[Intl_DxMedPhys] Government, science, censorship

[Gary]

!-------------------------------------------------------------------|
  This Message Is From an External Sender
  This message came from outside your organization.
|-------------------------------------------------------------------!

Here's a thought.  Everyone who is outraged at the return to xx/xy biology should consider a career change.  Maybe greater satisfaction is awaiting you in the exciting field of activism, or politics.  I think there is a super abundance of forums for just those topics.  But there are very few good forums for medical physics, and I hope everyone will agree that we should stick to physics to avoid ruining this wonderful resource.  


---
Thanks,
Gary Isenhower




On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 08:09:58 -0500, Bob Pizzutiello via Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu> wrote:

>When politics gets the science wrong, how do responsible scientists
>respond? I am raising a scientific issue of concern.
>
>One of the deeply troubling edicts of the current administration now
>demands retraction of manuscripts in preparation/publication that use
>any of the key words listed in the article below. In recent years
>every hospital I know has been asking medical physicists to advise on
>updating pregnancy policies to address the human and scientific
>reality that the simple terms “male” and “female” do not represent all
>patients. Science is what we do. 
>
>20+ years ago our profession struggled when a California Law
>pertaining to CT scanners included numerous errors that put compliance
>in conflict with scientific fact. 
>
>Perhaps some of our California colleagues would care to refresh our
>collective memories about the complex challenges they encountered as
>they fought for years to change the legislation to be less at
>opposition with science. 
>
>Of course, today’s situation is not based on and legislation.
>
>Finally, I offer my sincere concern to our colleagues at VA, FDA and
>other government agencies who must now face the demand to remove those
>terms while remaining true to the scientific reality that is not as
>simple as binary. They may not choose to be identified, but I plan to
>raise this concern with AAPM’s Government Affairs Committee.
>
>https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/faustfiles/114043?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2025-02-08&mh=cd63cfb826c6259b492e21ab9143b4a3&zdee=gAAAAABm4uQotrW8bAtCQc20dqv7I4FIVoNn-AjQzXpfT7y1hX3RdbBj0pWPFSXMZr70I1N9IwItsKCOPEDJuK5lBKxdutuJ8LQbsQZpQ3JAJoWoNI617-I*3D&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Weekly*20Review*202025-02-08&utm_term=NL_DHE_Weekly_Active__;JSUl!!KGKeukY!0NuOcE-dyb2YN7RQZzdccCV8lgewnOvd9uF7eTzQRMajI4lBjJGw2yYT40EigeACFfPX2JcFKZ-m5jsUdRyYjrn-GSMmcORecAKmwfhO$ 
>
>We should probably focus any comments on the scientific and ethical
>challenge at hand resulting from this anti-scientific censorship, and
>resist blowing up this list with political rhetoric, no matter how
>strongly held. 
>
>Bob
>From Bob Pizzutiello, via iPad