ASTRO has gone full woke

[Chartreuse Wombat]

---

Members do not see this ad.

We've said it before- there is a fair amount of nepotism/family connection going on in radonc. I don't think it's necessarily all ill-intended. Radiation oncology is cool (at least we can all agree on that) and (was?) hard to discover, so having a mother or father as a radonc helps one get past one of the biggest barriers to becoming one.

And that nepotism is by no means restricted to white men in our field.

Let's not conflate early and prolonged exposure with nepotism. Nepotism is the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs.

I can think of several multi-generational radiation oncology families (e.g Rodney Million-Lynn Million, Chino siblings (Junzo and Fumiko) whose mother was a radiation oncologist) that probably should not be categorized as nepotists.

Of course there are several recent examples of true nepotism within our specialty. I am surprised as many medical schools have rules that basically state that faculty/staff may not hire or supervise relatives.

 

[elementaryschooleconomics]

Usually more of a lurker, but looking at the vice chair's resume he did get a NIH DP5 grant which is very impressive (arguably harder than a R01). I'm not sure if that makes you quite vice chair material, but certainly a big accomplishment from the research front.

Obviously institution dependent, but I think it's becoming more common for departments to slap the "Vice Chair" title on folks as a way to boost careers without having to 1) pay them more money or 2) going through a committee like when promoting through the professor sequence.

Again, probably not a universal observation but depending on the institution Vice Chair can be an academic participation trophy.

 

[thecarbonionangle]

Nepotism in this field is disgusting and remains a serious issue in our small field.

 

[StIGMA]

I’m more interested to hear what the more senior physician scientists at U Wisc think about having a much more junior person (their mentee) awarded that position.

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

Your criticism of him is based on his religious beliefs?

Is creationism really a religious belief? It's certainly a belief. One could both believe in creation and the big bang as far as I can tell. Perhaps hbosch was saying, in shorthand, that Carson has said some really stupid ****.

 

[deleted480308]

Is creationism really a religious belief? It's certainly a belief. One could both believe in creation and the big bang as far as I can tell. Perhaps hbosch was saying, in shorthand, that Carson has said some really stupid ****.

Biblical creationism is a religious belief

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

Biblical creationism is a religious belief

thanks

 

[evilbooyaa]

I mean yes Harari matched his own son - that is not a smart idea because it screams of nepotism, just like the Columbia chair did a few years ago.

However, for a research focused dept (which Harari seems to be setting up) bringing up someone with extensive grant funding and translational research... he seems to be relatively prolific in terms of being involved in basic science publications since graduating residency as well, as well as being on the sarcoma NCCN guideline committee?

I'm not sure if others at U of Wisc are known for their translational research efforts - I recognize some of the names but more for clinical educator and clinical research efforts.

He's a vice chair but still assistant professor - it could potentially have been a bone thrown to him to keep him from leaving the institution in chase of associate professor hood.

In regards to parent/offspring that are both Rad Oncs, I respect those families who are able to get their kids into BETTER residencies than the parents are involved in.

 

[RickyScott]

I mean yes Harari matched his own son - that is not a smart idea because it screams of nepotism, just like the Columbia chair did a few years ago.

However, for a research focused dept (which Harari seems to be setting up) bringing up someone with extensive grant funding and translational research... he seems to be relatively prolific in terms of being involved in basic science publications since graduating residency as well, as well as being on the sarcoma NCCN guideline committee?

I'm not sure if others at U of Wisc are known for their translational research efforts - I recognize some of the names but more for clinical educator and clinical research efforts.

He's a vice chair but still assistant professor - it could potentially have been a bone thrown to him to keep him from leaving the institution in chase of associate professor hood.

In regards to parent/offspring that are both Rad Oncs, I respect those families who are able to get their kids into BETTER residencies than the parents are involved in.

Saw him give a lecture on io/xrt at Astro a couple years back and came away quite impressed.

 

[brushbeamscanning]

Obviously institution dependent, but I think it's becoming more common for departments to slap the "Vice Chair" title on folks as a way to boost careers without having to 1) pay them more money or 2) going through a committee like when promoting through the professor sequence.

Again, probably not a universal observation but depending on the institution Vice Chair can be an academic participation trophy.

Just to get a sense of compensation, he probably makes more than everyone except for the other large basic science person (Kimple) based on the madison.com database (where numbers are probably off by a factor of ~5-6). I'm not sure what the compensation structure is, potentially the difference seen here is due to less performance based incentives given the higher percentage of protected research time.

