Subscribe Now
Trending News

Blog Post

MIT’s Dean of Science needs to step up or step down

MIT’s Dean of Science needs to step up or step down 

Nergis Mavalvala named School of Science dean | MIT News | Massachusetts  Institute of Technology

Today I am making a formal request to MIT’s Dean of Science Nergis Mavalvala to either:

  • step up and accept the global responsibilities of your position as Dean of one of America’s top institutions of Science

  • step down by resigning your position as Dean of Science.

In particular,

  1. A Dean of Science at any university should always be open to hearing credible scientific evidence that challenges your or your institution’s beliefs or policies. This is especially true for MIT’s COVID-19 policies because they affect the health and safety of the entire MIT community. On April 15, I asked if you were open to viewing credible data that challenged the MIT policies and you said, “No.” I’ve never heard of a scientist who isn’t open to seeing data. People who refuse to view credible evidence that their positions are wrong are not scientists. How can MIT have a Dean of Science who isn’t a scientist?

  2. Open scientific discussion on important issues where there is significant difference of opinion should be done. You even agreed with me on that. Good for you. Yet about an hour after you said that, when I asked you to “walk the talk” by calling for such a discussion, you refused. Your position would be perfectly understandable if these open discussions had been done many times before. But they haven’t been. They haven’t been done ever. Not once. Nowhere in the world. The boldest attempt for such a debate was made by three top scientists in Canada of the Canadian health authorities. You can watch the open scientific “discussion” they had here. You will quickly notice that there wasn’t a discussion because the public authorities flatly refused to send anyone to represent them. As a leader of science, you should be outraged at this. You have a responsibility to call for such discussion and to publicly condemn authorities who refuse to have their viewpoints challenged. When I offered you the opportunity to do the right thing, you instantly declined and said that you “had to go.” I then made the same offer again via email. You ignored that email.

  3. Those with scientific viewpoints on the COVID vaccines that are different from the mainstream “safe and effective” narrative have been uniformly mocked, labeled as “misinformation spreaders,” deplatformed, censored, had their peer-reviewed papers retracted from medical journals, stripped of their hospital privileges, medical licenses, and/or jobs, and intimidated (including the filing of frivolous lawsuits and physical intimidation in certain cases). What have you done as one of the top scientific leaders in the world to speak out against such abuses? Absolutely nothing as far as I know. That is unacceptable.

The Dean of Science at MIT has a social responsibility to be an advocate for science globally and especially in the US. When mandates that affect the lives of American people are made that are not based on science, academic science deans should speak out and proclaim, “These policies are not based on sound science and we as scientists do not support them.” We don’t hear that. We hear nothing.

At a bare minimum, if there is clear disagreement as to what the science actually says about a science issue of great importance to all Americans, all of our country’s scientific leaders, including the science deans of all our top universities, should be collectively calling for PUBLIC OPEN SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION between the most qualified parties on each side of the issue in the hopes that the differences can be resolved or, at a minimum, these differences can be highlighted to the public.

In particular, the public should be encouraged to hear both sides of the narrative, not just one side. It’s even worse when the voice of the other side is being unethically suppressed. That is not what science teaches us.

Finally, and most importantly, your refusal to be open to hearing any scientific evidence at all that challenges your beliefs and those of MIT on such important issues is inexcusable.

You cannot make the excuse that real scientists should stay clear of policy discussions and just stick to science

Just to make sure I’ve covered all possible excuses, let me address the excuse that “scientists should stick to science.”

If that were true, then who is supposed to speak out for both science and scientists when they are both attacked as I noted in point #3 above?

And if real scientists are not supposed to opine on public policy, then are you saying UCSF Professor Vinay Prasad is not a scientist? Why are you not calling him out?

In fact, nobody in the scientific community is calling out Vinay Prasad for having the courage to be truthful about what the science says and how public policy has gone off the rails.

Watch this recent video Vinay did on the Finland mask study. He explains what science says and how public policy ignores the science. He is one of the very few “mainstream” scientists who is courageous enough to speak the truth about what is really going on.

When the CDC does sloppy science, Vinay is there to call it out. But nobody else in the academic community does! The others remain silent so as not to jeopardize their NIH funding.

Dean Mavalvala, just because your peers are shirking their responsibilities is not an excuse for you to do the same.

These articles on Professor Prasad’s Substack clearly show that as a whole, the scientific community has completely dropped the ball on their responsibility to challenge the narrative and champion what the science actually says. Instead, the scientific community as a whole remained silent because being silent is safe:

  1. The silent majority

  2. The hypocrisy of medical experts

  3. Colleges and Universities Must Join Push for Normal

Please decide

Please Dean Mavalvala, make a decision: Either step up or step down.

Read More

Related posts

© Copyright 2022, All Rights Reserved