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

31–40 of 55 posts

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

#31

Post by gameswithgo »

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…

>But that's how science goes sometimes;

Is there a word for people who say that "bad thing is ok" because "bad thing is the way it is" ?

We all know that is the way it is, and some would like to see that change

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

#32

Post by arghwhat »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #9
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.

Sure, the bully should get corrected, but through normal corrective measure such as calling her in for a meeting. This is just absurd. The only thing that works is meaningful consequences. This includes consequences for the institution - it's clear that there was a litany of complaints about the person, all of which went unheeded.

If her work is valuable, you'd try to get the behavior corrected rather than burning the witch immediately.

She might be an asshole, but this is not how you would deal with the situation in a normal company where someone has an important position.

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

#33

Post by gameswithgo »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #21
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".

You can be linus style direct, more efficiently, by removing the irrelevant insults and swearing.

They really serve no purpose other than to make linus feel good and others feel bad. So its not net good for the world.

You can say "This commit is garbage I am really angry about it and expected better from you" and not add "you are a fucking abortion" or whatever.

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

#34

Post by shaggerty »

orasis wrote: post #19

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

The article links to another article discussing Wellcome's policy.

"The 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."

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

#35

Post by PhasmaFelis »

arghwhat wrote: post #18
aaaaaaaaaab wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>call her in for a meeting A meeting? Like a disciplinary hearing ? >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.

> Like a disciplinary hearing? No, a face to face meeting between adults. Not hiring lawyers to do background research and pulling her in in front of a committee. Like you would in case of such a situation in a normal company. Once you pull an "independent investigation", you're far beyond taking things like adults anymore. I wouldn't want to work at a place where I get inspected like that. She might have been an ass…

Why do you assume a face-to-face meeting wasn't tried?

The exact details are confidential, for the protection of both accused and accusers. Neither one of us knows what really happened. But I can say from experience that someone who is habitually a jerk to their subordinates is not likely to change their habits when called out face-to-face by the same subordinates. They're likely to react with the same hostile dismissiveness that they normally use.

This is not just about saving someone's tender feelings. People with a hostile supervisor are afraid to ask questions and afraid to take risks, and the quality of their work suffers. Bullying your subordinates is irresponsible management and should be treated as such.

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

#36

Post by ipioxu15 »

rwcarlsen wrote: post #30
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.

Wrong.

According to the article, the "punishment" on table was a disciplinatory hearing. The PI decided to resign rather than undergo that.

The situation is not materially worse than someone getting fired for a reason, and I don't see many stories on HN about that.

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

#37

Post by PhasmaFelis »

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.

If someone with authority over you isn't willing to take "no" for an answer, they're not going to take "no, you idiot" either. That doesn't save time, it just takes you from "wasting time" to "wasting time and also people are pissed at you."

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

#38

Post by shawn »

rwcarlsen wrote: post #30
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.

I used to be very skeptical, as you are, about the same sort of thing. And by the lack of “trial” specifically.

One sort of trial is an investigative report from a journalistic institution with a reputation at stake. When someone pointed this out to me, I was mildly appalled, but I’ve come to agree.

The world’s systems are largely out of our control. It’s true that most systems in place now will seem crazy in less than a century. But it’s also true that you have to deal with them if you want to live a good life.

The problem is that it’s often costly to publish such counterstories. It’s not very socially acceptable to be seen as defending your own action. But you have to, if you want public opinion to be overturned.

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

#39

Post by rwcarlsen »

ipioxu15 wrote: post #36
rwcarlsen wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wrong. According to the article, the "punishment" on table was a disciplinatory hearing. The PI decided to resign rather than undergo that. The situation is not materially worse than someone getting fired for a reason, and I don't see many stories on HN about that.

Regardless of what she chose (resign or be disciplined), her career may never recover. I meant "punishment" in a more abstract sense.

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

#40

Post by dbcurtis »

gameswithgo wrote: post #33
HarryHirsch wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

You can be linus style direct, more efficiently, by removing the irrelevant insults and swearing. They really serve no purpose other than to make linus feel good and others feel bad. So its not net good for the world. You can say "This commit is garbage I am really angry about it and expected better from you" and not add "you are a fucking abortion" or whatever.

Even that is not helpful to the recipient of the feedback.

How about:

"Here is a list of standards every code check-in is required to meet. Here are the standards that your current P/R fails. Try again. Do you need help with anything specific? When can you have a new P/R ready?."

If applicable: "This delays the schedule, what is your recovery plan?:

And occasionally: "At your pay grade, you are expected to know these standards."

Post reply on HN