Harari is listed as making $196-220k
Morris $80-90k
Kimple (associate) $100-120k

Everyone else in the department
Professor 70k
Associate 60-64k
Assistant 45-53k

 

[Mandelin Rain]

Just to get a sense of compensation, he probably makes more than everyone except for the other large basic science person (Kimple) based on the madison.com database (where numbers are probably off by a factor of ~5-6). I'm not sure what the compensation structure is, potentially the difference seen here is due to less performance based incentives given the higher percentage of protected research time.

Harari is listed as making $196-220k
Morris $80-90k
Kimple (associate) $100-120k

Everyone else in the department
Professor 70k
Associate 60-64k
Assistant 45-53k

I would assume that's correct. More of their total comp would come from salary support via grants, as opposed to performance bonuses for clinical or teaching productivity. But man.... I hope those bonuses are hefty in Madison.

 

[scarbrtj]

Just to get a sense of compensation, he probably makes more than everyone except for the other large basic science person (Kimple) based on the madison.com database (where numbers are probably off by a factor of ~5-6)

Harari is listed as making $196-220k
Morris $80-90k
Kimple (associate) $100-120k

Everyone else in the department
Professor 70k
Associate 60-64k
Assistant 45-53k

One sees these salary public databases and one seems really sure: that ain't what they're getting paid. So one supposes it's just something, like, the publicly funded, purely academic/university side of their total pay which is completely unyoked from the "real money" side which is based on their medical work and reimbursement. So it could be off by almost any "factor" if we knew the "real money"... who knows.

 

[elementaryschooleconomics]

One sees these salary public databases and one seems really sure: that ain't what they're getting paid. So one supposes it's just something, like, the publicly funded, purely academic/university side of their total pay which is completely unyoked from the "real money" side which is based on their medical work and reimbursement. So it could be off by almost any "factor" if we knew the "real money"... who knows.

Yeah it's probably impossible to guess what salaries actually are based on the public information. At my institution, there's a "guaranteed base" for the faculty tied to the University standards - it's far below what the attendings are actually paid. Their salaries are a combo of academic rank, number of years on faculty, grant funding, RVUs, and I'm sure about 14 other things I have never heard of.

Just to get a sense of compensation, he probably makes more than everyone except for the other large basic science person (Kimple) based on the madison.com database (where numbers are probably off by a factor of ~5-6). I'm not sure what the compensation structure is, potentially the difference seen here is due to less performance based incentives given the higher percentage of protected research time.

Harari is listed as making $196-220k
Morris $80-90k
Kimple (associate) $100-120k

Everyone else in the department
Professor 70k
Associate 60-64k
Assistant 45-53k

I would not make the assumption that the "Vice Chair" assistant professor 4 years into his faculty appointment makes more than almost everyone in the department, but I obviously could be way off the mark - just pure speculation.

 

[thecarbonionangle]

There are bigger issues with field than the rapid ascension of a young guy with binders full of accomplishments who just happens to be white, just like most of the department, in a state that is white as snow.

i take issue with corruption, cronyism, nepotism, golden handshake, elitism, backroom under table deal culture of the field, however. This seems common and a serious problem. It is basically Mob rule filled with conmen who just want their ring kissed. As a medical student i encountered this elitism, but i did not realize how big of a problem it was until it was too late.

 

[kimplera]

Just to get a sense of compensation, he probably makes more than everyone except for the other large basic science person (Kimple) based on the madison.com database (where numbers are probably off by a factor of ~5-6). I'm not sure what the compensation structure is, potentially the difference seen here is due to less performance based incentives given the higher percentage of protected research time.

Harari is listed as making $196-220k
Morris $80-90k
Kimple (associate) $100-120k

Everyone else in the department
Professor 70k
Associate 60-64k
Assistant 45-53k

UW splits compensation into Univ (publically available) and Medical Foundation (hidden). So these numbers only represent the "academic" component of salary

 

[MegaVoltagePhoton]

as a woman (that is not 100% white) can I say I am not offended at all by this guy being promoted? I mean seriously of all things to be upset by. Though yes it is a little odd that he is a full vice chair, but maybe he had the time and wanted the position over someone more senior who would have been less research oriented. There are a lot of junior vice chairs out there though most of the ones I have seen only oversee one department thing. I think there are several vice chairs at umich and ucla for example.

