Papermilling is a dubious research practice. It refers to situations in which research processes or findings are conducted in a way that is questionable, misleading or lacking integrity. This includes unethical practices, exploitation of students and postdocs, plagiarism, deliberate manipulation of data or superficial research that doesn’t contribute genuinely to the field. It is driven by the ‘publish or perish‘ mentality.
There is enough bullshit already in the world of academia. Papermilling produces more and more bullshit. It makes up “the world of Bullshitmore”. Sniffing out the bullshit is one of the jobs of the papermill hunters at For Better Science .
Professor John Suckling is Director of Research in Psychiatric Neuroimaging in the Department of Psychiatry at Cambridge University. He is also a member of CRUK, Cambridge. His profile states he “has a strong interest in research ethics and is the Chair of the Psychology Research Ethics Committee, and the University Research Ethics Committee that oversees University policy for research that involves human participants and personal data.” Listed as a research associate at Cambridge University in Professor Suckling’s group is Dr Juan Manuel Gorriz, who is also a Professor at the University of Granada in Spain. Dr Gorriz has a Cambridge University webpage here with an affiliation to the Department of Psychiatry in which he announces his keenness to supervise Cambridge graduate students.
In 2024, Alexander Magazinov — one of the patrolmen at For Better Science — noticed that Dr Gorriz may have engaged in unethical practices or paper-milling. He provided a number of examples of unsatisfactory behaviour, which include violations of research integrity. They are listed here.
For example, a paper co-authored by Dr Gorriz was retracted for peer review fraud. It now carries the disclaimer “Following publication, the publisher uncovered evidence that false identities were used in the peer-review process. The assignment of fake reviewers was confirmed by an investigation, conducted in accordance with Frontiers’ policies and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. Given the concerns, the editors no longer have confidence in the findings presented in the article“.
Another co-authored paper of Dr Gorriz’s has repeated obvious mistakes in acronyms and offers little contribution to the advancement of the field. For example, “SARS” is stated as standing for “Serious Intense Respiratory Disorder“. Pubpeer also lists further papers co-authored by Dr Gorriz with multiple retractions or with citation stacking. These are all unethical practices which degrade the integrity of modern research. The latter two papers list Dr Gorriz’s affiliations as “Department of Signal Theory, Networking and Communications, University of Granada, Granada, Spain and Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, UK“.
Accordingly, For Better Science made a complaint to Cambridge University.
Cambridge’s Research Strategy Office swung into action. The matter was reviewed by Dr Rhys Morgan, Head of Research Policy, Governance and Integrity and member of the Centre for Science and Policy. The full text of the letter, labelled ‘Strictly Private and Confidential’, is available on the For Better Science website. (Dr Morgan was also involved in the lengthy and abusive handling of Magdalen Connolly’s plagiarism complaint, blogged on earlier here and here).
Dr Morgan deftly pushes away everything as someone else’s problem. First, he argues that some of the instances are “more appropriately handled” by the University of Granada. Then he does that familiar Cambridge thing — he sets the bar for misconduct so high that everyone can scramble under it, even Dr Gorriz.
It was the view of the reviewer that the complaints raised do not fall within the definition of research misconduct as set out in the University’s Procedure. It has, however, been recommended that the concerns raised regarding the fourth paper should be raised with the authors to decide whether a correction to the literature may be required. Given the findings of the initial review, the Head of the Department of Psychiatry has decided to dismiss the complaints made. [Dr Rhys Morgan, Head of Research Policy, Governance and Integrity, Cambridge University]
This is an extraordinary decision, though individuals familiar with Cambridge University and its very remarkable grievance procedures will not be too surprised. The actual decision seems to have been taken by the Head of the Department of Psychiatry. This gave Leonid Schneider of For Better Science the opportunity to deliver an absolute belter of a right hook:
“The Head of Department of Psychiatry is called Ed Bullmore, who should change his name to Ed Bullshitmore.” [For Better Science]
Should Cambridge University be doing better than this? Should Professor Suckling, who is Chair of the Psychology Research Ethics Committee and a member of the University Research Ethics Committee, be expecting higher standards of his own research affiliate and collaborator? Should Professor Bullmore (once he has picked himself up off the ground after the knockout) be aspiring for excellent research practices in his own department? Should those offering themselves as supervisors and mentors of Cambridge University graduate students be aiming for the highest principles of research integrity?
