Bullying and the British Academy

Learned societies (such as the British Academy or the Royal Society) seem to face difficulties when one of their distinguished members is found guilty of bullying or unethical behaviour, though it is hard to see why. Eradicating harassment in academia surely requires attention and action by everyone, especially those at the top.

To its credit, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) of the USA has tried to tackle this problem. Originally it was not possible to rescind a Fellowship of the NAS, once awarded. However, in 2018, the rules were changed so that a Fellowship could be revoked “in cases of proven scientific misconduct, serious breaches of professional ethics“.

The then NAS President Marcia McNutt encouraged scientists to take action with a post on Twitter/X. A number of individuals (unconnected to the cases) pointed out that NAS Fellows Geoff Marcy & Francisco Ayala had been found guilty by their universities of very serious misconduct.

Internationally renowned astronomer Geoff Marcy had his NAS Fellowship rescinded in 2021. This was 5 years after he resigned from UC Berkeley in 2016 for sexually harassing students for nearly a decade. Subsequently, the NAS ejected biologist Francisco Ayala in 2021 in the wake of sexual harassment findings against him by UC Irvine in 2018. Harassment investigations into leading Peruvian archaeologist Luis Jaime Castillo Butters triggered his ejection from NAS, in which he had been an international member also in 2021.

However, the cancer biologist Inder Verma, who resigned his position at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in 2018 after Science published accounts from eight women alleging he had sexually harassed them, was not ejected. The NAS stated it could not retract his Fellowship because the Salk Institute would not release the results of its investigation.

Not full marks, but this was a reasonable effort by the NAS.

More recently — as we have blogged earlier — the University of Leiden has found two Professors guilty of serious offences. Both were Fellows of learned societies.  The astronomer Prof Tim de Zeeuw was found guilty of decades-long harassment in which there was a sexual component. The Dutch equivalent of the NAS — the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences — immediately suspended de Zeeuw, pending investigation. He subsequently resigned his Fellowship.

The archaeologist Prof Corinne Hofman was found guilty of “a decades-long culture of fear in which Hofman and Hoogland [her partner] exhibited transgressive behaviour, violated scientific integrity, abused their power and possibly committed criminal offences.” The reports in the Dutch press make horrifying reading — not just because of the abusive treatment of students and postdocs over many years, but also because of the repeated violations of academic & scientific integrity and even criminal activity.  A total of nineteen people, including postdocs and PhD students who worked with Hofman in the period 1990-2023, complained about her abusive behaviour. The full report is available at this Leiden University website. The University of Leiden has begun proceedings to dismiss Prof Hofman.

Prof Hofman was a Fellow of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. They suspended her with this statement. In response, Hofman resigned. However, Hofman was also elected as a Fellow of the British Academy. So far the British Academy has remained very silent about this matter (something that is very common in UK academia when bullying is alleged).

According to the British Academy’s website, allegations about misbehaviour of Fellows may be made by non-Fellows or Fellows directly to the Chief Executive who is Prof Hetan Shah . Accordingly on 19 August 2024, the 21 Group wrote to Hetan Shah asking what the British Academy planned to do. This was Hetan Shah’s response:

“Thank you for writing to me on this matter. The British Academy takes allegations of misconduct very seriously. We have clear procedures in place, set out in our regulations, which govern the standard of conduct we expect from Fellows, the process of dealing with complaints, and possible sanctions, including revocation of Fellowship. In instances such as this one, we would await any institutional disciplinary procedures to conclude so as not to jeopardise or duplicate efforts. I hope you can understand that from our perspective, the university is closest and best placed to ascertain the situation and to manage a disciplinary process (also enabling a person who is complained about to give any defence). Therefore we would await the conclusion of the disciplinary process and take account of that in our own processes. I realise that this ‘consecutive’ approach makes the outcome slower but in our view this is balanced out by the fact that we can then rely on the processes of the organisation that is best placed to conduct a disciplinary review, and avoids duplicatory processes. “

The problem with this response is that the institutional procedures have already been concluded. The charges against Hofman have already been substantiated, a Report is publicly available & Leiden University is in the process of firing Hofman. And other learned societies have already acted. Shah’s argument does not seem to make sense (& normally when someone starts a letter by saying they take allegations of bullying seriously, it is a pretty good indication that they plan to do nothing).

The least that should be done now is that the British Academy should suspend Hofman with immediate effect (as the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences has already done).

Of course, it is a serious matter to remove a fellowship of a learned society for breaches such as bullying or harassment or misconduct or fabrication of results. However, once evidence is available in the form of investigative reports by institutions, organizations or government agencies, then the minimum that should be done is suspension, while the learned society looks into the matter.