 

[RollTideRadOnc]

The guy who got promoted is pretty awesome. I have a feeling that if people ever met him in person, a lot of these complaints would evaporate. He’s a good person and it’s obvious from the get go.

of course, that is not a comment on the general validity of concerns regarding diversity in hiring and promotion. I’ll leave that discussion to others.

 

[Radonky]

The accusations due to his gender/skin color are unfortunate. I don't see how it automatically becomes a social justice issue when an extremely accomplished individual (who happens to be white and male) becomes professionally very accomplished. Knee jerk reactions to race/gender bias will undermine meritocracy that is essential to any successful process.

 

[OTN]

The accusations due to his gender/skin color are unfortunate. I don't see how it automatically becomes a social justice issue when an extremely accomplished individual (who happens to be white and male) becomes professionally very accomplished. Knee jerk reactions to race/gender bias will undermine meritocracy that is essential to any successful process.

Meritocracy is, of course, racist:

The Myth of Meritocracy and African American Health - PMC

Recent theoretical and empirical studies of the social determinants of health inequities have shown that economic deprivation, multiple levels of racism, and neighborhood context limit African American health chances and that African Americans' poor ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Meritocracy: the great delusion that ingrains inequality | Jo Littler

From Theresa May to Donald Trump, our leaders sell it as a utopian system of fairness – but ‘merit’ has been manipulated to privilege the wealthy

www.theguardian.com

The myth of meritocracy: who really gets what they deserve?

The long read: Sorting people by ‘merit’ will do nothing to fix inequality

www.theguardian.com

The Myth of White Meritocracy

While most of society will publicly denounce what certain parents did to get their already privileged children into elite institutions, it is in important ways nothing new.

progressive.org

The False Promise of Meritocracy - This one is pretty good, and talks about ways to truly find who the good performers are in a non-biased way and award them.

LOTS of other articles I could have posted. For example, I didn't include several in the New York Times due to their paywall.

 

[hbosch]

I’m thankful for this discussion including the info on the achievements of Morris as well as how vice chair position may be used by various departments. As a tool to boost a person’s CV so this person gets more grants is very intelligent on the part of the dept because the person getting grants reflects positively on the dept. I see that UMich has a number of chairs/vice hairs with each position having it’s own special name- that’s smart. As a tool to KEEP the person from leaving- yes also effective...

I said in my second post that the person’s race doesn’t bother me much because Wisconsin is definitely 90% white so the whole list of almost all white MDs is reflective of the state of Wisconsin (now if we shifted MCOW- we can probably start throwing criticism there because Milwaukee is not 90% white. It’s 40% black.) I have nothing personal against Morris himself (I don’t know him and have not heard anything bad about him- but we don’t have friends in common I don’t think) and am not doubting his intelligence. If anything my post is primarily anti-Harari (Who I also don’t know but whose son thing I just can’t get over so I question his and UW’s overall judgment. By the way Harari’s son may be super smart- I just also think it would been super smart for him to go elsewhere for residency - imagine how awkward this will be for his co-residents. What if he sucks as a resident - how can his attendings tell him he sucks? Will he get his name automatically on every publication?)

I am still not convinced the female version of Morris would get the same level of support so early on.

I actually would love to know if anyone knows how many years after residency did Jagsi get her deputy chair position? She went to Harvard undergrad, Harvard Med school, got a DPhil from Oxford as Marshall scholar- so honestly started off as pretty similar to Morris.

in that same institution (Michigan) there is a chair (not sure what level chair this is), Daniel Spratt who seems to have a **** ton of grants and 250 publications? If he was AOA in 2010, he probably graduated residency in 2015 or 2016? I’m sure Daniel Spratt is intelligent (as I’m sure Morris is too)...but how has he published 250 papers already so early in his career? How has gotten to be a co-PI on so many grants? The numbers don’t add based on a single person’s labor...which means that he had his name added as one of 20 authors I assume (I’m sure some of those he did a lot of labor on, but all 250 of them at such a young age?) The only way I can explain this and I welcome people proving me wrong is that someone or multiple people were looking out for him, saw his potential or maybe just liked him and included him in a lot of activity even if only nominally to help boost his resume...an early boost of this kind then gives the man momentum to start getting grants that he specifically writes himself...writing the same grant with 5 publications is far less impactful than the same grant with 250 publications behind your name.