We all have a responsibility to maintain high research standards. Especially an elite university.
97 Comments
SophiesWorld · 20 February 2025 at 07:16
Why did no-one think of this name before?
I already love Leonid Schneider, though we’ve never met
Schneide · 20 February 2025 at 09:22
Die Schneide schneidet den Bullshit
WaynesWorld · 20 February 2025 at 10:30
Ihr werdet mir meinen Schneid nicht abkaufen
impressed · 20 February 2025 at 09:28
incredibly impressed that you managed to get to the end of the article without once making any similar joke based upon the name of the first named academic in this piece
I cannot take it any more
think I need to go outside and scream all the variants I can think of out loud to get them out of my system now
21percent.org · 20 February 2025 at 09:59
Just to clarify, the credit for the name belongs entirely to Leonid Schneider.
The italicised material is quoted from ‘For Better Science’.
The sleuthing was done by Alexander Magazinov.
Everything the 21 Group has stated is in Roman font. It is purely factual & it can be verified through the links.
Our wish is that Prof Bullmore should speedily reverse his decision.
We are acting to maintain and protect the high reputation of the University.
naamalum · 20 February 2025 at 10:57
chill peeps, compared to what circulates on student chat, that joke is about as offensively spicy as a watered-down chicken korma
gratitude · 20 February 2025 at 10:12
thank you for leaving the library first before doing so
we are all very grateful and only mildly perturbed
BS · 20 February 2025 at 12:22
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/professor-ed-bullmore-appointed-regius-professor-of-psychiatry-at-kings-college-london-1#:~:text=The%20new%20Regius%20will%20join,of%20Psychiatry%20in%20June%202025.
Anonymous · 20 February 2025 at 12:57
This is an excellent illustration of the subtle ways in which our culture of denial and obfuscation is undermining our research excellence.
One aspect, which you note, is the fact that we would perform better if we enforced complaints about research integrity. We could have done so very easily. Professor Juan Manuel Gorriz has a strong research career. It would not have ended it, for us to request that he issue a brief apology and commitment to do better in future. We owe that to our students, colleagues, funding bodies, and the international academic community to show that we take such issues seriously. Professor Gorriz would soon have new papers, produced, one hopes, with a little more proofing and fact checking.
Instead, it seems Prof Bullmore was under pressure (or felt it “normal”) to deliver a BS acquittal in an attempt to bury everything under the carpet, thereby ensnaring himself (entirely unnecessarily) in the middle of this scandal.
As a result, it is Professor Bullmore who has decided to leave the university. That was a complete own goal. He has after all an astounding research career of his own (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=W6SoSFoAAAAJ&hl=en) and Kings were delighted to snatch him from under our noses.
Just as with the Magdalen Connolly case, which destroyed Magdalen’s career and dumped Dr Esther-Miriam Wagner in the Daily Mail, we have achieved another double own goal.
We need to change and do better.
21percent.org · 20 February 2025 at 14:37
This is an excellent summary with which the 21 Group is in agreement
Incredulous · 20 February 2025 at 13:10
I am at a loss for words…. the Bullshit(more) is spreading…
21percent.org · 20 February 2025 at 13:49
We appreciate the strength of feeling on this issue, but kindly request that those with personal allegations write to contact@21percent.org, and for participants to maintain a spirit of good humour and constructive debate.
Majjhimāpaṭipadā · 20 February 2025 at 16:23
Thankyou for this. I know that many of us have strong feelings of sadness, hurt and injustice about the ways in which we, and our colleagues, have been treated.
I acknowledge too how the expression of those feelings probably offers a long overdue means of therapy and relief: and I admire those of us who can do so via humour and jest when beneath that is so much suffering and pain.
