Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Wednesday August 22 2018, @06:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the no-tolerance-of-intolerance dept.

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."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Wednesday August 22 2018, @10:02PM (2 children)

    by Snotnose (1623) on Wednesday August 22 2018, @10:02PM (#724892)

    She got accused, she got defunded before she could defend herself, nor present the results of her study. I guess I should have said that but, naive as I am (at 60 no less) to me it was assumed.

    This whole thing stinks.

    --
    When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by janrinok on Thursday August 23 2018, @04:05AM

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 23 2018, @04:05AM (#725059) Journal

    naive as I am (at 60 no less)

    You young uns! (Mumbles something about lawns and wanders off to the editorial potting shed....)

  • (Score: 2) by qzm on Thursday August 23 2018, @09:33AM

    by qzm (3260) on Thursday August 23 2018, @09:33AM (#725125)

    Isnt that how the liberal left want things to work now?

    Its certainly the process they want to apply in most cases - but its interesting that they want THIS case to be given a fair hearing.
    Why should this get an exception? is 45 people willing to put their names to her harassment not enough?
    We have seen people thrown to the dogs with one or two accusations...

    Now, personally I'm a due legal process kind of person, but these days that viewpoint seems long dead, so what would I know.

    Just perhaps the people leaping to her defense should be leaping to the defense of many others..

    Perhaps they should have spoken up then they came for the others, because eventually they WILL come for you (and anyone who doesnt understand that really DOES need a learn).