I know many will disagree with me but a man is far more likely to get this nominal support than a woman. A man’s potential is far more likely to be seen at a young age than a woman’s (in pretty much any field- not just medicine). I bet Spratt is also a nice person and got ARRO teacher of the year award so clearly the residents like him.

but if Spratt truly did get 250 publications where he did most of the labor I think it would be helpful for many academics to hear how this was accomplished if only so that more academics in our field can accomplish similarly and we (royal wecan improve the overall trajectory of our field, so that more people in the field gets substantial grants. 250 publications- he is so young!! This is absolutely amazing- truly a remarkable accomplishment (and I am not mocking him). I really want to know how he did if only to be in awe.

Granted my personal experience is anecdotal at best, but I know 2 MD PhD females both of whom were essentially shut out of research opportunities in residency as their residencies didn’t see potential in them (was not even considered a possibility). Male co-residents who didn’t have PhDs and had far fewer research experience were given preference on research projects and given more support on finding jobs and more likely to have their name included on publications where they really didn’t do anything. Both are exceptionally hard workers (far more than me and exceptionally intelligent even for a rad onc- they are also nice people who everyone would enjoy being friends with, so personality is not an issue.) No they are not Rhodes or Marshall scholars. Both those females tried to apply for academic positions and would have loved having a lab, both are in PP because they couldn’t find an academic position that would have given enough research support since you know- they didn’t do any real research in residency. (I realize that male or female getting a lab position is near impossible these days in rad onc- so sad).

KHE88, I don’t speak for everyone but Wallner is in his own sphere of awfulness and I do not assume every white male sucks like he does. I don’t think white males suck in general or suck inherently and many a white male has helped me along in college and medical school and I recognize and appreciate their help. I think (and here you will disagree) society favors them more than others, and males in general are favored as having more potential than females which keeps the females from getting ahead in the rat race.

And whoever asked, Yes Creationism is a religious belief..and I believe if you are a creationist you inherently don’t believe in the Big Bang Theory because the Big Bang Theory does not state that God created the universe. I would be obviously surprised if Carson became vice chair of the medical anthropology department or if he was in charge of teaching a class on the evolution of the mammalian brain. But his religious beliefs do not affect his immediate ability as a neurosurgeon in the OR.

and OTN- thank you for those article links. Everyone should read it.

finally, I myself am not in academics so maybe in the end, it’s not my place to say anything about academia since I’m too far removed to know how it works.

 

[OTN]

It’s a small field, so what happens in academia affects us all- for sure you get to comment.

I’m happy to say that I know personally of a female MD/PhD who was supported incredibly well by her old-school faculty chair and, with that support, has risen very quickly in the departmental ranks. Another female MD/PhD who was in my medical school class is now a well-supported attending also at a well-known place.

I sincerely hope female research physicians are supported as well as their male colleagues would be. If not, then I would hope once the “doesn’t care about breastfeeding” crowd is gone things will be different. I know in my generation (X, I guess), I don’t find sexist attitudes regarding job promotion.

 

[hbosch]

It’s a small field, so what happens in academia affects us all- for sure you get to comment.

I’m happy to say that I know personally of a female MD/PhD who was supported incredibly well by her old-school faculty chair and, with that support, has risen very quickly in the departmental ranks. Another female MD/PhD who was in my medical school class is now a well-supported attending also at a well-known place.

I sincerely hope female research physicians are supported as well as their male colleagues would be. If not, then I would hope once the “doesn’t care about breastfeeding” crowd is gone things will be different. I know in my generation (X, I guess), I don’t find sexist attitudes regarding job promotion.

That’s awesome to hear! Whether male or female it’s sad that a PhD would be wasted unless those people just found other passions but most get burnt out from they trying...

I’m not PhD...I enjoyed research in medical school and actually taught myself how to do stats analysis (not a huge accomplishment but still) but in residency I lost interest in research because none of the attendings were supportive. Granted they were very weak researchers to begin with so even if I had a PhD it would have taken a lot of self initiative to do anything of substance. I think it’s definitely foremost important to produce excellent clinicians (which my program accomplished just fine) but there are programs that can learn from the better programs that success of your own residents (be they male or female) would translate to success of your own dept (same with junior faculty success- making your junior faculty who is supposed to do 30% research treat all the keloids and HOs in addition to their chosen sites and see all the inpatients is not productive). It’s odd how some dept almost seem like they’re trying to sabotage their residents/junior faculty. Or maybe I don’t know enough people in the good supportive programs.

