Tag: advocating

  • UNC Professor Accused of Advocating Political Violence Reinstated

    UNC Professor Accused of Advocating Political Violence Reinstated

    University officials found “no basis” that Dixon posed a threat or violated university policy.

    Marin Herold/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    Dwayne Dixon, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, was reinstated Friday after the university performed a “thorough threat assessment,” Dean Stoyer, vice chancellor for communications and marketing, said in a statement. 

    Dixon was placed on leave Monday following allegations that he was an advocate for political violence.

    “The Carolina Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management Team consulted with the UNC System security office and with local law enforcement, undertaking a robust, swift and efficient review of all the evidence. We have found no basis to conclude that he poses a threat to University students, staff, and faculty, or has engaged in conduct that violates University policy,” Stoyer said in a statement. “As a result, the University is reinstating Professor Dixon to his faculty responsibilities, effective immediately.”

    Dixon is a teaching associate professor of Asian and Middle Eastern studies at UNC Chapel Hill, and he’s been active at counterprotests to alt-right rallies, including at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017. He’s also a strong advocate for gun rights and used to be a member of the Silver Spring Redneck Revolt, a chapter of the now-disbanded antifascist, antiracist, anticapitalist political group Redneck Revolt. Andrew Kolvet, a spokesperson for the late Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA, called for Dixon to be fired in an X post because of these affiliations.

    Source link

  • Shaping the Future of Cancer Treatment and Advocating for Women in STEM

    Shaping the Future of Cancer Treatment and Advocating for Women in STEM

    Megan O’Meara, M.D., head of early-stage development at Pfizer Oncology, is deeply committed to scientific innovation, mentorship, and breaking barriers for the next generation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) industries. In this conversation, Megan shares her journey in oncology, leadership philosophy, and vision of a world where people with cancer live better and longer lives.

    Megan O’Meara, M.D.

    Head of Early-Stage Development, Pfizer Oncology

    What drew you to pursue a career in oncology and what is it that inspires you most about working in this field?

    I’ve always been curious about science. My grandfather was a pediatrician, and as a child he read books to me about the history of medicine. In high school, I worked in cancer research labs, and that gave me exposure to the field from an early age. By the time I was in college, there were exciting advancements happening, including broader use of tumor profiling and targeted therapies. I felt there was a huge opportunity to transform cancer treatment, and I knew I wanted to be part of it. I pursued my medical degree and later went into academic research before transitioning to industry, where I felt I might have the broadest impact on the greatest number of people.

    Women make up less than 30% of the global STEM workforce. What has your experience been as a woman in research?

    Being a woman in a historically male-dominated field can come with unique challenges and opportunities. There were times when I was the only woman in the room. On occasion, I felt like the only one leaving the office on time to make dinner for my family and worried about missing opportunities or important conversations that were happening when I wasn’t there.

    Over time, I learned to accept the situation and be confident in setting personal boundaries. I inserted myself in different ways and advanced my career without losing who I am. I developed the confidence to be me — bringing my most authentic and whole self to work. Now, I encourage and empower other women to do the same.

    As an industry, there’s still a long way to go. At a recent oncology conference, research showed that men presenting were introduced as “Dr.” while women were introduced by their first names. It seems nuanced, but it reflects a larger issue. Even in a field like oncology, where we pride ourselves on progress, bias still exists in subtle but pervasive ways. Things are improving, but they’re not where they should be yet. That’s why I feel so strongly about uplifting other women and creating opportunities for women in science.

    Learn more about Pfizer Oncology at Let’s Outdo Cancer.

    How are you working to change the research field to be more inclusive and supportive of women?

    There were many people, particularly female leaders, throughout my career who saw my potential and championed my advancement. I try to do the same for all my team at Pfizer, including the talented women that work with me. I mention their names when I’m in a room with other leaders; I look for opportunities that will showcase their potential.

    Outside of work, I volunteer at my daughter’s elementary school to organize events that engage students with science, such as bringing in Pfizer scientists to demonstrate lab techniques like DNA isolation and talk about how science can be applied to areas they are interested in. Studies show that girls start losing interest in science around age 12, so, if we can work to address that early, it can make a difference in improving female representation in STEM fields.

    I’m also active in the Society for Immunotherapy in Cancer (SITC) Women in Cancer Immunotherapy Network. I’ve spoken about my journey in research at their events, which are often attended by many women in both academia and industry who are at a crossroads in their career. They’re wondering, “Can I do this?” Hearing people’s stories about how they made it work can be incredibly inspiring.

    As head of the division at Pfizer Oncology responsible for developing innovative cancer treatments, what excites you most about the work your team is currently doing?

