Latest news with #AliceSullivan
Yahoo
12-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Labour must show it understands women's rights
We are only now discovering how much damage has been done in the name of gender ideology. Last month, a review led by Professor Alice Sullivan revealed that official records, ranging from those held by the NHS to the criminal justice system, have been 'corrupted' for years, and on a large scale, by the usurpation of biological sex by self-declared gender. Statistics on sex offences are being distorted by male offenders identifying as female. Defendants have been allowed to change their identities before trial, potentially affecting the verdict or sentence. Now, at last, the courts have been given notice to deny defendants this wish automatically. Judges and magistrates are being advised not to accept unquestioningly preferred pronouns and self-ID, especially in regard to those accused of sex offences. There has been no requirement for defendants to present a Gender Recognition Certificate. Until now all they have needed to do is declare their desire to be referred to by the pronouns of the opposite sex. It is long overdue for the courts to insist on due process before a fact as fundamental as a person's legal identity can be changed. The legal system retains, however, a systematic bias in favour of self-ID. For example, the Crown Prosecution Service still instructs prosecutors 'to address trans victims, witnesses and defendants according to their affirmed gender and name'. It may be a while before courts revert to using objective rather than subjective criteria – a practice they should never have abandoned. Fortunately there are courageous individuals in the public arena who are standing up against the tyranny of identity politics. Perhaps surprisingly, some of these intrepid spirits work at the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Last week, the commission submitted a 310-page revision of its Statutory Code of Practice. If fully implemented, this code would protect the sex-based rights of women and represent a welcome victory for campaigners such as Maya Forstater. Such a move would not infringe the rights of transgender people, because gender reassignment is already a protected characteristic. It would, however, make it easier for single-sex spaces to be reserved for women only. By ensuring that women, defined by biological sex, are also protected, this reform would prevent men from using self-ID to gain access to women. The new court guidelines and the proposal by the Equality Commission are both important steps towards a more rational approach to sex and gender. Public opinion has never supported the tiny minority of gender extremists who have sought not only to cast doubt on the facts of life, but also to criminalise common sense. Yet this arena of the culture wars is still fiercely contested. Why has the pushback taken so long? And when will the Prime Minister get off the fence? Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
12-04-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Labour must show it understands women's rights
We are only now discovering how much damage has been done in the name of gender ideology. Last month, a review led by Professor Alice Sullivan revealed that official records, ranging from those held by the NHS to the criminal justice system, have been 'corrupted' for years, and on a large scale, by the usurpation of biological sex by self-declared gender. Statistics on sex offences are being distorted by male offenders identifying as female. Defendants have been allowed to change their identities before trial, potentially affecting the verdict or sentence. Now, at last, the courts have been given notice to deny defendants this wish automatically. Judges and magistrates are being advised not to accept unquestioningly preferred pronouns and self-ID, especially in regard to those accused of sex offences. There has been no requirement for defendants to present a Gender Recognition Certificate. Until now all they have needed to do is declare their desire to be referred to by the pronouns of the opposite sex. It is long overdue for the courts to insist on due process before a fact as fundamental as a person's legal identity can be changed. The legal system retains, however, a systematic bias in favour of self-ID. For example, the Crown Prosecution Service still instructs prosecutors 'to address trans victims, witnesses and defendants according to their affirmed gender and name'. It may be a while before courts revert to using objective rather than subjective criteria – a practice they should never have abandoned. Fortunately there are courageous individuals in the public arena who are standing up against the tyranny of identity politics. Perhaps surprisingly, some of these intrepid spirits work at the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Last week, the commission submitted a 310-page revision of its Statutory Code of Practice. If fully implemented, this code would protect the sex-based rights of women and represent a welcome victory for campaigners such as Maya Forstater. Such a move would not infringe the rights of transgender people, because gender reassignment is already a protected characteristic. It would, however, make it easier for single-sex spaces to be reserved for women only. By ensuring that women, defined by biological sex, are also protected, this reform would prevent men from using self-ID to gain access to women. The new court guidelines and the proposal by the Equality Commission are both important steps towards a more rational approach to sex and gender. Public opinion has never supported the tiny minority of gender extremists who have sought not only to cast doubt on the facts of life, but also to criminalise common sense. Yet this arena of the culture wars is still fiercely contested. Why has the pushback taken so long? And when will the Prime Minister get off the fence?
