If you want to know what it's like being a Brown female scientist, this tweet captures what I deal with every day. Despite having called most things right & advocated for early response to protect public health and lives, time & time again, I'm attacked & abused. 🧵
Very few people know, let alone understand, what it's like being an outspoken woman of colour in academia. If you want to know I'd recommend talking to some. It hurts. Every day.
I've been outspoken and challenged injustice all through my career, from medical school to now. I've suffered *hugely* as a result.
Those who've known me for a while will know that I was dismissed from the @sangerinstitute after whistleblowing.
The whistleblowing complaint was about the @sangerinstitute's unethical use of genetic samples from Africa. I was bullied, intimidated & finally sacked. The @wellcometrust did nothing to support whistleblowers. In fact @JeremyFarrar was one of the key people complicit in this.
.@JeremyFarrar didn't even respond to a complaint by the University of Stellenbosch in SA about the unethical use of samples they had collected. Hearing him talk about support for SA researchers now just makes me feel ill.
Not only did they fire me, I was denied positions in the University of Cambridge (I'm an alumnus) despite departmental support and having my own funding. My appt was stopped from high up, by the Regius, who has links with the Sanger Director.
And of course there's a lot of funding that flows between the two institutions. I did find a home where I am now, but continued to have unpleasant experiences with Sanger & there were people who said they wouldn't collaborate with me because of their connections with Sanger.
A group of us took a stance against the shockingly unethical, illegal & frankly neocolonial activities of @sangerinstitute.
Outcome: we were all pushed out.
You can read about it here: science.org/content/articl…
I've taken an independent path throughout my career. I'm good at what I do but in many ways it doesn't matter. Because no matter what I do, their tentacles are long, and I'll always have a target painted on my head. All whistleblowers do. The statistics on this show this clearly.
I know it'll affect everything- the funding I get, the collaborative opportunities, even peer review and publication and the conduct I'm subjected to both publicly and privately.
During COVID-19, I felt I had to speak up because I had the expertise to. And I felt being silent wasn't an option. For those who think it's been great being on twitter, and there's some sort of power that comes with the following I have - think again.
This is voluntary work I do- if I have a following, it's because I've been putting info out during the pandemic that some people want to follow. Doing media is vital time out of my day. It doesn't help my career or benefit me personally in any way.
Btw, if you're going to point out that I have 110K+ followers, I didn't start with 110K+ followers & follower count on Twitter doesn't give you a lot to negate the structural barriers you face. If anything, the abuse that comes with a larger following amplifies racism & misogyny.
I'm also chronically ill and disabled, so doing this does take physical, mental and emotional energy and time that I don't necessarily have.
The only thing I get for what I do, is a sense that hopefully someone out there is listening. And it gives me a voice.
If you think being outspoken has helped my career it hasn't. It's been the opposite. I knew being who I am would come at a cost. When the Sanger fired me, it was painful, but I lived with it because I couldn't have done it any other way.
I learned a while ago that UK academia can be toxic, and there isn't a place for people like me. WOC who don't know their place. Women are often expected to keep their heads down & help the careers of the powerful men around them in the hope of future reward, WOC more so.
I took a different path- I was fiercely independent, but collaborative. But I didn't collaborate with people who didn't value me or treat me as an equal. You'd be surprised how many people invite you into collaborations on the condition you do all the work and get shafted.
I didn't agree to that - because I have too much self respect. But I'm not stupid. I know that standing up for a principle, even if it's valuing myself comes at a cost. I know it means my future is always in the balance in this structurally unequal society.
I don't even have the words to explain what my daily existence as a brown women in academia is like, and what the structural barriers are. It's knowing that the outcomes of your grants, career opportunities and the review process is rigged against you.
I know many here won't believe me, but I'm past caring. For those who want definitive proof of my reality, I can't provide it. All I can say is that it's like having a thick glass ceiling over your head, and you know no matter how hard you try, you can't break through.
You'll bleed, cut yourself on it, but it won't shatter. It will shatter you in the process. And every day you will live with the grief and pain of knowing that what you know doesn't matter. How good you are doesn't matter. How hard you try doesn't matter. It's not a meritocracy.
All that matters is that you are an outspoken Brown woman who doesn't know her place.
And outspoken women who challenge power will be shown their place.
Now, to head off some of the responses that I'll no doubt get, and which I won't be responding to.
