That is a good question, and I'm sure many of the people at UCSF are asking similar questions. However, his sort of misconduct is not the type that would usually violate tenure protections. Beyond the minor CV fibbing, without some evidence that he actually, say, solicited a bribe from Moderna, it's unlikely that he can face any sort of official sanction.

The fraud is in his supposed thrust towards better scientific rigor when he is so sloppy with major decisions of life and death.

Just as the comment up there says that HN comments that are critical and misinformed get a lot of attention and upvotes, Prasad has been highly critical and misinformed about scientific research, and his stint at the FDA has exposed that his critiques are much like that top-level HN comment that doesn't get things quite right.

▲

JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> not the type that would usually violate tenure

How can one tell whether he has tenure?

▲

epistasis 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

For normal research universities, like UCSF, the titles of Professor and Associate Professors have tenure. Assistant Professors are tenure-track, meaning that they have the chance to get tenure. Prasad has the title of Professor.

▲

dogmatism an hour ago | parent | next [-]

One can make the argument that Prasad has his title of Professor due to the stature he gained with his ill-founded contrarianism and subsequent notoriety. He was promoted in 2022 at the somewhat astonishing age of 39, at a time when his actual scientific output was not particularly high

The whole thing is kind of fascinating. Some of his "skeptic" fellow travelers like Cifu and Mandrola still carry water for him. Presumably he has a champion in Bob Wachter who also likes to fly the "contrarian" flag.

COVID really brought out a lot of crazies from UCSF and Stanford

▲

JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Would you say Prasad’s public-health misconduct rises to the level where creating a statutory change to what permits firing under tenure makes sense?

▲

fn-mote 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I would say that the US has had enough destruction of institutions and few enough institutional protections of individuals.

I can dislike someone’s stance while at the same time recognizing that others benefit from the same protections.

If protections are reduced, the process will be weaponized.

▲

JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> If protections are reduced, the process will be weaponized

This is a valid concern. So is moral hazard from a lack of accountability. I’m trying to figure out how those balance.

	▲	estearum 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		One way they should balance in a functioning society is that while tenure would protect you from negative repercussions within the walls of an academic institution, a Congress with any semblance of seriousness and care toward the American people would ensure you never set foot inside a policy-making institution.

▲

3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

peyton 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> he is so sloppy with major decisions of life and death

To be clear, the FDA regulates marketing claims. “Is the label accurate?”

Major decisions about life and death are between the doctor and the patient, not the FDA.

It sounds like you’re taking an expansive view of this government agency’s mandate. People will push back on this at the ballot box, even if they can’t put it to words themselves.

	▲	estearum 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The FDA regulates which drugs make it to market which is itself an extremely powerful force (excessively so) on conversations between you and your doctor. In the case of vaccines, FDA's decisions can quite obviously make a difference in whether we have a rampant lethal pathogen roaring through our schools and killing our children and elderly... or not. It's pedantic to the point of being outright false to say the FDA is not involved in major decisions of life and death. Silly take.