Brown University and PLoS ONE: Defend academic freedom and scientific inquiry

I'm sorry to see Brown caving in to pressure from activists. Those same activists would doubtless say that gender dysphoria is eminently deserving of study, but it turns out that study is only acceptable if it produces the results that fit in with the activists' predetermined script. This isn't science and it isn't scholarship.

Even if this study were methodologically flawed (which it doesn't appear to be), it has been through the standard ethical review, and peer review processes. Those are the appropriate ways for science to be monitored and regulated. Simply attacking one of your own scientists because of the statements of a group of activists is extremely disturbing, from an employment rights point of view. It's also completely farcical to claim you support integrity and independence of your scientists if you then publicly chastise them because their findings are disliked by a small number of people. How dare you! As a researcher into evidence and policy, I also find this disturbing. There is no good scientific evidence for gender identity (Judith Butler doesn't count, I'm afraid - as a theorist she has little to say about lived experiences). Dr Littman collected much needed empirical data about this topic, which is exactly what you are employing her to do. She is the one with the evidence - yet you are suppressing it, and her, in favour of an ideological position. However you feel about the debate which trans activists are engaged in, it is CLEARLY not appropriate for a university to take sides, and even less appropriate for a university to take the side which is attempting to remove evidence and honest and open debate. Shame on you.

please. we need this research yesterday. girls get to.love their bodies and feel their feminine power. this push for erasure has got to have some push back.

The topics of gender identity, gender dysphoria, and transition as a healthy choice are taught and advanced in schools, medical offices, and every form of media. People hold strong opinions on these issues. Their opinions are based on what they’ve been allowed to see. Littman’s work provides new information that must be considered when forming opinions and making decisions, especially when these decisions affect the future health and well-being of our youth.

Set researchers free and let the facts speak for themselves.

If we can’t discuss everything in academic setting then it’s fascism.

Are we not allowed to even consider it a 'possibility' that social contagion may be at play? Is it hate crime to question?

Suppressing legitimate research is a criminal act. Only those with an agenda want to do this.

I believe in the right to enquiry and debate

This important research that will contribute to research evidence in an area with real-world implications and a paucity of research. It is open about its limitations whilst contributing to the literature. To hold it to a different standard because it may upset people is to do a disservice to science.

It is not the place of academics to be bullied into silence by political activists with a single aim.

Scientific freedom trumps emotional reactions

I support you!

Social media is not peer review and must not be allowed to gatekeep academic freedom. Do more research, publish more data, write an editorial. But NO to vigilantism in science.

In the interests of academic freedom and the importance of research without which we are left only with Indivdual oponions and feelings.

A university should not be afraid to research the hard topics

I am disgusted by the anti-intellectual action taken against Lisa Litman by Brown University with respect to her research on ROGD. I have no particular interest in ROGD and am just an ordinary citizen. Although as a father of a college student I am profoundly disappointed by the spineless conduct of Brown's administration that seems eager to capitulate in the face of controversy and abandon free and open scientific inquiry. That's not just bad for Brown, but bad for all of higher education, in my opinion. I hope Brown resists the temptation to teach Ms. Littman a lesson for demonstrating a propensity for wrong-think.

Academic research shouldn't be silenced because of the current political trend. Facts are facts, and should be accepted.

Suppression of research and polarisation of discussion can, in the long run, only lead to a bad situation for all concerned, probably in ways we cannit even imagine yet.

Freedom of speech is of the utmost importance.