[deleted]
Top geneticist loses 3.5M grant in first test of landmark bullying policy
51–55 of 55 posts
Re: Top geneticist loses 3.5M grant in first test of landmark bullying policy
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
You complained they never got a "trial." The person you're responding to was quite correctly pointing out that was completely their choice, a disciplinary hearing would allow all sides to present information, but she effectively plead guilty instead (i.e. take the ultimate sanction).
That isn't necessarily true. Even being accused of things can cause significant damage. Also, a huge grant organization had already pulled their funding.
So you're arguing for not accusing people of things?
Re: Top geneticist loses 3.5M grant in first test of landmark bullying policy
#53Will 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 environm…
How can we be sure it wasn't just a few disgruntled people who wanted to just put a spoke in her wheel?
Re: Top geneticist loses 3.5M grant in first test of landmark bullying policy
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 environm…
How can we be sure it wasn't just a few disgruntled people who wanted to just put a spoke in her wheel?
From the article: After receiving a complaint in November, it immediately commissioned an independent investigation by a law firm into the allegations. The intention was to establish whether the allegations were substantiated by evidence — rather than to determine a disciplinary outcome.
ICR were playing by the letter of the law - as they ought to - and sound properly contrite. There must have been a lot of substance.
Re: Top geneticist loses 3.5M grant in first test of landmark bullying policy
#55The world is changing.