Last month, Crikey reported that the University of Queensland had come down hard on an academic, Dr Andrew Gunn, for raising questions in public about the Gardasil vaccine, which earns the university a mint.
After receiving a complaint from the pharmaceutical company CSL Ltd about Dr Gunn’s comments on radio, the University’s Secretary and Registrar, Douglas Porter, asked Gunn to provide a written apology to CSL stating that the “comments were made by you in your personal capacity and were not endorsed or authorised by the University”. Porter also asked to be sent a copy of Gunn’s letter.
Viewers of last night’s 7.30 Report could be forgiven for assuming that the University had backed down on this heavy-handed approach which – as I have previously reported in the British Medical Journal – had drawn strong criticism from academics in Australia and overseas.
Its statement to the program said: “The University acknowledges that its action in writing to Dr Gunn may have been disproportionate to the circumstances. If Dr Gunn does not agree that an apology is appropriate, then the University will not pursue the issue. In order to avoid similar situations in the future, the University is considering a process to clarify the circumstances in which honorary academic titles may be used.”
Does the University's latest pronouncement encroach on the freedom of speech traditionally afforded by the tenure system of academic appointments?
Do you think that Universities should be able to stipulate when academics speaking publicly can use their academic titles?
Links to documents providing more background to this case are available in the original story.