Telegraph
06-04-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
NHS doctors taught how to ‘change' transgender patients' registered sex
NHS doctors have been taught how to help transgender patients re-register 'with a new sex marker' on public records, in defiance of a recent review. In a briefing session for GPs and other clinical staff, top doctors at the adult gender identity clinic at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, explained 'how to amend records accordingly to avoid subsequent upset and possible complaints'. The session, which was delivered on Thursday evening, explained various aspects of the care transgender patients receive, and advised GPs on how to refer them, maintain a 'lifelong prescription of maintenance hormone therapy ' and change their recorded sex. The advice defies a recent review by Prof Alice Sullivan, a professor of sociology at University College London, who outlined the risks of conflating biological sex and gender when it comes to clinical care, sex-specific cancer screenings and safeguarding. In the session, Dr James Barrett, the lead doctor at the Tavistock's adult gender identity clinic, explained to family doctors how to change sex markers, including on passports and at the bank. He told doctors: 'Changing your name is really quite simple and easy, and once you've changed your name, you can re-register yourself in your new name and with a new sex marker in very many of the places where we're all registered: at the bank, at the Gilbert and Sullivan Appreciation Society, and the tax and benefits agency, and down the dentist and on your driving licence. 'To change the sex marker on your passport, the patient will need a letter. The letter can come from a primary care practitioner [a GP] or can come from the clinic.' He added: 'All that letter says is that this person is now living as a woman or is now living as a man, so far as I know, and seems to be doing so all of the time. 'Because it's a statement about how the person looks, if they look like they are living as a woman, that's what needs to be on their passport. The patient can change their own driving licence. They don't need your assistance with that.' The advice comes despite the Sullivan review recommending that transgender patients do not receive new NHS numbers and changed gender markers. The review cites the importance of biological sex in providing healthcare, for example, when it comes to inviting patients for cancer screenings or for doctors to make a diagnosis about symptoms, for which the cause may differ based on a person's sex. Prof Sullivan said 'a confusion between sex and transgender and gender-diverse identities' had developed in recent years and there had been attempts to 'merge these two things into one variable'. She also said police forces should record data on sex in their systems and stop allowing changes to be made to individuals' sex markers on the Police National Computer. The Department of Health said the findings would be considered with 'the gravity they deserve, as it reforms gender identity services across the board', but there are yet to be any legislative updates. The information session also provided doctors with 'an understanding that people in a new gender role usually need a lifelong prescription of maintenance hormone therapy and the implications for you'. It was also said in the session 'that a patient's prior change of gender role is rarely clinically relevant and does not need to be mentioned'. The doctors also discussed the 'need to consider birth gender when offering routine screening for cervical and breast cancer and aortic aneurysm'. It comes after The Telegraph revealed the General Medical Council is planning to remove sex and gender from the doctors' register, meaning patients will not be able to look it up. Dr Barrett also likened the idea of segregating people based on sex, such as in hospital wards, to being the same as segregating people based on race. He said if a woman calls the police because a transgender person is present in the toilet, 'it is exactly the same as if you were to call the police and complain that there is a black person at the toilet and they've got to come and do something about it'. Similarly, he described the question of 'which ward' to place a trans person in as being equivalent to asking 'can we put this ethnic minority person on the ward', claiming they are equal because they are both protected characteristics. Helen Joyce, director of advocacy at human rights charity Sex Matters, said the 'ill-founded advice to his peers is particularly tone-deaf given that the ink on the Sullivan Review is barely dry'. 'Prof Sullivan provided ample evidence of the serious harm done by destroying sex-based data, yet here is a senior doctor trivialising changes to official records by overwriting the material reality of biological sex with undefined 'gender identity',' she said. 'It is trans people who will be most harmed by destroying sex-based data records.' She said the comparison was 'deeply offensive' and the 'sort of superficial comparison you might expect from a teenager who has watched too many TikTok videos, not a doctor in a senior leadership position'. A spokesman for Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust said: 'Staff from our adult gender identity clinic run information sessions for healthcare professionals. 'These involve clinician-to-clinician discussions about a range of issues including prescribing, maintenance hormone therapy, birth gender and its implications for routine cancer screening and cardiovascular outcomes.'
