SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Bullying and harassment are just plain wrong. (Alyson Fox, director of grants, Wellcome Trust)
A top geneticist has lost her funding based on bullying allegations, reports Nature.
The top scientist, Nazneen Rahman, was accused by scientists and staff at the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) in London of bullying behavior. Following the allegations, the ICR commissioned a law firm to carry out an independent investigation. Rather than waiting for a disciplinary hearing, Ms Rahman instead notified the ICR that she would leave after her research grant would be finished come October.
Now the UK biomedical charity which funded Ms Rahman's research has decided to act earlier, and pulled her funding. This, the Wellcome Trust claims, is in line with their new anti-bullying policy. In this, the Trust, as a first in the UK, followed the lead of the US National Science Foundation.
While the NSF's policy focused on sexual harassment, the Trust's policy takes things a bit further.
Their policy defines bullying as a misuse of power that can make people feel vulnerable, upset, humiliated, undermined or threatened. It says harassment is unwanted physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct that has the purpose or effect of violating someone else's dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them.
It should be noted though that the Trust bases its decision on allegations without having detailed knowledge of these allegations; nor has Ms Rahman been able (or willing) to defend herself against these allegations.
The Trust states that bullying "causes significant harm, stops people achieving their full potential and stifles good research."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday August 22 2018, @08:11PM (8 children)
Being put in a position of power and authority over another is a huge enabler of this kind of abuse: the bullying, humiliation, sexual harassment, racism, and all kinds of prejudice in general.
We keep constructing hierarchic organizations for people and jamming scientists into that. We shouldn't, but many of us really love hierarchy.
(Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Wednesday August 22 2018, @08:32PM (6 children)
There are two kinds of people:
1. Those who love hierarchy such as management, marketing, sales, accounting, policies, vogons, etc.
2. Those who are artists, scientists, engineers, mathematicians, software developers, musicians, etc.
Reminds me of the old "two kinds of people" joke.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 23 2018, @12:09AM (1 child)
Why do you think "engineers" and "software developers" don't like hierarchy. Have you seen Linus Torvals and how tightly he holds control over the Linux kernel (thank goodness... and don't you try to argue that he's a manager and doesn't know how to code). Or do you let the new intern have root access to your production servers?
Why do you think "marketing" likes hierarchy? Have you seen Mad Men? Granted it's fiction, but there is some truth in the sterotype of "uses illegal drugs for energy and a desperate search for inspiration," among other hair-raising things.
This classification is way too simplistic and just plain wrong. If anything, it reminds me of:
I suspect you're the 3rd.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday August 23 2018, @07:26PM
I have not seen Mad Men.
As for Linus, needing hierarchy is not the same as liking it and creating it for its own end even when unnecessary.
As a rule interns would not root access to production servers. There are probably interns who are the exception and are exceptional.
If I used a number with 0-9 and A-F you might assume it was hexadecimal. But you would be wrong if I was using base 23. But then I could say you don't know the difference. When seeing "10 types of people", the most I can assume is that you are using a radix that is at least 2, since the largest digit in "10" is a 1. If I said there are "70" types of people, then you could safely assume I'm using at least base 8, or higher. But you would have no definite indication of what radix I'm using, and that doesn't mean you are confused.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by legont on Thursday August 23 2018, @12:27AM (3 children)
You put scientists in the wrong group. The whole scientific knowledge is basically a consensus built around a leader.
Come to think about it, artists are the same, especially liberal kind... and musicians...
Yeah, engineers of different flavors are the only free folks; as long as they are not liberals that is, which is rare nowadays.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday August 23 2018, @07:34PM (2 children)
I only write software. So I could be wrong. I suspect you are confusing scientists who do the real science from the politician "scientists".
I'm not sure what you mean about built around a leader. There may be someone who discovered something, and they get recognized and remembered for it. But others may build upon their discoveries, or even later prove certain elements of their discovery to have been wrong. Newton's Laws of Motion are so useful you can plot a course to Pluto using them. Yet Newton's Laws are still wrong now that we understand relativity.
The "consensus" of science is not because of a popular vote. It is because reasonable scientists can verify the result, and all can agree it is true. Unless they're being paid or have some other interest in not being part of the consensus. If they are not part of the consensus yet turn out to be right, then they merely have a better theory that explains all of the observed evidence, plus some new observation that the old theory didn't explain.
I'm not sure how liberal artists versus non liberal artists would be any better or worse as artists? If you can paint, it doesn't matter if you are liberal. If you can sing, it doesn't matter if you are liberal.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday August 23 2018, @09:26PM (1 child)
I just mean that scientific truth is not absolute even at a given point, but simply a consensus among scientists. That's a statement from philosophy of scientific knowledge.
Most people believe that scientific knowledge represents truth in a certain scene, say Platonic or countless other versions. Nothing can be farther away from it. Scientific knowledge is simply an opinion of a majority and that majority is hugely influenced by the current leaders. That's why journals are so powerful.
Don't get me wrong, science sure works as evident by technology. It does not mean though that scientific knowledge is truth or even correct.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday August 24 2018, @04:07PM
I'll stick to the reproducible results.
It represents truth in the sense that most scientists can reproduce the result and THUS the consensus is formed. Or can reproduce the observations.
Those whose results CANNOT be reproduced are the ones crying "bully"!!!
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Bot on Wednesday August 22 2018, @10:32PM
>power is a huge enabler of this kind of abuse
True, but you know that power is based either on superior force or superior standing. Standing is social. So, all you need is for the abused to be able to document the abuse and share it. The abuser gets declassed.
Equalizing the power, instead, means that a 60 IQ lazy idiot can challenge the professor on equal footing.
Account abandoned.