Truly amazing how much bad but policy-impactful advice has come from nonexperts @Stanford. Who says academics don't matter?
In a very positive development, a distinguished group of the real infectious disease and health policy experts @Stanford@StanfordMed has written an open letter condemning the scientific dishonesty from Scott Atlas abcnews.go.com/Politics/stanf…
Meanwhile no comment from @PresMTL or @CondoleezzaRice on how Dr. Atlas is violating basic obligations of academics, scientists, physicians, and decent people to be truthful, especially when people's lives are at stake.
Would think @Stanford and @HooverInst would want to affirm these values. Doing so would not violate academic freedom. Universities pubicly affirm importance of universal values all the time. Just not Stanford, not now.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We are readvertising the opening for a branch chief in the Predict Division at the Center for Forecasting and Outbreak Analytics @CDCgovusajobs.gov/job/711548000 If you applied previously and are NOT a US Govt employee PLEASE REAPPLY. New apps welcome too.
These are two positions to lead the Real Time Monitoring branch in Predict which will produce disease scenario models, forecasts, and nowcasts and the Analytic Response Branch producing custom analyses to aid specific decision making
We have begun building a great team to provide analytic advice to the US government and state and local partners. Looking for exceptional epidemiologists/disease data experts/modelers to lead these two teams.
Looking for leaders in infectious disease modeling and analytics for roles as Branch Chiefs in the Predict Division of @CDCgov Ctr for Forecasting and Outbreak Analytics usajobs.gov/job/701324000 posted as Supervisory Data Scientist GS-15. Seeking great people to join a great team!
For those new to applying to federal jobs, follow the tips here dol.gov/agencies/ilab/… and be VERY explicit about how you meet each qualification so that an HR professional can verify you do.
Here is the one that is in the health scientist track -- same positions can be filled through either announcement usajobs.gov/job/703101000
I’ve been saying that one flaw of the review system for ePPP experiments is that when scientists— for good scientific reasons— change their plans there is no review of the new plans once the original proposal approved. Case in point the Boston Pub Health Comm approved…
BU’s plans in March 2020. The experiment generating all the discussion could not have been planned then bc Omicron hadn’t been observed yet. Antigenic variability was still not a clear threat in most scientists’ minds Even the type of experiment may not have been conceived.
So here's my take on the BU experiments. I know you can't say this on Twitter, but it is my current state of understanding, possibly imperfect, subject to revision with better understanding, and trying to make sense rather than condemn opponents.
First, these are unquestionably gain-of-function experiments. As many have noted, this is a very broad term encompassing many harmless and some potentially dangerous experiments. GOF is a scientific technique, not an epithet. The wildtype "backbone" virus gains immune escape...
...from the insertion of the Omicron spike, in ways that the paper describes in detail. That is gain-of-function.
Want to help shape US outbreak public health #RiskCommunications? More positions now open at the @CDCgov Center for Forecasting and Outbreak Analytics in our Inform Division
Risk Communications Team Lead (Lead Health Communication Specialist), grade 14: usajobs.gov/job/665886900
Also this one closes Wednesday (2 days!) Inform Deputy Division Director which is posted as a Supervisory Health Scientist (Communication), grade 15. usajobs.gov/job/665745100
Thrilled to announce that our data science (modeling/analytics) jobs are now live for the @cdcgov Center for Forecasting and Outbreak Analytics:
closing June 3 so apply now!