Telegraph
01-04-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
Trans activists urge doctors to fight NHS data overhaul
Trans activists are urging NHS staff to campaign against plans to protect women by collecting data on sex and not gender. They have posted on NHS England's LGBT intranet to implore doctors and nurses to show their 'allyship' by writing to their MP to oppose the proposed changes. In a report last month, Professor Alice Sullivan said police forces and the NHS should collect data on biological sex rather than a person's self-declared gender identity. Critics say that allowing public bodies to remove sex from statistical records compromises research into women's issues and makes it difficult for researchers to spot trends in rape cases, medical trials or gender pay gaps. Professor Sullivan's review found that cancer referrals had been missed and previous convictions overlooked because biological sex was not being recorded. The report was welcomed by Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, who said having accurate data on sex was vital for patient safety. But activists have described it as 'biased, inadequate and potentially harmful'. 'Demonstrate your allyship' In a post on NHS England's LGBT network, one activist linked to a statement from the group TransActual which rejected the report. The post said: 'Leading transgender organisation TransActual together with academics from the Feminist Gender Equality Network (FGEN) today rejected the conclusion of a report on data collection by academic Professor Alice Sullivan as biased, inadequate and potentially harmful to all citizens of the UK, whether trans or not. 'For allies within the network, now is the time to take action. Demonstrate your allyship by writing to your local MP and urging them to oppose the recommendations of the report. 'Encourage them to speak out against it within their party and advocate for a more inclusive approach.' The activist then linked to TransActual's statement on the Sullivan Review, which claimed the idea that there are only two sexes is 'factually incorrect' and an 'incorrect dog-whistle assertion'. It also said Professor Sullivan was a 'prominent anti-trans activist'. Its strategy director, Keyne Walker, said: 'These recommendations would do nothing to support the Government's stated objectives regarding equality and diversity, nor on data use. It represents a deviation from the Government's stated position, and would be a U-turn should it be implemented. 'Worse, the experience of those working in the field suggests that far from improving data quality, the measures promoted by this report would make data collected on sex and gender far less reliable. 'The Sullivan Review is rooted in factually incorrect assertions about the binary nature of sex and gender and antipathy towards trans people, despite lip-service towards respect for diverse gender identities. 'The Review's recommendation for both sex and gender characteristics to be collected is presented as in the interest of the welfare of trans people. 'However, the recommendations would effectively mean that trans people have no right to privacy, likely breaching human rights law, as well as codifying the incorrect dog-whistle assertion that sex is binary and immutable.' She went on: 'Despite its claims of impartiality, it was produced by leading members of an anti-trans campaign group and reflects their arguments. 'As such, it is an unsuitable basis for policymaking and we encourage DSIT to reject its findings entirely.' Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at women's rights charity Sex Matters, said the comments showed why Mr Streeting needed to 'get gender ideology out of the health service'. She said: 'It is shocking to see an NHS England employee amplifying calls from a trans activist group to ignore the recommendations of the Sullivan report. 'This should be a wake-up call to the [Health Secretary] to get gender ideology out of the health service, for everyone's sake. 'Whether a patient is male or female is vital information in healthcare, but this lobby group wants the NHS to record falsehoods instead of facts in people's health records. This is not good for anyone. It's no longer credible to claim that trans activist demands are no threat to anyone else.' A spokesman for NHS England did not comment on the campaign against the adoption of Prof Sullivan's recommendations. He said: 'The NHS has written to GPs to ensure that they immediately stop the process of changing NHS numbers and gender markers for children and young people under 18, following the Sullivan review and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care's direction.'