As for the field itself for the sake of self preservation, there should be more Holman pathways, more emphasis on translational research, more data science (which I’m thinking is kind of what Spratt does but I haven’t pubmeded him), which I know we’re moving into but we should be moving into it more rapidly (lol, not that I’m keeping a log of our progress).

I actually think Jagsi’s research is awesome and there should be more of her type of research and as someone else here mentioned more research on health disparities and outcome based on race, income (like diving deep into it, not just some NCDB database retrospective thing). Just because we use linear accelerators doesn’t mean we can’t also be at the forefront of research of social based research (I can’t think of the right word here). Obviously our field is so “hardcore science-y” that this type of research is simply not interesting to most but there should be an emphasis on connecting two seemingly disparate fields...if you think about it Jagsi’s research widens the breadth of our field and whether it’s gender equity or something totally different (doesn’t have to be about equity at all), radiation oncology needs to be more creative in pushing the boundaries of research...

But if anyone has details on Spratt’s accomplishments, I’m sincerely curious to know how he accomplished so much. Maybe he should be the keynote speaker at ASTRO and just give us his bio on what led to what led to what...it could be a great lesson for residency programs and departments on What You Should do for your people to help them succeed. There are chairs of top tier depts with less publications than him.

 

[hbosch]

Meritocracy is, of course, racist:

The Myth of Meritocracy and African American Health - PMC

Recent theoretical and empirical studies of the social determinants of health inequities have shown that economic deprivation, multiple levels of racism, and neighborhood context limit African American health chances and that African Americans' poor ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Meritocracy: the great delusion that ingrains inequality | Jo Littler

From Theresa May to Donald Trump, our leaders sell it as a utopian system of fairness – but ‘merit’ has been manipulated to privilege the wealthy

www.theguardian.com

The myth of meritocracy: who really gets what they deserve?

The long read: Sorting people by ‘merit’ will do nothing to fix inequality

www.theguardian.com

The Myth of White Meritocracy

While most of society will publicly denounce what certain parents did to get their already privileged children into elite institutions, it is in important ways nothing new.

progressive.org

The False Promise of Meritocracy - This one is pretty good, and talks about ways to truly find who the good performers are in a non-biased way and award them.

LOTS of other articles I could have posted. For example, I didn't include several in the New York Times due to their paywall.

Can you give the links to the NYTimes articles? If you sign up for an account with an email, you don’t have to subscribe but can get I think 5 articles a month for free. But unlike the Atlantic, you do have to set up an account.

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

But if anyone has details on Spratt’s accomplishments, I’m sincerely curious to know how he accomplished so much. Maybe he should be the keynote speaker at ASTRO and just give us his bio on what led to what led to what...it could be a great lesson for residency programs and departments on What You Should do for your people to help them succeed. There are chairs of top tier depts with less publications than him.

I think the bulk of Spratts success is pretty straightforward: He works hard on a disease site that's relatively easy to study from a pub pov and is more intelligent than the chairs you're talking about.

 

[StIGMA]

Other side of the coin— I’ve been with multiple departments hiring processes for both PhD and MD/PhD candidates.. and there is generally a relative to very strong preference to hiring women research faculty because departments are trying to even things out (institutional pressure, government/societal pressure). I’ve heard the lead faculty search person say that less qualified (research pubs, grants) will receive the interview preference in favor of more accomplished men, and that is intentional. (To be more explicit, with a different department, the phrasing was “we are hiring a woman faculty for this position”).

While this may be balancing out prior systemic bias that favored the men mentioned above... it doesn’t do much to engender confidence in the system. And if they are considered less deserving at the interview level, if hired, who will the department choose to strongly support going forward with special promotions, named professorships etc, especially if the decision is not clear cut?

The problem with this ‘interview solution’ is you can’t really tell how much the systemic bias favored or disfavored a particular candidate (while on the population level it’s clear), so someone is getting the short end of the stick without deserving that outcome.

 

[Phantom1]

Hbosch, I think you said it best yourself right here:

finally, I myself am not in academics so maybe in the end, it’s not my place to say anything about academia since I’m too far removed to know how it works.

I personally dont care for your pages of ramblings about future and upcoming leaders of our field. Your armchair opinions come off as entitled, uninformed, and selective.

