Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Top geneticist loses 3.5M grant in first test of landmark bullying policy

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 55 posts

Re: Top geneticist loses 3.5M grant in first test of landmark bullying policy

#21

Post by HarryHirsch »

jbob2000 wrote: post #15

Well I'm of two minds about this. Linus Torvalds is, by all accounts, a bully. But that's how science goes sometimes; it is unforgiving and will make you feel stupid and inadequate, why blame the messenger? And science is hard! People regularly get in your way with shitty ideas, especially when you've hit upon something great like Linux or cancer gene discoveries. I kind of dealt with this at work recently. We were a…

Linus Torvalds is, by all accounts, a bully.

Not that again. Some people will defend him because the people he really lets loose on is not newcomers but very experienced contributors from whom he expects better.

It's a cultural issue. Recently I spoke to a US general, who as a young officer served as a liaison officer in Germany. He found the German directness "refreshing".

Re: Top geneticist loses 3.5M grant in first test of landmark bullying policy

#22

Post by arghwhat »

code_duck wrote: post #11
arghwhat wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A top scientist working with cancer research, losing a grant because of bullying . Someone must have some really twisted priorities to consider cancer research so meaningless. Sure, the bully should get corrected, but through normal corrective measure such as calling her in for a meeting . This is just absurd.

Apparently, she could have followed disciplinary measures such as going for meetings, but chose to resign instead. ‘the ICR’s independent investigation deemed some of the allegations serious enough to warrant consideration at a disciplinary hearing”. However, Rahman resigned and the disciplinary hearing did not take place.‘

She chose to resign after having a bloody independent investigation started against her.

She might have been a prick, but that's far beyond taking something face to face (i.e. someone above her taking her in to discuss the situation). I would certainly quit any position where an investigation is started against me, regardless of reason.

This is a flat out childish way to deal with the situation.

Re: Top geneticist loses 3.5M grant in first test of landmark bullying policy

#23

Post by mikeash »

jbob2000 wrote: post #15

Well I'm of two minds about this. Linus Torvalds is, by all accounts, a bully. But that's how science goes sometimes; it is unforgiving and will make you feel stupid and inadequate, why blame the messenger? And science is hard! People regularly get in your way with shitty ideas, especially when you've hit upon something great like Linux or cancer gene discoveries. I kind of dealt with this at work recently. We were a…

“Cue angry response that could get construed as bullying.”

How about... not making an angry response?

Re: Top geneticist loses 3.5M grant in first test of landmark bullying policy

#24

Post by epistasis »

fastball wrote: post #17
epistasis wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are dozens to hundreds of capable scientists ready to step into the same place. The role of PI is a lot like that of a CEO, mostly organizing and executing and pulling in grants. They rely on the brilliance and work of their students, though they often contribute ideas. Cancer research is limited by funding, wall time, and communication bandwidth between scientists, not by talent.

Cancer research is definitely not limited by funding.

Of course it's limited by funding, there are far more proposals than what gets funded.

You may be trying to say that it's very very well funded compared to most science, especially basic sciences, and with that I would agree.

Re: Top geneticist loses 3.5M grant in first test of landmark bullying policy

#25

Post by dopamean »

I think many people here are caught up on the word "bullying" and think that perhaps her actions weren't very serious. The reality is that none of us here know what she did. I'm just going to go ahead and trust that the granting organization knows what they're doing with their money.

Re: Top geneticist loses 3.5M grant in first test of landmark bullying policy

#26

Post by acqq »

So “Wellcome Trust“ doesn’t have ebough information (1) but acts based on.. something?

1) “Wellcome bemoans the lack of information available on the affair. “We have been working with the ICR to understand more about their investigation and the allegations that were made against Professor Rahman,” says the statement. “Unfortunately, we do not have the full details of the case because they have not been shared with us.””

Re: Top geneticist loses 3.5M grant in first test of landmark bullying policy

#28

Post by oh_sigh »

orasis wrote: post #19

Will someone please legally define "bullying" and "abusive"? This seems like another kangaroo court system in the making.

Considering this had nothing to do with the legal system there is no need to definition these terms legally here.

Re: Top geneticist loses 3.5M grant in first test of landmark bullying policy

#29

Post by nkrisc »

jbob2000 wrote: post #15

Well I'm of two minds about this. Linus Torvalds is, by all accounts, a bully. But that's how science goes sometimes; it is unforgiving and will make you feel stupid and inadequate, why blame the messenger? And science is hard! People regularly get in your way with shitty ideas, especially when you've hit upon something great like Linux or cancer gene discoveries. I kind of dealt with this at work recently. We were a…

> I really just wanted to call this BA an idiot and bully the problem away, it would have saved a significant amount of time and frustration for multiple parties.

That's about as effective as solving your problem as disabling the contextual menu was for solving theirs. That ensures they'll be working against you and not with you.

Re: Top geneticist loses 3.5M grant in first test of landmark bullying policy

#30

Post by rwcarlsen »

dopamean wrote: post #25

I think many people here are caught up on the word "bullying" and think that perhaps her actions weren't very serious. The reality is that none of us here know what she did. I'm just going to go ahead and trust that the granting organization knows what they're doing with their money.

In the absence of information, I default to siding with who I see as the recipient of the final punishment/jab who never got a trial. The resigned researcher may have just lost her entire career without a trial. Maybe she is guilty - maybe not. And I do not consider knowing how someone reacted to information equivalent to having that information.
Post reply on HN