There will be various forms of: 1. 'How dare you?!' including the 'how dare you say that (about me)?!' 2. 'I don't believe you'
3.' This is just your perception' 4. 'You're looking at things through the lens of misogyny and racism'.
5. 'I've worked with WOC in academia and this is not their experience 6. 'It's not because of any of those things, it's because you're a $%$%%. That's why I think you deserve to be abused'
If you're really interested in what I'm saying, just look at how WOC get treated in Twitter compared to others. It might give you a little glimpse into what they face in academia (and elsewhere) too but out of your sight.
And to those women- I'm in awe of the your strength and outspokenness given the penalties we face. One day I hope that our tears and scars will mean that our little girls will not bruise themselves on the ceilings we have hurt ourselves on. And they'll be able to breathe free.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
An important study- it suggests that Omicron has a much greater growth advantage among the vaccinated, and previously infected, and possibly a lower growth advantage compared to delta among those who were susceptible (not vaccinated/infected or waning of immunity)
This doesn't mean vaccines are not effective. It means that among the vaccinated and previously infected, omicron has a higher advantage compared to delta because it has higher escape from immunity (although both have lower infective probability compared to unvaccinated)
It's possible that intrinsic transmissibility of omicron relative to delta (apart from escape) may not be much higher, or possibly even slightly lower. But it would still have a massive advantage among those with prior immunity through vaccines/infection.
I honestly cannot believe that we're living in a country where our govt is acting against scientific advice once again, and delaying action on rapid exponential growth, fully aware of the consequences- for the fourth time- a stance normalised by a complicit media.🧵
With a rapidly growing new variant doubling every 2 days, increasing hospitalisations already in London, which is ahead in terms of spread. The lags between infection and hospitalisation haven't happened yet, so this situation will only get worse.
We're seeing the highest hospitalisation rates with COVID-19 we've ever seen in 0-5 year olds, and rising.
Wrong. SPI-M-O modelling has a lot of uncertainty because of many unknowns which are clearly acknowledged. Saying we didn't have 200K deaths last yr (um... because govt responded with lockdowns!) is disingenous & misleading.🧵
SAGE modelling has predicted outcomes within their range of uncertainty more often than not. And they're very clear about the uncertainties. If you don't know this perhaps try listening to experts who have followed it closely.
Even where the predictions haven't been exactly in the range, the general direction of movement, and policies advocated for have been sound. E.g. not removing mask mandates over summer would've saved lives and prevented a lot of long COVID even if cases didn't reach massive highs
On @TimesRadio with @MattChorley just now - who for some reason invited me on as an expert, didn't like it when I challenged his flawed narratives on SAGE modelling, and then never gave me a chance to respond - and hung up on me when challenged!
This is MSM- and they are very much responsible - as I said in my interview for putting out false narratives. I mean saying that modelling is flawed because we didn't have 200K predicted deaths in yr 1 of the pandemic is just lazy. We acted- we locked down in response to crises.
What do you think would've happened had we not? There has been a lot of uncertainty in SAGE modelling, which the modellers acknowledge clearly- and media often picks on one scenario to critique them. Not even acknowledging that action was taken in response.
@MerylSwanLake@mugecevik@kallmemeg I don't really want to relive it by pulling out the tweets, but Muge has said that I'm such a bad example of scicomm that she would use me in her teaching. Meaghan has said I get paid by the Citizens for what i do which is why I have loads of time to write BMJ pieces etc.
@MerylSwanLake@mugecevik@kallmemeg She never apologised despite this being wrong and slanderous. When I contacted a HT in a school with an outbreak to understand the process for reporting outbreaks, she also said I had breached data protection guidelines, and was akin to HIV research where patients are identified.
@MerylSwanLake@mugecevik@kallmemeg I actually headed up the UK HIV genomics consortium, and ethical issues around this are very serious, and I honestly cannot believe someone would ever say something like this- it's insulting, offensive, in so many ways.
I'm also puzzled by this- it's not a pattern that seems restricted to Gauteng, but cases seem to be peaking in provinces & districts in order of spread in SA. The rate of spread to me seems inconsistent with the attack rates predicted by usual transmission dynamics. Thoughts?
Important to understand this to try and see what this might mean for other countries. Certainly not the pattern that would be expected on the face of it.
Want to stress again that this isn't a pattern restricted to parts of Gauteng- it's also being seen in Limpopo, and parts of KZN, so it's not an explanation that would apply to one part of SA.