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: 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?