    Right now, I’m particularly excited about our work in antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). ADCs are innovative cancer medicines that specifically target cancer cells and deliver cancer-killing drugs ​directly to tumors, while sparing more of the healthy cells in the body. ​

    ADCs have been the foundation of my career, having worked in the space for almost 15 years. This depth of experience, knowledge, and history is being applied now to what we’re doing at Pfizer to advance the field. And we’ve had a huge impact already — bringing treatments to people with blood cancer for the first time in decades and significantly changing the standard of care across tumor types.

    Now, as a company, we’re asking, “How do we make ADCs even safer and more effective?” We’re exploring new drug linkers, different payloads, and novel combinations, all with the goal of giving patients better options. This kind of innovation is why I pursued a career in STEM — it’s tremendously fulfilling to be bringing us closer to a world where people with cancer live better and longer lives.

    How is Pfizer uniquely positioned to make progress in cancer treatment?

    I like to say Pfizer embodies a spirit of innovation and we have some of the most brilliant and dedicated scientists I’ve ever worked with. It’s rare to work at a company, even in big pharma, that has demonstrated leadership across multiple modalities of science the way Pfizer has. We’re constantly learning, adapting, and investing in what’s next across a wide pipeline of products. It’s an amazing powerhouse to be a part of.

    For me, our success is also due to a culture — set by our executives — where each person has the opportunity to thrive. Chris Boshoff, chief scientific officer and president, R&D, is passionate about showcasing the team and giving people opportunities. I’ve experienced the same from other leaders. When I first joined Pfizer, Sally Susman, executive vice president and chief corporate affairs officer, introduced herself and said, “Next time you’re in New York, come meet my team.” She brought me into her leadership meeting and helped me build connections. These are just two of many people that have gone out of their way to create an environment where I am able to bring my best self to work, and I am doing the same to ensure my team of scientists has everything they need to succeed.

    What do you hope for the future of women in STEM?

    I hope that in 20 years, women don’t have to navigate as many barriers. I hope everyone can bring their whole self to the table without feeling like they need to sacrifice a piece of their personal life to succeed. Instead of feeling impostor syndrome around big opportunities, I hope women ask themselves, “Why not me?”

    We still have work to do, but I truly believe we’re making progress. By supporting women, we’re supporting a better industry and better science.

    Learn more about Pfizer Oncology at Let’s Outdo Cancer.

    Source link

  • A legislative solution to student suicide prevention: advocating for opt-out consent in response to student welfare concerns

    A legislative solution to student suicide prevention: advocating for opt-out consent in response to student welfare concerns

    Authored by Dr Emma Roberts, Head of Law at the University of Salford.

    The loss of a student to suicide is a profound and heartbreaking tragedy, leaving families and loved ones devastated, while exposing critical gaps in the support systems within higher education. Each death is not only a personal tragedy but also a systemic failure, underscoring the urgent need for higher education institutions to strengthen their safeguarding frameworks.

    Recent government data revealed that 5.7% of home students disclosed a mental health condition to their university in 2021/22, a significant rise from under 1% in 2010/11. Despite this growing awareness of mental health challenges, the higher education sector is grappling with the alarming persistence of student suicides.

    The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported a rate of 3.0 deaths per 100,000 students in England and Wales in the academic year ending 2020, equating to 64 lives lost. Behind each statistic lies a grieving family, unanswered questions and the haunting possibility that more could have been done. These statistics force universities to confront uncomfortable truths about their ability to support vulnerable students.

    The time for piecemeal solutions has passed. To confront this crisis, bold and systemic reforms are required. One such reform – the introduction of an opt-out consent system for welfare contact – has the potential to transform how universities respond to students in crisis.

    An opt-out consent model

    At present, universities typically rely on opt-in systems, where students are asked to nominate a contact to be informed in emergencies. This has come to be known as the Bristol consent model. Where this system exists, they are not always invoked when students face severe mental health challenges. The reluctance often stems from concerns about breaching confidentiality laws and the fear of legal repercussions. This hesitancy can result in critical delays in involving a student’s support network at the time when their wellbeing may be most at risk, leaving universities unable to provide timely, life-saving interventions. Moreover, evidence suggests that many students, particularly those experiencing mental health challenges, fail to engage with these systems, leaving institutions unable to notify loved ones when serious concerns arise.

    Not all universities have such a system in place. And some universities, while they may have a ‘nominated person’ process, lack the infrastructure to appropriately engage the mechanism of connecting with the emergency contact when most needed.

    An opt-out consent model would reverse this default, automatically enrolling students into a system where a trusted individual – such as a parent, guardian or chosen contact – can be notified if their wellbeing raises grave concerns. Inspired by England and Wales’ opt-out system for organ donation, this approach would prioritise safeguarding without undermining student autonomy.