Yahoo
30-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
It's uncomfortable for a Leftie like me to admit, but Trump is right on trans issues
On my way to meet Prof Alice Sullivan it occurs to me that if Marvel were dreaming up a new franchise, it probably wouldn't alight on a quantitative data scientist as its new superhero. And that would be a terrible miscalculation. Her recently published Sullivan Review reveals that when it comes to liberating public bodies from 'institutional capture' by trans activists and highlighting the dangerous lunacy of conflating sex with gender, our doughtiest defence is data. Sullivan, a professor of sociology and a quantitative data scientist at University College London, was commissioned by the previous Conservative government to investigate how data on biological sex is collected by public bodies after deep concerns were raised about the stranglehold of gender ideology in our key organisations. She was chosen to do the review because of her specialist work on the topic and well-publicised views on the need to record accurate data on sex. 'Sex and gender identity are distinct characteristics and are not interchangeable,' has always been her message. 'But unfortunately people in a great many organisations don't understand data collection as a discipline and have been taking advice from other people who don't understand it either; the result is a mess. We need – we have a responsibility – to record both sex and gender identity'. She and her team carried out interviews, collated evidence and heard from whistleblowers too fearful of reprisals to speak out. What they uncovered was shocking; across key organisations like the NHS, schools, the police and civil service, factual information on biological sex has been replaced by subjective (and highly contested) feedback on gender identity since 2015. As a consequence 'robust accurate data' has been lost, the review concluded. Criminals – including sex offenders – are being permitted to choose a self-identified 'gender' rather than be identified by their biological sex, and the police and courts are complying. Then there are the schools that immediately change children's 'gender ' on IT systems if they self-identify as the opposite sex – often without consulting the parents – and civil servants hounded out for perfectly ordinary opinions on biological sex. It's absurd. Enter the Sullivan Review. For those longing to turn the tide on aggressive gender politics, this detailed 226-page document has drawn a long-overdue line in the sand. Maya Forstater, CEO of pressure group Sex Matters welcomed its findings: 'This review is devastatingly clear about the harms caused by carelessness with sex data and a decade-long failure of the Civil Service to maintain impartiality and uphold data standards. The destruction of data about sex has caused real harm to individuals and research, and undermined the integrity of policy-making. Conflating sex and gender identity is not a harmless act of kindness but a damaging dereliction of duty.' Or, as transgender lobbyists TransActual put it on their website; 'This review is providing an academic gloss on what is a political call to strip trans people of our hard-won rights to privacy, dignity, and respect in public spaces.' It's the sort of binary response that has landed Britain in such a nonsensical quagmire in the first place. Sullivan has, in fact, called on organisations to record gender preference as well as sex when gathering data – but nuance has gone the same way as common sense. Thankfully cometh the hour cometh the quantitative data scientist in the shape of Prof Alice Sullivan, who is as far from a Gradgrindian number-cruncher as you can imagine. To my mind it all feels terribly bleak. But when we meet, in her corner of north London, where the magnolia trees are in full creamy bloom and the local coffee shop is so vegan I almost cause a riot when I unwittingly ask for 'real milk', Sullivan is in surprisingly high spirits. 'I'm optimistic. I think this review marks a watershed. It has taken a long time but I really do believe we are beyond the point where we can be silenced. It's the beginning of the end for no debate.' Wouldn't that be nice? I can't help suggesting that Donald Trump of all people may have had a part to play in changing the proverbial mood music surrounding gender issues. 'As a life-long Leftie, it feels uncomfortable to be put in the position of agreeing with Donald Trump. But the fact is that he is simply saying that there are two sexes and that this matters, for example in prisons and sports. If Donald Trump says that the earth is round, should Leftists claim it is flat just to avoid being on the same side as him? This kind of tribal thinking has been horribly damaging to the Left. The idiotic positions that the Democrats took on these issues helped to gift the election to Trump. Mainstream politicians of all stripes need to learn from this that denying observable facts about the world is dangerous.' For years now Sullivan has refused to be silenced by gender militants who have bullied and threatened her online. Instead she has continued to focus on 'biological truth' and has striven – not always successfully – to staunch the tide of 'ideological capture', which has seen LGBTQ+ networks within our key organisations mount successful, sustained campaigns to change the culture within them. 'As a result, an atmosphere of fear has been created making people scared to speak out against or even discuss issues surrounding gender,' she says. 