If a top scientist bullies many other scientists working under them and drives them away from their field, leading to fewer great minds working on important problems (like cancer research), science loses far more in the long term than if one scientist loses a grant (that presumably is now going to another scientist working on cancer research).
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.
Are you saying that the ends justify the means? I think that's a dangerous frame of mind. Do you think these scientists will be putting their best work forward in a hostile work environment? Do you think they will have enough mental capital to focus on doing good science when they are spending part of that mental load on worrying about being bullied?
Toxic environments and abuse in academia causes science to lose. How many great minds have quit science because they decided the pathetic salary isn't worth being harassed at work?
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
I assume that she was not called in by her superiors due to an "independent investigation" being started.
There would never be a need for such thing. If her superior receives complaints from her employees about her, then they already know that she has problems. In management and human psychology, evidence does not matter—if her employees are all dissatisfied with her, then that is all you need to know. They can then either correct her or fire her.
The presence of an "independent investigation" seems to look like someone didn't want to deal with the situation, and instead have an external party be responsible for it. That is irresponsible management from her superiors.
Now, again, she might have been a prick worth firing, but I certainly do not find this response to be sensible, nor is her resignation proof of anything as any sensible person would quit a workplace that runs "investigations" against them (just like you are likely to quit a place where your boss is a bully).