    Confidentiality must be balanced with the need to protect life. An opt-out model offers precisely this balance, creating a proactive safety net that supports students while respecting their independence.

    Legislative provision

    For such a system to succeed, it must be underpinned by robust legislation and practical safeguards. Key measures would include:

    1. Comprehensive communication: universities must clearly explain the purpose and operation of the opt-out system during student onboarding, ensuring that individuals are fully informed of their rights and options.
    2. Defined triggers: criteria for invoking welfare contact must be transparent and consistently applied. This might include extended absences, concerning behavioural patterns or explicit threats of harm.
    3. Regular reviews: students should have opportunities to update or withdraw their consent throughout their studies, ensuring the system remains flexible and respectful of changing personal circumstances.
    4. Privacy protections: institutions must share only essential information with the nominated contact, ensuring the student’s broader confidentiality is preserved.
    5. Staff training: university staff, including academic and professional services personnel, must receive regular training on recognising signs of mental health crises, navigating confidentiality boundaries and ensuring compliance with the opt-out system’s requirements. This training would help ensure interventions are timely, appropriate and aligned with legal and institutional standards.
    6. Reporting and auditing: universities should implement robust reporting and auditing mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of the opt-out system. This should include maintaining records of instances where welfare contact was invoked, monitoring outcomes and conducting periodic audits to identify gaps or areas for improvement. Transparent reporting would not only enhance accountability but also foster trust among stakeholders.

    Lessons from the organ donation model

    The opt-out system for organ donation introduced in both Wales and England demonstrates the effectiveness of reframing consent to drive societal benefit. Following its implementation, public trust was maintained and the number of registered organ donors increased. A similar approach in higher education could establish a proactive baseline for safeguarding without coercing students into participation.

    Addressing legal and cultural barriers

    A common barrier to implementing such reforms is the fear of overstepping legal boundaries. Currently, universities are hesitant to breach confidentiality, even in critical situations, for fear of breaching trust and privacy and prompting litigation. Enshrining the opt-out system in law to include the key measures listed above would provide institutions with the clarity and confidence to act decisively, ensuring consistency across the sector. Culturally, universities must address potential scepticism by engaging students, staff and families in dialogue about the system’s goals and safeguards.

    The need for legislative action

    To ensure the successful implementation of an opt-out consent system, decisive actions are required from both the government and higher education institutions. The government must take the lead by legislating the introduction of this system, creating a consistent, sector-wide approach to safeguarding student wellbeing. Without legislative action, universities will remain hesitant, lacking the legal clarity and confidence needed to adopt such a bold model.

    Legislation is the only way to ensure every student, regardless of where they study, receives the same high standard of protection, ending the current postcode lottery in safeguarding practices across the sector.

    A call for collective action

    Universities, however, must not wait idly for legislation to take shape. They have a moral obligation to begin addressing the gaps in their welfare notification systems now. By expanding or introducing opt-in systems as an interim measure, institutions can begin closing these gaps, gathering critical data and refining their practices in readiness for a sector-wide transition.

    Universities should unite under sector bodies to lobby the government for legislative reform, demonstrating their collective commitment to safeguarding students. Furthermore, institutions must engage their communities – students, staff and families – in a transparent dialogue about the benefits and safeguards of the opt-out model, ensuring a broad base of understanding and support for its eventual implementation.

    This dual approach of immediate institutional action paired with long-term legislative reform represents a pragmatic and proactive path forward. Universities can begin saving lives today while laying the groundwork for a robust, consistent and legally supported safeguarding framework for the future.

    Setting a New Standard for Student Safeguarding

    The rising mental health crisis among students demands more than institutional goodwill – it requires systemic change. While the suicide rate among higher education students is lower than in the general population, this should not be a cause for complacency. Each loss is a profound tragedy and a clear signal that systemic improvements are urgently needed to save lives. Higher education institutions have a duty to prioritise student wellbeing and must ensure that their environments offer the highest standards of safety and support. An opt-out consent system for welfare contact is not a panacea, but it represents a critical step towards creating safer and more supportive university environments.

    The higher education sector has long recognised the importance of student wellbeing, yet its current frameworks remain fragmented and reactive. This proposal is both bold and achievable. It aligns with societal trends towards proactive safeguarding, reflects a compassionate approach to student welfare and offers a legally sound mechanism to prevent future tragedies.

    The loss of 64 students to suicide in a single academic year is a stark reminder that the status quo is failing. By adopting an opt-out consent system, universities can create a culture of care that saves lives, supports grieving families and fulfils their duty to protect students.

    The time to act is now. With legislative backing and sector-wide commitment, this reform could become a cornerstone of a more compassionate and effective national response to student suicide prevention.

    Source link