'Bad decisions have been made by management because they have erroneously assumed these highly vocal activists represent far greater numbers than they do.' Later, Sullivan happily confides she hasn't had any death threats recently, which tells us everything we need to know about the toxic tactics employed by some trans militants who have somehow managed to weaponise 'hurt feelings' and bully public servants into accepting a parallel reality. We meet in the week that the University of Sussex was handed a record fine of £585,000 by the Office for Students (OfS) for failing to uphold freedom of speech. It came following a lengthy investigation into the university's handling of the case of Kathleen Stock, a philosophy professor who resigned after being targeted by protests over her views on gender. 'Kathleen Stock had a horrific level of abuse, and I've received nothing like that. By and large my peers have been very supportive but there have been exceptions and it is totally unacceptable that women are being horribly intimidated just for believing in biological sex.' But back to Sullivan. Five feet tall with bleached pixie-cut hair, when we meet at her north London home she is wearing a teal-coloured dress that matches the extravagant Designer's Guild wallpaper in her straight-from-the-pages-of-Living etc dining room. She takes me through the hallway hung with interesting art to the bold moderniste kitchen where on the breakfast table there are two lovely patterned plates, the sort most of us would keep for visitors, and a recipe for linguine with fresh crab is open on a book stand – and it's not even midweek! She laughs at my chippy indignation. But it later transpires she's half Spanish (hence the good food) and has never wanted children (hence the glamorous colour supplement interiors) so I am forced to retract my remarks about her being 'a member of the metropolitan elite'. Sullivan, who lives with her mathematician husband John Armstrong, an academic at King's College London laughs a surprising amount. I find myself wondering aloud if that's because it's physically, or indeed metaphysically impossible to be cancelled twice? She was famously 'no-platformed' in late 2019 when a research methods seminar where she was due to speak, held by the National Centre for Social Research was axed on the grounds 'the topic was of too much public interest'. Sullivan rolls her eyes at the ridiculousness. 'That is what I was initially told, although I'd never heard of something being called off because it was deemed too interesting,' she says. Her perceived misdemeanour was that of having 'anti-trans views' because she had raised her head above the parapet and criticised the Office for National Statistics (ONS) for failing to collect data on biological sex. When she was bluntly told she was the reason for the cancellation she broke down. 'I cried,' she says. 'I'm normally Captain Calm but I felt utterly bewildered that this was happening in my world, a world of sober data science. Data is about trust and once you lose trust, democracy itself is at risk. That way lies authoritarianism.' Sullivan was born and raised in Bristol. Her late Glaswegian father left school at 14 but became involved in the Trades Union movement. He took opportunities offered by the Workers' Educational Association and moved to London, where he took five A levels – he had no idea that three was the norm – and later completed a degree and then a PhD as a mature student, during which time he met Sullivan's mother, who was from the Basque region. 'My parents were both socialists,' she says. 'But my dad, who died twenty years ago, also had a built-in bulls--t detector which I think he passed on to me. He also had a mischievous sense of humour and there have been times when I would really have appreciated him being around so he could help me find the funny side of the more stressful things that have happened. After reading PPE (politics, philosophy and economics) at Balliol College, Oxford, Sullivan undertook a masters in sociology and then a PhD in the sociology of education. She took a job at the Institute of Education which became part of University College London and worked her way up from research officer to professor. And from 2010 to 2020 she was also director of the hugely important ongoing 1970 British Cohort Study, which followed the lives of around 17,000 people born in England, Scotland and Wales in a single week of 1970. Her involvement with gender issues began, as is so often the case, on a personal note. Both she and her husband are keen runners and often use the track at Hampstead Heath. In 2018, Sullivan discovered that moves were afoot to allow individuals to access areas such as the Women's Pond and other facilities based on self identification. This gave her pause. 'I use the changing rooms there and I thought 'that's a bit much, you can't just ID yourself into a woman's space'. Then I saw the consultation document which was a really badly written questionnaire – and I care a lot about questionnaires. Having thought long and hard about going public, she felt it was important, so she contacted the local paper in Camden who ran a story. But despite her best efforts, self identification was introduced, giving transgender women the right to use the Ladies' Pond and other facilities, a policy that still persists today. Meanwhile as she became more familiar with grassroots feminist movements who were taking a stance against the eradication of sex in officialdom, the ONS announced that it was rolling out a new, 'inclusive' version of the sex question on the 2021 national census. This would allow respondents to answer according to their self-identified gender rather than their physical sex – thereby making a nonsense of its data collection. Sullivan took a stand – and garnered hate mail – when she criticised this bias in an open letter she organised in 2019. It was signed by more than 80 eminent academics from Oxbridge and Russell Group universities, pointing out that it would 'undermine data reliability on a key demographic variable and damage our ability to capture and remedy sex-based discrimination and inequality'. The ONS refused to back down and in 2021 was taken to court by the feminist group Fair Play for Women and the judge found in the group's favour, ordering changes to the census – only this week the ONS admitted that the number of trans people was 'incorrectly recorded' in the latest census The case highlighted just how tightly gender ideology had taken hold. 