But we must not lose sight of a window to be open and understanding: and eventually channel those feelings towards positive change. That is how we develop measures of reform that will protect future staff from ever having to face similar experiences to our own.
Engineer · 21 February 2025 at 17:54
Just a brief note to say thanks for keeping the rest of this thread sensible and focused on the real issues.
For my part I don’t begrudge anyone the right to make oblique references to the powers that be (frankly I think that is long overdue), but all the same, may I suggest an informal “code” along the lines of what I will call the “after-dinner speech” rule — i.e. to stick to remarks that, in the context of an after-dinner toast (perhaps by a member of faculty known to possess a legitimate grudge or two) they would still be considered a bit of highly justified and perhaps overdue good-spirited ribbing.
For the record I think commenters have done a good job of sticking to that. But still this can be a good guideline to follow going forwards.
Natural Law · 21 February 2025 at 18:14
While I agree with this in a broad sense, I want to state VERY clearly that we have the right to criticise the administration of this university in the ABSOLUTE harshest terms we desire.
Why? Because I am a member of the Regent House. I expect most of you are too.
Whatever misguided notions they may have formed:
****the Council, HR, Legal, Registrar all report to us.****
That is how we are governed.
***Hence it is we who have the right to discuss and judge them.***
They have no reciprocal rights against us.
And yet, somehow, they seem to have forgotten this fact.
So now let us teach them.
Alternate Law · 21 February 2025 at 20:27
Bloody well said. This little HR “Saturnalia” party is over.
Now the real university must take back control and clear up the mess they have left behind.
black as your soul · 21 February 2025 at 21:46
exactly they were supposed to serve the university but then they betrayed the university make them face the justice they deserve.
Feast of Fools · 21 February 2025 at 22:00
Members of the Regent House should elect a Special Investigations Committee, and then, this Committee must have the unlimited remit to investigate these issues fully and to their maximal extent. This should include access to all emails, internal documents and records, the ability to call witnesses, and to conduct and record interview evidence.
Then, those found guilty must be given the chop.
Justice^2 · 21 February 2025 at 22:26
might even take < four years to give them what they deserve
still we'd better get a move on
chop chop
Eileen Nugent · 21 February 2025 at 22:00
Unidirectional criticism of individuals on issues that could have significant consequences for the individuals and the governance structures they comprise is a problem. The organisation would have to be set up to work for individuals in every position in the organisation going forward to prevent problems in future. A body of 1000s of people focussing their criticism on a small subset of individuals with no right to return criticism of how the body, Regent House, is functioning as a body and interacting with other parts of the university governance machinery would be stressful for the subset of individuals in these positions.
There could be problems with Regent House, e.g. that last EJRA decision, how many members of Regent House took independent legal advice as to the legality of that decision. How many members of Regent House asked to see legal advice obtained by the university? It is not clear that decision made by Regent house to retain a people process that automatically forces an individual to retire at a specific age instead of a process that checks with an individual about their retirement plans is legal. The Oxford EJRA judgement indicates there could be individual cases where forced retirement is unlawful as lawfulness is highly context dependent in such cases. If this is the case the people processes are then set up to harass a specific subset of people e.g. laboratory based group leaders, the university could not then justify the unnecessary stress cost (health risk) to that subset of individuals. That is then an extremely significant problem, if Regent House is an independent governance mechanism, shouldn’t it have access to independent legal advice that it can distribute to its members when taking critical governance decisions such as that one?
I can understand if people on this forum have limited capacity to feel any sympathy for the work-related stress levels of – council, HR, legal, Registrar – but in investigating the impact work-related stress is having on the whole organisation no organisational position would be excluded and the work-related stress being encountered by individuals in these positions would also need to be investigated. If there is no plan to get rid of these organisational positions, someone has to be able to do these roles in going forward, before appointing other people to any of these roles, it would be important to establish whether the current working conditions in these roles – workload volume and workload fluctuations – is an ongoing health risk to individuals occupying them. Before appointing other people to any of these roles, it is necessary to check if they are safe, if they are not safe then perhaps that is part of the current problem.
Vox · 20 February 2025 at 14:21
Anonymous hits the key point, and one which is common to most of the recent scandals and mishaps at the university.
