Live data from Hacker News

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

nature.com

11–20 of 55 posts

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

#11
post #6
post #3

If a top scientist loses a grant, science loses.

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.‘

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

#13
post #6
post #3

If a top scientist loses a grant, science loses.

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.

[deleted]

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

#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 asked to disable the right click menu on our website. A business analyst thought that it would solve a session management problem and instead of asking us how to solve the problem, thought that they would prescribe this solution to us. I tried to kill this right out of the gate; "This is a bad idea, it doesn't do what you want, if you want better session handling we don't do it this way, so let's close this story and discuss a better approach". Nope, that wasn't good enough. Cue 2 weeks of meetings explaining what the right click menu does and how it doesn't even come close to solving the real problem. 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.

So I'm imagining this geneticist in similar situations. "Hey, I heard that vitamin C can splice this gene better than how you're doing it, why don't you try?". Cue angry response that could get construed as bullying.

All that being said, there are mean people who just fumble about destroying everything in their wake. So lacking any information about this person's bullying... who knows.

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

#16
post #3

If a top scientist loses a grant, science loses.

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.

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

#17
post #3

If a top scientist loses a grant, science loses.

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.

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

#18
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.

>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 asshole, but this is a childish way of dealing with things, and at the cost of bloody humanity.

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

#20
Interesting to contrast this reaction with what felt like a shrug at MIT in response to allegations in 2006 that a prominent neuroscientist "bullied" a prospective hire -- see http://tech.mit.edu/V126/N52/52tonegawa.html , http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/191/tonegawa.html , http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/191/to_hockfield.pdf , http://tech.mit.edu/V126/N30/30tonegawa.html , and so on.
Post reply on HN