'I was so young and naive,' she laughs, ruefully. 'I genuinely thought that getting eminent data scientists and academics to sign an open letter would sort everything out. Surely everyone would agree? Then came the backlash.' Cue a volley of unpleasant messages on what was then Twitter, intimations of violence and death threats on Facebook. 'It's easy to ignore random strangers online but when it's someone from the academic world, or professional people who should know better, amplifying the voices of abusive trolls, it's disappointing'. Throughout all this, Sullivan had no regrets. In 2023 she co-edited a book, Sex and Gender: a Contemporary Reader with the Oxford historian Selina Todd and has organised events on the subject – which other academics have sought to cancel, giving a lie to notions of free speech. But her commitment is undiminished. As a sociologist she is fascinated, among other aspects, by the sex divide when it comes to gender identity; at present there seems to be a spike in the number of biological girls choosing to identify as male. But without accurate data this can't be understood. Similarly, without reliable data on sex, the world would have no idea about the gender imbalances in some societies where female babies are aborted. 'One of the recommendations in the review is that the nonsensical expression '[sex] assigned at birth' should no longer be used,' she says, which will have a great many punching the air in jubilation, myself included. 'It's a term that comes from the postmodern philosophical idea that sex is a purely social construct and is not real but assigned at birth. This is just bonkers. Sex is determined at conception and the fact it is observable in-utero is why there were so many sex-selective abortions in China under the one child policy.' But here in the West there are those who stubbornly insist on denying biology. Of all the outrageous instances of gender gerrymandering, one in particular stands out for Sullivan. During research for her eponymous review a paediatrician cited a mother who 'changed' the sex of her child when it was still a baby. Within weeks of the birth she decided she wanted to bring up her newborn as the opposite sex and went to her GP to request a new NHS number and have it officially recognised in the sex she had chosen. The GP complied. When children's social care was alerted, they denied there was any safeguarding issue. 'When I heard about that case, I felt physically sick,' admits Sullivan. 'I was appalled that an infant could simply be erased from NHS records and given a new identity with a new NHS number. It's unbelievable, but it happened. The vast majority of parents are loving and responsible but it's inevitable there will always be some who are attention-seeking and abusive – the scandal is that our institutions are not protecting children, because somewhere along the line it became taboo to challenge gender-identity theory.' Sullivan wasn't the only one to react with visceral horror. The day after publication, Health Secretary Wes Streeting announced that from now on, no-one under the age of 18 will be given a new NHS record. 'It's completely wrong that children's NHS numbers can be changed if they change gender, and I've made it clear this must not happen,' he said.'We must deliver safe and holistic care for both adults and children when it comes to gender, and that also means accurately recording biological sex – not just for research and insight, but also for patient safety.' He acted swiftly but many commentators feel the rest of the Government has a long way to go when it comes to stamping out this extraordinary bias towards gender self-identification. 'I'm delighted with the strong leadership that Wes Streeting has shown. It's important that the Government as a whole tackles this issue systematically, as the need for accurate data doesn't only apply to health.' But damningly – disappointingly – Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has refused to issue an order compelling all police forces in England and Wales to collect data specifically on sex. 'Sex is a powerful predictor of both offending and victimisation,' urges Sullivan. 'This is particularly obvious when it comes to violent and sexual crime. It's vital that the home secretary acts to issue a mandatory requirement for all police forces to record data on sex.' Sullivan won't be drawn on whether a Tory government would have adopted all her review recommendations wholesale. 'The fact is that this problem was apparent under the previous Conservative government, and the likes of Teresa May and Boris Johnson facilitated it. Michelle Donelan [former secretary of state for science, innovation and technology] deserves great credit for commissioning the review, but this isn't a Left-Right issue, it's a matter of common sense. Accurate data benefits us all.' How many times will she have to say it? A great many more, I expect. But the mere fact the Sullivan Review was commissioned spurs her on. 'I've been working in this area for years so being given the opportunity to undertake research in this way was almost like an answer to a prayer; I've been over the moon with the reception for it. It was even written about in The Sun.' For now, her focus is on the forthcoming second part of her review which looks at barriers to research on sex and gender, primarily in universities. The quantitative data scientists may not inherit the earth, but it seems we desperately need them to make sense of it. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