Let me explain how people get tons of publications, they are usually highly intellegent, hard working, and collaborative. Let me also explain that the people you are singling out work much harder than you. They sacrifice alot of personal and family time working nights and weekends towards their cause and to advance their field. I mean your statement to that “Carson didn’t deserve his director position..” is so off its rediculous. He was a pediatric surgeon at Johns Hopkins. That example alone along with others people have posted have already debunked whatever point you are trying to make. So if you dont know what you are talking about and dont personally know these people then I suggest you just keep your uninformed opinions to yourself.

 

[Lamount]

Other side of the coin— I’ve been with multiple departments hiring processes for both PhD and MD/PhD candidates.. and there is generally a relative to very strong preference to hiring women research faculty because departments are trying to even things out (institutional pressure, government/societal pressure). I’ve heard the lead faculty search person say that less qualified (research pubs, grants) will receive the interview preference in favor of more accomplished men, and that is intentional. (To be more explicit, with a different department, the phrasing was “we are hiring a woman faculty for this position”).

While this may be balancing out prior systemic bias that favored the men mentioned above... it doesn’t do much to engender confidence in the system. And if they are considered less deserving at the interview level, if hired, who will the department choose to strongly support going forward with special promotions, named professorships etc, especially if the decision is not clear cut?

The problem with this ‘interview solution’ is you can’t really tell how much the systemic bias favored or disfavored a particular candidate (while on the population level it’s clear), so someone is getting the short end of the stick without deserving that outcome.

I try (quite unsuccessfully) to not be involved in recruitment... but the standard I always to to apply when evaluating a new candidate is: has this person done impressive things given the opportunities they had?

 

[hbosch]

Hbosch, I think you said it best yourself right here:



I personally dont care for your pages of ramblings about future and upcoming leaders of our field. Your armchair opinions come off as entitled, uninformed, and selective.

Let me explain how people get tons of publications, they are usually highly intellegent, hard working, and collaborative. Let me also explain that the people you are singling out work much harder than you. They sacrifice alot of personal and family time working nights and weekends towards their cause and to advance their field. I mean your statement to that “Carson didn’t deserve his director position..” is so off its rediculous. He was a pediatric surgeon at Johns Hopkins. That example alone along with others people have posted have already debunked whatever point you are trying to make. So if you dont know what you are talking about and dont personally know these people then I suggest you just keep your uninformed opinions to yourself.

You don’t have to read my ramblings. It’s not required.

 

[evilbooyaa]

Hbosch, I think you said it best yourself right here:



I personally dont care for your pages of ramblings about future and upcoming leaders of our field. Your armchair opinions come off as entitled, uninformed, and selective.

Let me explain how people get tons of publications, they are usually highly intellegent, hard working, and collaborative. Let me also explain that the people you are singling out work much harder than you. They sacrifice alot of personal and family time working nights and weekends towards their cause and to advance their field. I mean your statement to that “Carson didn’t deserve his director position..” is so off its rediculous. He was a pediatric surgeon at Johns Hopkins. That example alone along with others people have posted have already debunked whatever point you are trying to make. So if you dont know what you are talking about and dont personally know these people then I suggest you just keep your uninformed opinions to yourself.

While hbosch is allowed to have his/her opinions on the matter, I mostly agree with this post/rebuttal. Most folks that are prolific in academics are working way longer hours at home, on weekends, during their academic days (not just catching up on contours and such). I think unsubstantiated musings are just those. On SDN you're allowed to ask questions, and people are also allowed to tell you that you're being silly.

But yes, nobody is first/senior author on 250 publications, but putting lots of people for retrospective studies is an unfortunate reality to our field. If you're going to go after somebody like Spratt just for his sheer number of publications, then there should be an author limit to every study published (or maybe every retrospective study published).

 

[hbosch]

While hbosch is allowed to have his/her opinions on the matter, I mostly agree with this post/rebuttal. Most folks that are prolific in academics are working way longer hours at home, on weekends, during their academic days (not just catching up on contours and such). I think unsubstantiated musings are just those. On SDN you're allowed to ask questions, and people are also allowed to tell you that you're being silly.

But yes, nobody is first/senior author on 250 publications, but putting lots of people for retrospective studies is an unfortunate reality to our field. If you're going to go after somebody like Spratt just for his sheer number of publications, then there should be an author limit to every study published (or maybe every retrospective study published).