As faculty, one aspect of the university’s duty of care is to ensure that we can just do our teaching, do our research, thrive and grow as scholars without having to worry about being caught up at some point later in someone else’s court case, plagiarism scandal, or other act of misconduct by the powers that be.
I have no idea of the degree to which Professor Bullmore was either acting independently, instructed by HR, or, simply following a standard practice of dismissing complaints by default.
But the key issue is that all of these constitute some degree of institutional failure those goes beyond the individual concerned. Obviously, if he was instructed by HR, then they are the ones responsible for causing him damage during the ensuing controversy and should be held liable. if he followed an institutional norm, that too is a failing at a systemic level. Finally, one could argue that even if he acted independently, even then, one can ask why there were no safeguards in place to push back (e.g. external, independent review of complaints).
We are all inside this system where we know bad things are happening and have zero confidence in the administration to protect us and our reputations, rather than deceive us, withhold information, ensnare us in their acts of abuse, and finally throw us under the bus the moment it looks like they will be found out.
I do not blame him for leaving for Kings. His professional career will be safer there, as, most likely, would ours too.
Elsie Franklin · 20 February 2025 at 16:39
Yes a strong HR system should support both managers and staff. For instance, it should step in early when someone starts to bend the rules—not just for accountability, but also to protect managers from bigger problems down the line. Honest mistakes can be caught and corrected before they escalate.
The same principle should apply to all compliance procedures. Faculty, for example, would benefit from early warnings about plagiarism or other misconduct, giving them the chance to address issues promptly and make things right.
Unfortunately, the system we have now does the opposite.
Instead of transparency, problems are buried. Those who raise concerns are punished. Well-meaning academics get drawn into conflicts they never intended to be part of, just to spread the blame around.
The end result? Unnecessary harm for everyone involved.
No one is truly safe in a system like this.
21percent.org · 20 February 2025 at 18:54
Unfortunately, this is a very accurate description of the state of Cambridge University and its HR department.
There is far worse to come.
The 21 Group is aware of a number of cases much worse than anything that has yet entered the public domain.
These cases will inevitably become public over the next year, if not sooner.
Anon · 20 February 2025 at 22:03
At one end of the HR spectrum of deficiencies there is incompetence and cluelessness as to the meaning of all those policies and processes they’re supposed to advise on. At the other end there is intentional malevolent deception and abuse of trust.
The worst of the lot are the wannabe lawyers. Best to remember that HR are not hired to provide legal advice, and that their understanding of e.g. employment law or of what constitutes defamation is often more akin to folklore than to anything one should take much notice of.
*** · 20 February 2025 at 22:38
Do not take legal advice from HR. Ever.
Remember, these are people who are facing many court hearings for their creative “understanding” of the law.
They are very adept at finding people they can throw in front the court in place of themselves. They will have no hesitation in letting you twist in the wind while they walk away unharmed.
Caveat · 20 February 2025 at 22:41
Remember there are multiple cases of defamation against HR and Legal Services winding their way through the courts… and when something looks illegal, 9 cases out of 10, it probably is.
Confused · 21 February 2025 at 15:39
It is all just wrong on so many levels.
First, there is supposed to be a glass wall between Legal and HR. Legal have to advise on the design of organizational rules and procedures, so as to make them compliant with the law, then HR can take the lead on how to implement and uphold those rules, including grievances, disputes, and staff mediation. But anything that concerns the law directly, needs a qualified legal professional. And besides, most of the time, so long as HR are behaving ethically, the law need not become an issue.
Second, the problem a lot of universities have – and this is not just Oxford and Cambridge – is a culture within Legal Services of figuring out how to strain or even break the law but still get away with it. Remember, lawyers are not policemen or judges . Their job is not to uphold the law. It would be naive to think that whatever comes from Legal Services is something that a court would approve of. Rather, lawyers provide legal advice, and that includes how to avoid getting into legal trouble, especially in situations where the law is being broken and sometimes routinely.
