[BostonCard]

The way billets at Stanford (the equivalent of FTEs) work is super duper complicated, and differs for different tracks.  I have no idea whether the Hoover institution even uses the Stanford's appointment system.  I see that Hoover fellows are appointed for renewable five-year terms.  I have no issues if at the end of Atlas' five-year term his scholarship is reviewed, and if it falls short of Hoover's criteria for renewal, he is not re-appointed.  I do take issue with calls for him to be summarily dismissed for his views.

I have perhaps a bit more tolerance for heterodox views because the field of medicine is littered with views about disease that turned out not to be true and were debunked by individuals who held minority viewpoints, sometimes against seemingly overwhelming evidence. There was "overwhelming" evidence that ulcers were caused by stress, until an Australian doctor actually drank a vial of H. pilori and gave himself an ulcer.  Likewise, everyone "knew" that hormone replacement therapy reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease in post-menopausal women, to the point where many people considered it unethical to run a randomized, placebo-controlled study of hormone replacement; lo and behold, that study showed that not only does estrogen replacement therapy not reduce cardiovascular disease, but that it increases the risk.

BC

[BostonCard]

The way billets at Stanford (the equivalent of FTEs) work is super duper complicated, and differs for different tracks.  I have no idea whether the Hoover institution even uses the Stanford's appointment system.  I see that Hoover fellows are appointed for renewable five-year terms.  I have no issues if at the end of Atlas' five-year term his scholarship is reviewed, and if it falls short of Hoover's criteria for renewal, he is not re-appointed.  I do take issue with calls for him to be summarily dismissed for his views.

I have perhaps a bit more tolerance for heterodox views because the field of medicine is littered with views about disease that turned out not to be true and were debunked by individuals who held minority viewpoints, sometimes against seemingly overwhelming evidence. There was "overwhelming" evidence that ulcers were caused by stress, until an Australian doctor actually drank a vial of H. pilori and gave himself an ulcer.  Likewise, everyone "knew" that hormone replacement therapy reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease in post-menopausal women, to the point where many people considered it unethical to run a randomized, placebo-controlled study of hormone replacement; lo and behold, that study showed that not only does estrogen replacement therapy not reduce cardiovascular disease, but that it increases the risk.

BC