Yes he’s allowed to rebuttal. I didn’t report him or ask mods to get involved. I’m not going after Spratt. I am impressed with the 250 publications and genuinely asking. Clearly he works hard. Sometimes people get tons of publications because they actually formulated a database that others use - this happens in non-medicine fields, so I’m just wondering if maybe he did that. What I’m saying is that he actually may have contributed something substantial beyond friendly relations. And perhaps more people would like to emulate him.

Having tons of authors on one paper is excessive- but sometimes it’s done to build good relations with referring/other physicians - people in my residency would include other physicians who contributed nothing. I leave it to the publications to decide author limits if they choose.

 

[BruiservonWillebrand]

I like to think of myself as a smart person, but if I had the intelligence, motivation, stamina, and luck to be a Marshall scholar (Jagsi) or Rhodes scholar (Morris) I would do something besides this profession or derivative research within it.

 

[DireMoose]

But if anyone has details on Spratt’s accomplishments, I’m sincerely curious to know how he accomplished so much. Maybe he should be the keynote speaker at ASTRO and just give us his bio on what led to what led to what...it could be a great lesson for residency programs and departments on What You Should do for your people to help them succeed. There are chairs of top tier depts with less publications than him.

Don't know the guy, but like stated above, sounds like he is a Machine.

https://quadshot-news-podcast.simplecast.com/episodes/9162019-dan-spratt

Talks about one of his first projects at MSK. Did chart review 5-7AM for years while finding time for the gym and straight curling 180lbs. Godspeed.

 

[RickyScott]

Don't know the guy, but like stated above, sounds like he is a Machine.

https://quadshot-news-podcast.simplecast.com/episodes/9162019-dan-spratt

Talks about one of his first projects at MSK. Did chart review 5-7AM for years while finding time for the gym and straight curling 180lbs. Godspeed.

Last time I met up with him, he was attempting to use string theory to unify quantum mechanics with gravity.

 

[hbosch]

Don't know the guy, but like stated above, sounds like he is a Machine.

https://quadshot-news-podcast.simplecast.com/episodes/9162019-dan-spratt

Talks about one of his first projects at MSK. Did chart review 5-7AM for years while finding time for the gym and straight curling 180lbs. Godspeed.

Ok, that sounds remarkable. I applaud him.

 

[sloh]

Don't know the guy, but like stated above, sounds like he is a Machine.

https://quadshot-news-podcast.simplecast.com/episodes/9162019-dan-spratt

Talks about one of his first projects at MSK. Did chart review 5-7AM for years while finding time for the gym and straight curling 180lbs. Godspeed.

Calling bull**** at straight curling 180 lbs. Calling into question rest of his claims

 

[DireMoose]

Calling bull**** at straight curling 180 lbs. Calling into question rest of his claims

Ha, I was incorrect. It was "Strict curl 185 lbs for reps" [29mins in podcast]. But I'm right there with you on that, pretty outrageous stuff.

 

[deleted480308]

Calling bull**** at straight curling 180 lbs. Calling into question rest of his claims

https://rawitalia.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/World-Mens-Curl-Records.pdf

That’s world record territory for a 180lb guy

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

Ha, I was incorrect. It was "Strict curl 185 lbs for reps" [29mins in podcast]. But I'm right there with you on that, pretty outrageous stuff.

I heard he doesn’t read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.

 

[RickyScott]

Anti racism as the new religion this week on Sam Harris. Mentions kendi repeatedly as zealously cult like ... If you don’t agree with kendi, you are a racist (kind of like being a pedophile). Also incredulous people pay to hear kendi tell them how racist they are. Counter reaction to this trope is what can get Trump re elected.

Sam Harris | #217 - The New Religion of Anti-Racism

Sam Harris speaks with John McWhorter about race, racism, and “anti-racism” in America.

samharris.org

 

[BobbyHeenan]

Anti racism as the new religion this week on Sam Harris. Mentions kendi repeatedly as zealously cult like ... If you don’t agree with kendi, you are a racist (kind of like being a pedophile). Also mentions that Can’t believe that people pay money to hear kendi tell them how racist they are.

Sam Harris | #217 - The New Religion of Anti-Racism

Sam Harris speaks with John McWhorter about race, racism, and “anti-racism” in America.

samharris.org

Ha - I listened to this late last night and again this AM.

Harris and McWhorter are not Republican Trumpers. McWhorter (black, Obama supporter) and Harris (probably the king of Trump haters, democrat).... these guys are completely reasonable public intellectuals. What they're saying though can't be said by anyone that is "cancellable" though. Could you imagine having the stones/ovararian fortitude to stand up in an ASTRO meeting and say it's crazy to have Kendi here? I know I don't have them.