So sometimes lawyers will warn HR about the risks of what they are doing, but HR keep this advice to themselves. That is why HR have to be careful to ensure someone else (unwitting academics or a dept admin) are left on the hook should things go south.
Then ironically, Legal sometimes treat HR the same way – to ensure they get blamed and not the ones providing the advice.
But when HR assume the role of legal advisor for themselves, there is truly no-one else to blame.
21percent.org · 21 February 2025 at 17:13
The comments of rising star barrister Flora Page on the role of the in-house lawyers of the Post Office are pertinent. They were a major driver of the scandal.
https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/the-role-of-lawyers-in-the-post-office-scandal?_ga=2.158312058.1102843162.1733659436-14448099.1733659426
“I suspect a myopic interpretation of acting in the client’s best interests, and not enough focus on integrity. What appears to be in the client’s best interests in the short term may actually be counter to its best interests in the longer term. Being a bit sharp or tough may seem to get a good result but in the examples I discuss below, the lawyers acting for the Post Office would have been truly acting in their client’s best interests if they had advised them against actions which looked good in the short term.”
In-house lawyers acting for universities face this dilemma. You say:
“The problem a lot of universities have – and this is not just Oxford and Cambridge – is a culture within Legal Services of figuring out how to strain or even break the law but still get away with it.”
If true (which we suspect it is), then this is Post Office scandal territory, something which many universities seem to be teetering on the edge of.
Perplexed · 21 February 2025 at 13:48
As I understand it, the function of HR is not to offer legal advice at all. Unless they are trained in law and have secured the necessary qualifications, their communications in this domain do not have standing or legal privilege.
The role of HR is to (inter alia) advise on internal company (university) procedure, ethical best practice, and to offer services such as mediation and support for staff.
Due to shortage of legal staff, perhaps some members of HR may have assumed this function. If so they are doing so without authority, qualification, or the ability to provide protection to managers who follow their advice and are later caught at fault.
Eileen Nugent · 21 February 2025 at 17:11
The role of HR is to spot problems when organisational processes are becoming a problem for people, including themselves, and to figure out what to do to prevent the same problem reoccurring in future. If people are pointing to e.g. unlawful employment practices, HR has to take legal advice which if taken in an effort to fix a specific problem has legal privilege. If taken in an effort to get rid of a person without fixing the problem, organisational processes, and that approach is repeatedly taken in subsequent cases of other people it’s not clear that legal privilege will continue to apply as evidence of a systemic problem is then continuously left to accumulate with no organisational breaking mechanism in place.
The legal landscape can shift in time which is why its important for HR to keep up with what the salient issues in HR that CIPD their professional body is highlighting to make sure organisational processes don’t descend into a state of unlawfulness through not being updated to reflect the current state of e.g. organisational legal obligations under employment law or health and safety law. The legal input sought by HR – which would have legal privilege – should serve two purposes, remedy the individual case, fix the processes to prevent future reoccurrence of a similar type of case.
HR cannot use its access to organisational legal advice to try to protect their own interests at the expense of another individuals interests, it can legitimately access organisational legal advice to protect its own interests in cases where it is also attempting to protecting the interests of all other individuals i.e. it is making a genuine organisational attempt to remedy the situation and to accurately balance the interests of all individuals concerned. Looking at the MacKenzie unfair dismissal case, the organisation is not genuinely attempting to remedy individual cases, it is just trying get rid of them without remedying them and leaving all the same organisational problems in place. That’s the real problem, that organisational behaviour that started over a decade ago and has been left in place since. In not remedying that case an organisational default was put in place to not remedy any serious employment case, that is intent at the level of the organisation to put people through stressful remedy processes with no intent to remedy. That is intent to harm individuals at the level of the organisation rather than at the level of individuals in the organisation who are following an organisational precedent that has been set over a decade ago. That’s not something that would necessarily be picked up on in a single employment tribunal case but a work-related stress health and safety inspection would pick that up as a major work-related stress generating organisational problem.
