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: 5, Informative) by requerdanos on Wednesday August 22 2018, @08:33PM (13 children)
Here's the thing; that's misleading. She didn't lose her funding based on allegations and nothing else.
The allegations [dailymail.co.uk] were, as I read them, pretty well founded. Forty-five of her coworkers and associates at the hospital where their group worked, about half of them reporting experiencing direct abuse and the other half witnessing it, described in excruciating detail a twelve-year consistent pattern of abuse that could be checked for agreement with available records such as scheduling calendars and personnel records.
She lost her funding because, in the pretty wise judgment of the funding organization, based on a relative large amount of evidence available to them, she is a serial harassment engine who gets her self-worth from causing needless harassment-based problems for others (many events of which were reported individually over the years without action taken).
We can argue about the overbroad definition of "bullying" that they employ, but even so it seems to be applied with fairness and justice, and not just in response to "allegations."
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22 2018, @09:04PM (6 children)
She couldn't have been a bully because she's a girl, and a foreigner. I think what happened here is that some males got intimidated by having a brown-skinned female boss and played the bullying card to effect some change. Sort of SJW judo.
(Score: 3, Funny) by requerdanos on Wednesday August 22 2018, @09:23PM (1 child)
We're going to have trouble advancing that one as well. Many of those who complained were other women who were intimidated not by her gender nor her ethnicity, but by her harassment.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22 2018, @10:53PM
Were these other women brown-skinned? Looks like typical British racism and xenophobia.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Aegis on Wednesday August 22 2018, @10:54PM (3 children)
And the fact that this case proves you wrong won't stop you from claiming it...
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday August 23 2018, @04:12AM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 23 2018, @03:30PM (1 child)
Woosh?
Maybe, but we've become so degenerate as a nation in Trump's America (and the world for that matter, because none of us, not even the USA, is an island unto ourselves), that what two years ago would have been a "whoosh!" now must be framed (as you have) as a question. There are plenty of people who make that argument in all seriousness, and have managed to use it to actually get serial abusers a free pass (I believe the Christians call it a "Mulligan" when referring to their Orange God), so what most of us would consider sarcasm may in fact be completely serious. Which is why people need to speak out against it, even if there is a decent probability the poster was joking -- because all too often these days, they're not.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday August 23 2018, @06:27PM
(Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 22 2018, @10:11PM (2 children)
I followed the link but did not find the specific allegations in any detail -- just that 45 people signed a letter.
It's probably true and all, but so far there is absolutely no meat on this story -- it's just a report that people said she was an abusive boss without providing any detail or examples.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by crafoo on Thursday August 23 2018, @01:41AM (1 child)
You haven't been paying attention.
Evidence isn't required now. Simply the allegations are enough to get you fired. This has been demonstrated repeatedly by the regressive left.
Evil weapons that you create and employ indiscriminately will, without fail, be used against you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 23 2018, @04:24AM
Crafoo? More like CraPOO! amirite?
(Score: 2) by quietus on Thursday August 23 2018, @06:02AM (2 children)
Note that this Daily Mail article contained at least 2 factual errors -- claiming that Ms Rahman "was given leave of absence" in November last year (caption underneath first picture), and claiming that it were her employers that carried out the investigation.
Events reported trace back 12 years, but to call something a pattern it has to occur on a regular basis.
Of the 45 signatories, only one accuser said she was undermined on such a regular basis that 'by the end of it, I really had a lack of confidence in my own abilities'. If you consider that as serious psychological damage, so be it: but note that nothing is said about the time period this woman had to hear repeated criticism from Ms Rahman. If the perceived abuse was over a longer period, like months, you'd be certain the journalist would have used that fact to spice up the story.
Further, let's consider that 12 year period: how many colleagues would Ms Rahman have had during that period, working both at ICR and the Royal Marsden Hospital? I'd guess a multiple of the reported number of accusers. What if there are many more of her fellow workers who state that she's a friendly, compassionate and generous colleague to work with? (Not a far stretch, given that she specialized in childhood cancers).
So far for the specifics of the case. There is a broader point.
Imagine that as part of a future update of the policy, the Trust restricts itself to not hiring anyone with a history of bullying. And that similar grant institutions follow suit.
In such a future, what will happen to researchers with a brash, or eccentric [wikipedia.org], character?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 23 2018, @03:52PM (1 child)
Sorry, if 45 people show up and claim direct knowledge of your misbehavior, then its likely you misbehaved.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Friday August 24 2018, @09:35AM
Valid point.
Next question: where do you put the limit? If five people had signed the letter, would that be enough?