<p>The articles goes on to say that Prof. Tonegawa brings in ten million dollars a year in research grants, supporting a lot of researchers who work under him (junior faculty, postdocs, and grad students), so he is a very powerful figure at MIT.</p>
<p>The Globe article has a link to the complete transcript of his emails here:</p>
<p>I found myself stunned at his naivete in putting his thoughts into emails and leaving such a clear paper trail, given the sensitivity of the situation. </p>
<p>Perhaps he thought that his Nobel Prize and vast empire of research grants would insulate him from the consequences of such heavyhanded and highly inappropriate behavior. </p>
<p>Perhaps he thought that such a young woman, no matter how bright and promising, would be so intimidated by him that she would not expose his behavior.</p>
<p>Full disclosure: I work at the Picower Center as an undergrad researcher during term, in the Sur lab, on the floor above Tonegawa’s lab.</p>
<p>Well, I’d heard about this, but that’s the first time I’d seen the emails. I’m not entirely sure that I’d call that bullying. But I would call it nasty academic politics. <em>headdesk</em> People (by which I mean “McGovern Institute” and “Picower Center”), you’re in the same godammed building, learn to play nice!</p>
<p>There have been a few small articles recently about a woman (Barbara Barres) who was a PhD student at MIT during the 70s who has since completed gender-reassignment treatment and become a man (Ben Barres). S/he describes getting treated in much the same way. <a href=“Medical and health information”>Medical and health information; </p>
<p>I’d like to think this kind of treatment isn’t unique to MIT (because I’d hate for MIT to be so nasty), but how sad that it exists at all.</p>
<p>The junior faculty unfortunately got caught up in internal competition between different organizations within the same university. Various research universities have units with overlapping missions and they compete for the same research funds and, of course, for their share of glory. Harvard’s report on the sciences tried to address this issue, but we shall see. whether it actualy gets resolved.</p>
<p>I have much respect for Ben Barres, but MIT has changed since the ‘70s (even if I hadn’t read some of the reports and history and such, I can compare my mom’s anecdotes of life as a female student in the ‘70s there to mine in the present). As much as I think the incident between Tonegawa and Karpova is sad and problematic, I see neither evidence of sexism in their correspondence, nor much similarity between Barres’ experience and Karpova’s. Barres’ experience was all about having his competence questioned and undervalued because he, at the time, was a woman. Nobody questioned Karpova’s competence, for gender-related reasons or otherwise.</p>
<p>which includes this reference to Prof. Barres:
“Several scientists said Karpova is considered one of the most promising young neuroscientists. Her work ``has incredible potential for making big steps forward in our understanding of how the brain works,” said Barres, when asked to comment on his letter to MIT. He wrote in the letter that the young scientist told him about her experiences at MIT during a visit to Stanford, which also was interested in hiring her.
"Barres's letter also said that in addition to Tonegawa, Silbey, the science dean, advised Karpova not to come to MIT. Barres also wrote that Tonegawa told her ``if she came he would do his best to block her success, including blocking access to the animal facility that he claims to have control over."</p>
<p>also with feedback, including this from “Madison,” “a married, female tenure-track professor at harvard medical school with no children (by choice)”:
“The Harvard reality is that most faculty do not teach much, if at all. When teaching does occur its usually just a few lectures here and there in a team-taught class. The job we are hired to do is research, and the products of our research are what allow us to keep our job, get promoted, and a small fraction of us to get tenure.”</p>
<p>To pick up on the last item, regarding HMS, the female tenure-track prof is right. But she does not mention that HMS has a huge number of faculty, practicing and research physicians with appointments on HMS faculty. That is not the case at the Faculty of Arts and Sciences where promotion to tenure certainly hinges on publications–as it does everywhere, including LACs–but also on teaching. One Ph.D I know who got rave reviews for her teaching at a top LAC did not get tenure because of her insufficient publishing record.</p>
<p>To be honest, I don’t get the public hand-wringing about the whole affair.</p>
<p>Stuff like this happens all the time in science, everywhere in the world. It happens all the time in academia in general, in fact. Academia is not a nice, fuzzy world – it’s full of politics and intrigue and backstabbing. Everybody knows it, and everybody lives with it.</p>
<p>If you read the actual emails from Tonegawa (rather than the breathless exaggeration in the Globe), they don’t sound particularly threatening or bullying.</p>
<p>Mollie! You made it over to this thread! :)</p>
<p>Unless they’re in academia, people don’t know that. And within academia…yes, what you say is true, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t work to make it better.</p>
<p>Of course the Globe is hand-wringing about it - aside from the fact that it is quite nasty, if commonplace, it’s the Globe and it’s MIT. When has the Globe ever not sensationalized a situation at MIT, hm?</p>
<p>Actually, there are reasons why departmental votes and ad hoc committees’ decisions are confidential: it is so that when decisions are reached and offers to prospective faculty members are made, both the people who voted for and the people who voted against can make the new colleagues feel welcome. Before an offer is tendered, there is plenty of time for the nay-sayers to make their case. If they lose, they need to accept with good grace.