When raising concerns, it is the quality of information characterising the organisational fault provided that counts, not the personal characteristics of the individual raising concerns or how often an individual was forced to raise the same concerns. If an organisation is continuously generating significant regulatory risk for regulators and significant workload for them they will soon take action to put a stop to that situation and to prevent future reoccurrence. This seems to be what is required now to get the organisational processes back to a healthier state.
Anon · 20 February 2025 at 18:29
HR thinks that the solution to every problem is to produce another training video.
But the root problem is that the practices of the organisation (including HR itself) violate everything they teach.
HR = BS · 20 February 2025 at 19:37
It is a lose-lose dilemma. They tell us to do one thing. But if ever held to account they point to the video, throw up their hands, and say “not us”. This is the real bullshit.
They are the ones who should resign.
MatchingMole · 20 February 2025 at 22:34
If a member of HR told me it was Thursday, I’d check the calendar
I recommend taping any meeting with any member of HR. Easy to do now with phones, tablets & computers, mics.
Because HR will double-cross you.
Without your own record of what was said, you are at their mercy. They’ll stitch you up like a denim jacket.
RVM · 20 February 2025 at 22:48
I often saw them do this to the “little people” – most often hapless Department Administrators, who were left to take the fall when the bullying complaints came rolling in for the conduct they had coordinated.
Now it seems they have graduated to throwing even very senior professors under the bus, which I have to interpret as a very creative method of implementing their early retirement policy. But also a good means of getting rid of uppity professors who complained too many times about why their pay or working conditions were so much worse than members of HR.
MatchingMole · 20 February 2025 at 23:01
Point about working conditions is well-made.
Almost no academic has a good work-life balance. We are too busy bringing in the money by research grants or teaching
HR have excellent work-life balance. They are always out of the office on Friday afternoons.
hullaballoo · 21 February 2025 at 05:20
My Departmental Administrator is terrified of the School HR Business Partner. These people strike fear into the hearts of the “little people” (though a DA is not really that “little”). It just shows how their untrammelled power has corrupted and terrorized the university.
Also it’s worth mentioning that individuals in HR who dissent from the prevailing narrative of ‘deny & attack the victim’ can become victims themselves.
Anon · 21 February 2025 at 08:03
There is DSAR evidence of a Business Manager encouraging a senior professor to modify their previously collegial and respectful email communication to an even more senior professor into a much more offensive one. The result did not contribute to improving relations.
She then proceeded to send the “improved” version to the HoS (without copy), as evidence of the professor’s strong feelings.
It was deliberate, malicious, manipulative and destructive.
If you want to be able to explain what you wrote, what you decided and why, to a colleague, an investigator, a barrister or a judge, write your own text.
If HR or legal advise you on what to say, ask them to send their advice in their own name.
Anonymous · 21 February 2025 at 11:51
Hullaballoo – I once heard directly from a Department Head, that when someone new takes the job, they are given friendly advice by the incumbent that HR are the “absolute” rulers of the University, and to dare not go against them in any way. The fear was palpable and genuine, and you can see from this blog why that is. The danger here is obvious, although managers should still stand up for victims of HR, as that is their job, and vice versa. This was at another institution, at the opposite end of the rankings and financial spectrum.
“It’s also worth mentioning that individuals in HR who dissent from the prevailing narrative of ‘deny and attack the victim’ can become victims themselves’.
I hope such individuals come forward, as they are critical to exposing the situation at UK Universities and bringing about real change.
Anon – this is really shocking too. I have also seen such destructive manipulation from HR. It was in a different form, but ultimately designed to make certain situations worse and to quickly spiral out of control.
I completely agree with the points you make. To add to that, always beware of the letters from HR that *are not signed, or even do not have a name attached at all*, or letters where the HR Director has signed on behalf of someone else! These are all deliberate tactics to minimize and deflect accountability when the reckoning comes in court.
If you receive a letter like this, always politely insist that the name of its source
and a signature is attached, or have it resent directly from the official email address of the author.
MiniMax · 21 February 2025 at 12:34
I have recorded several of my meetings with a very senior figure within our HR administration. They do not know that I had done so.
Immediately after one meeting, this individual sent a summary of “minutes” to an aggrieved staff member which were the complete opposite of what they had stated verbally only hours prior.