 

[medgator]

. Counter reaction to this trope is what can get Trump re elected.

Sam Harris | #217 - The New Religion of Anti-Racism

Sam Harris speaks with John McWhorter about race, racism, and “anti-racism” in America.

samharris.org

Of course 45 then perpetually stabs himself in the foot trying to reengineer school curriculums with a nationalist bent and pretending systemic racism doesn't exist at all.

There's a balance somewhere....

 

[OTN]

Of course 45 then perpetually stabs himself in the foot trying to reengineer school curriculums with a nationalist bent and pretending systemic racism doesn't exist at all.

There's a balance somewhere....

The existence of systemic racism isn't a foregone conclusion for many of us as well.

 

[medgator]

The existence of systemic racism isn't a foregone conclusion for many of us as well.

I'm not sure how else you'd categorize redlining....

 

[Chartreuse Wombat]

I'm not sure how else you'd categorize redlining....

Redlining's legacy: Maps are gone, but the problem hasn't disappeared

Mike Bloomberg claims the practice ultimately triggered the 2008 housing crash — but where does the term come from?

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

The existence of systemic racism isn't a foregone conclusion for many of us as well.

Come down south. We also have good bbq.

 

[deleted480308]

Redlining's legacy: Maps are gone, but the problem hasn't disappeared

Mike Bloomberg claims the practice ultimately triggered the 2008 housing crash — but where does the term come from?

www.cbsnews.com

I’m not really sure what everyone wants here.

redlining (marking out bad neighborhoods or lendees by race) is illegal and that should have been that.

but then the govt goes to the CRA and starts grading lenders on how often they give loans to low income people. Low income people are absolutely more likely to fail on paying so they have higher rates (because that’s how actuarial risk works). Then when those lenders foreclose they get told they are evil and predatory.

what is the expectation?

 

[Gfunk6]

Radiation Oncologists will have plenty of time to talk about antiracist policy . . .

 

[OTN]

Redlining's legacy: Maps are gone, but the problem hasn't disappeared

Mike Bloomberg claims the practice ultimately triggered the 2008 housing crash — but where does the term come from?

www.cbsnews.com

An illegal practice that used to be evidence of systemic racism in the United States. Used to be.

The presence of racist people in the South (and, well, everywhere to be frank) does not mean America is systemically racist.

 

[Lamount]

An illegal practice that used to be evidence of systemic racism in the United States. Used to be.

The presence of racist people in the South (and, well, everywhere to be frank) does not mean America is systemically racist.

Speaking as someone who despises many aspects of the woke movement (e.g. the never ending quest for purity, and never saying anything offensive ever), I do think there is some evidence of systemic racism.

...but I think the controversy lies in a disagreement over lexicon

Racist: a person who persistently and proudly thinks another race is inferior, and routinely acts on these feelings (i.e. KKK, neo-nazis et al.)

Racist act: An act that is derogatory towards a person based on his/her race... where the aggressor need not be a 'racist' as defined above (e.g. saying something offensive, making a race-based assumption and acting on it)

Systemic racism: Where large institutions are organized in a way that, intentionally or not, penalize those of a particular race... and such a system need not employ racists or even anyone who commit racist acts.

Redlining was clearly a horrible practice that was systemically racist, but also required actual racists committing racist acts. While this is now illegal, the consequences persist in other forms of systemic racism. For example, education is heavily dependent on property values (or income, if attending a private school). Because of redlining, black folks were forced to rent rather than buy decades ago, and thus missed the opportunity to accumulate wealth and property and pass this down to their children, who now live in the same low-income communities, with overcrowded schools and substandard resources. Because of the practice of redlining years ago, many black children are getting a poor education today. That is systemic racism. It doesn't mean that parents in rich neighborhoods, teachers, principals, or anyone involved in education is necessarily racist or has ever done anything racist... it just means that way the education system has a propensity to penalize black children.

In my opinion, part of the problem with the woke movement is that it seeks atonement for systemic racism... when they should really be recruiting people to help them fix broken systems.

 

[Chartreuse Wombat]

The woke movement doesn't want to solve problems. They want to destroy the current culture and replace it with socialism/communism. Read Pluckrose and Lindsay's short book Cynical Theories.