreme and unsupportive conditions in which some do this. In many of the examples this year, and in previous years, the judges found a lack of institutional support, and in some cases that the behaviour of researchers’ institutions contributed to the problems they faced in public discussion.

As a result, this year the judges have taken the unusual step of drawing attention to the challenges tackled by other nominees (see commendations below) and calling for researchers’ employers, government agencies, funders and scientific organisations to consider what action they should be taking to ensure that researchers are properly supported and the public continue to have access to their discussions about evidence.

...

Commendations

The judges have taken the unusual step this year of drawing attention to the challenges tackled by other nominees in order to recognise the wide range of issues people have to confront. In doing so they are calling for employers and institutions to ensure that their researchers are properly supported when engaging in public discussions of science and evidence.
...

Esther Crawley: Professor Crawley is a consultant paediatrician and a professor of child health at the University of Bristol investigating the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis. Professor Crawley works to promote a better understanding of CFS/ME in the face of complaints to her employer and professional bodies and accusations of fraud and misconduct.​

http://senseaboutscience.org/activities/2017-john-maddox-prize/

There's also this blog which mentions it. It comes as a surprise to no-one that the parody twitter account someone started is being used as an example of 'abuse', but the 'even' is a bit of a surprise there. I thought parody accounts were quite common on twitter?

In the UK, Esther Crawley is one of a number of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) researchers to have been targeted with hate and vilification campaigns. Crawley has received numerous Freedom of Information complaints, slanderous comments and accusations of fraud and misconduct. Opponents even opened a false Twitter account in her name.​

https://allianceforscience.cornell....ssault-worldwide-say-john-maddox-prize-judges

 

Was not Colin Blakemore quoted in the infamous Sunday Times article. (That's a rhetorical question. He was.)

So he can be taken as an objective judge.

 

Wait, when did Esther Crawley start "engaging in public discussions of science and evidence"? All I've seen is her getting on a pulpit to deliver her sermon against patients, then resorting to personal accusations if anyone questions her work.

They're FOI "requests", not complaints, and they aren't fucking harassment. Sense About Science is looking more like another anti-patient group and less like clueless bystanders when they repeat this nonsense.

 

I fear that you may not be seen as being part of their 'in-group'.

 

Which infamous Sunday Times article? Does anyone have a copy or a link?

Edit : Apart from a couple of the biggest names I don't know who the good guys and the bad guys are.

 

Why are they called Sense About Science? Nonsense About Non-Science would be more apropos.

Why is all this rubbish just reiterated uncritically and without any sort of reality check? Does it never, ever occur to these people that if there are so many complaints about fraud and misconduct regarding a particular 'researcher' that it might actually be for a good reason?

 

Thank you.

 

No surprise this is happening with the critical spotlight shining ever increasingly on Crawley. This is how they role, ignore the obvious questions and go on a PR jaunt, awarding each other certificates etc.

It's amazing what one can knock up with Word and a Printer.

How very predictable.

 

http://senseaboutscience.org/activities/the-john-maddox-prize/

Sounds like Alem Matthees to me. (Though I don't know how he'd feel about being nominated.)

Or David Tuller, come to think of it.

 

The Maddox Prize aka Badge of Dishonour.

 

I was just looking at the Nature press release for this: http://www.nature.com/press_releases/john-maddox-2017.html

Some funny bits:

 

I've just read the opening post ...I'm not sure what to say ...I normally like to say something polite and constructive ...no. I actually am completely without words ...edited my expletives away. Just ridiculous gathering of self promoting victimisation BS.

Think we should have some random prizes of our own.

Perhaps one for the most solicitous gathering of likes on a forum

I think a few trophies would be needed. Not sure but knob of the week might be appropriate?

 

The Wessely-Crawley Perpetual Memorial Trophy for the Shameless Recycling of Blatant Falsehoods.

 

'Alem Matthees' especially seems clearly written all over this.