Just an observation

The majority of what I have seen have nothing to do with autism. It was to do with the quality of his academic work and his public claims. Plagiarism is a serious issue in academia.

Being a professor makes you something of an expert in your field and your work is published and open to scrutiny. You are also something of a public figure if you play that role and appear on TV, etc.

If the Times questions your claims and work, or the Telegraph, or the Guardian, which many here probably prefer, then there is probably something there.

The extent to which the field in which he worked has adequate academic rigour is a related topic.

Plenty of the responsible attacks have levelled most of the blame at Cambridge for putting him in this position. He could perhaps have holed up and allowed Cambridge's press office to help, pending any inquiry.

One of the top 5 universities in the world needs to be seen to be hiring the best people on merit. If that is perceived not to be the case, then it is damaging to its reputation.

I sympathise with the fact he was under huge pressure.

The majority of what I have seen have nothing to do with autism. It was to do with the quality of his academic work and his public claims. Plagiarism is a serious issue in academia.

Being a professor makes you something of an expert in your field and your work is published and open to scrutiny. You are also something of a public figure if you play that role and appear on TV, etc.

If the Times questions your claims and work, or the Telegraph, or the Guardian, which many here probably prefer, then there is probably something there.

The extent to which the field in which he worked has adequate academic rigour is a related topic.

Plenty of the responsible attacks have levelled most of the blame at Cambridge for putting him in this position. He could perhaps have holed up and allowed Cambridge's press office to help, pending any inquiry.

One of the top 5 universities in the world needs to be seen to be hiring the best people on merit. If that is perceived not to be the case, then it is damaging to its reputation.

I sympathise with the fact he was under huge pressure.

True meritocracies are inclusive though. It might have damaged the University reputation had he not been considered/accepted.

There was a lot of polarisation in the media. Everything I have read about this in BBC from the start here was quite a heavy emphasis on the degree of his autism, ie. that he did not speak until he was 11 years old. Some channels seemed to be completely blinkering this out. LIke it was not important. People can only process the information they receive. The public was reactive against his being autistic (which would underline current societal bias) In London people with autism can receive a lot of discrimination just walking on the street. 

Again I am surprised noone was discussing this here.