I have never ever heard of members of a university department seek the undo the vote of the department and the decision of the university by scaring away prospective colleagues. </p>
<p>There is plenty of backbiting and competition in academia and in many other settings as well, but this case is one that I’ve never encountered before. Sensational reporting by the Globe? Not in the least.</p>
Oh, I’ve been reading it since it started, but I worry about the things I can say – my PI warned us to be careful about what we say in public.</p>
<p>And I meant that everybody in academia knows that backstabbing and cutthroat behavior goes on all the time – clearly the public doesn’t know, or else there wouldn’t be this brouhaha. And I agree with you, the Glob rather clearly enjoys sensationalizing anything that happens at MIT. (Apparently some of the Harvard profs thanked some of the Picower people – the article about Harvard’s lack of collaboration was supposed to be on the front page, but thanks to the Tonegawa story, it was relegated to the City section.)</p>
<p>Marite, I agree that it’s rude. But I don’t think it’s unusual – sure, you haven’t heard of something like this happening before, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen all the time. </p>
<p>The [url=<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/daily/27/MITmail2.doc]correspondence[/url”>http://www.boston.com/news/daily/27/MITmail2.doc]correspondence[/url</a>] (.doc file from the Globe) really does not strike me as rude whatsoever. If anything, he’s trying to give her an idea of the departmental rivalries involved before she makes any kind of decision on the offer. I actually think it shows that he genuinely has a great deal of respect for her, but wants her to realize that accepting the position will be very politically difficult – information she’s not likely to get anywhere else.</p>
<p>Mollie, I have been around academics all my working life, and this is the first time I’ve heard of a prof acting this way. Sorry.</p>
<p>I have heard of applicants asking about the atmosphere in particular departments. Most members of the faculty might try to make light of problems if they want someone to come and would offer support. Tonegawa clearly did not want this young woman to come, thus goind against the vote of the department. As I’ve said, I’ve never heard of such behavior before. .</p>
Marite, I always respect your opinion, but I really disagree with you in this case. I’ve read the articles in the Globe, and the phrase “yellow journalism” came to mind each time. </p>
<p>The articles related a subset of a series of emails, presented in the most negative way possible, as is typical of this particular journalist. I don’t have any association with MIT and have no particular interest in defending this professor, but I think that the information was presented in a way to further a particular agenda, and I really hate when people distort things to suit themselves. Who knows what else was said or emailed? I would suggest that only the people involved really know what happened, and that any inquiry would ferret out the truth. </p>
<p>There was a recent article in the Globe about Ben Barnes and his efforts to uncover sexism in academia. Maybe it really exists – I’m sure you’ve encountered some in the course of your career. But people do have a way – a la Barnes – of finding what they want to find in the most innocuous of circumstances. </p>
<p>I worked in a research lab as an undergraduate, under a world-renowned expert in his field. Was he egotistical and hard to get along with? Definitely. But so are high-level business execs, politicians, lawyers etc. Until an objective third party can show that this professor behaved in an inappropriate way, I’ll withold judgement. But if women want to play in the big league, and be treated with the same respect as men, then we should be prepared when the going gets rough. This young female scientist could have handled things differently. How many men do any of you know who would run from such a challenge?</p>
<p>Marite, I’m sorry – I didn’t mean to be rude or flip.</p>
<p>EDIT: I should say, in the most diplomatic way possible, that I’ve heard rumors before about this particular prof being difficult to work with/get along with. So when I read the emails, I was shocked to see how frankly cordial I found them. I guess I think that if he had been trying to be rude or bullying, boy, we would know it – subtlety has not historically been his strong suit.</p>
<p>Well, isn;t it GREAT that at MIT the research, seeking knowlegdge, collaboration, what is best for the institution aren’t at the forefront, and that egos, being in the spotlight, territory, prestige, publicity, and such supercede education </p>
<p>Inappppriate is in the eye of the beholder, and when he appears to be proteting his territory like a dog marking a tree, it comes across as childish and immature</p>
<p>Being part of the big league? This looks more like minor league squabbling and worrying about young blood coming in who thinks the game playing may just be stupid</p>
<p>On this thread it is gee, this is the way it is, or nobody EVER acts this way</p>
<p>I don’t what reputation he has regarding women. I did not take the story to be about gender discrimination, so the Ben Barres story is not directly relevant to this case.</p>
<p>It is not a matter of being rude or not. The tone of the emails is not my concern. It is their message. The message was basically one trying to undo a departmental vote offering a job to someone. </p>
<p>If she had been the one asking to work with him and he had replied frankly no, that would not have been out-of-bounds. But I gather that as soon as he saw the departmental vote going the other way, he decided to take the initiative in discouraging her. So there are several issues here: one is the lack of collegiality he displayed toward a younger scholar; another is his lack of collegiality toward other members of his department; and yet another is his breaking some long-standing tacit rules about how losers behave in departmental votes. What he did is simply not done.</p>
<em>sigh</em> :)</p>