I have since learned that I am not the only person to witness and retain evidence of such misdeeds.
I think I still have the recordings but will check to be sure now.
Colleague · 22 February 2025 at 13:43
This is horrendous. I am appalled. Remember, these are the same HR stooges who routinely stitch us up charges of “lack of collegiality”.
But all the while, they are the ones stirring up conflict – making us write hostile statements against our own colleagues, doing covert acts of defamation, and refusing to disclose how they were involved, making us look like the ones who were doing the dirty work.
I think we all know where the real threat to “collegiality” comes from
It is time we stood up for collegiality, and prized these HR toads from our backs once and for all.
Eileen Nugent · 21 February 2025 at 15:46
Personally I would not opt to covertly record anyone else but I make no judgement regarding those who have done this as there might be situations that do demand it. If I wanted to record a meeting I would request to record it at the start of the meeting and then make the recording available to the other party. If that request was denied I would bring a pencil and paper and get HR to talk very slowly while you write every single word they say down after which I would get them to read every single word that has been written down and to sign the notes at the end of the meeting as an accurate record of the meeting and give then provide them with a copy of it. This approach does require a high level of individual patience but it will soon put a stop to any problematic behaviour.
21percent.org · 21 February 2025 at 16:53
We agree with MatchingMole that any meeting with HR may be potentially unsafe and therefore this is a legitimate tactic for protection and peace of mind. After all, if HR do stick to what they say in the meeting, then there is no need to disclose the recording.
The legal position is that there is no expectation of privacy in a work meeting. Any work meeting (with HR or not) in which bullying or harassment or racial discrimination or any form of illegality is taking place may be recorded.
Eileen Nugent · 21 February 2025 at 17:33
I completely understand where 21percent.org is coming from on this and as I said above there may be cases where covert recording is warranted. I was forced to continuously resist the problematic behaviour and to try to reduce the probability of it reoccurring in future because the stress of the situation posed such a significant risk to my life. Forcing transparency in the situation by getting a shared recording can sometimes be enough to keep the behaviour in check, it can sometimes be enough to prevent something more stressful from happening to you when you really are at risk and cannot afford to pay any more of the consequences of this type of organisational behaviour.
Eileen Nugent · 21 February 2025 at 17:45
I had no legal advisor – struggled to find one who would look at a public interest case, I had no union support because I wasn’t a member, I was raising my own case on my own behalf with no support in meetings apart from one meeting. The stress of the situation was already exceptionally high and I was continuously at risk, I had to use every strategy possible to try keep the organisational behaviour in check and prevent it from getting worse in relation to me and generating more stress whilst continuously trying to recover my health to the point where I could get out of the situation completely.
Eileen Nugent · 21 February 2025 at 17:59
I didn’t want to let the problematic behaviour happen, record it, and then report the problematic behaviour I just wanted to put a stop to it right there and then by forcing the transparency in the meeting and making them think about it. The fuck ups in my case were so numerous, so serious and so well documented in official paperwork that there was already plenty of evidence that something had gone very seriously wrong with the employment. When I didn’t go to employment tribunal I think they then thought I was a push over. As soon as I mentioned severe mental health I think they assumed that meant they could ignore everything I ever said.
Eileen Nugent · 21 February 2025 at 18:14
I undertook some legal training, I think the university will find it harder to push me over now. I undertook some mental health training and my mental health is much improved, the university can continue to ignore everything I say, I can say it to the regulators.
Eileen Nugent · 21 February 2025 at 18:25
I just wanted the organisational behaviour to stop, I didn’t want to take action against any individual or take anything to an employment tribunal, I just wanted the organisation to stop what it was doing to me and to make it think before doing the same thing to other people. I will keep going until a stop is put to this problematic behaviour at the level of the organisation.
Eileen Nugent · 22 February 2025 at 18:39
To state clearly, whilst I am free to represent myself in any legal case in relation to myself and suffer the consequences of any legal errors made, I have not been formally legally trained and nothing I say should be taken as the insight of an individual who has undergone or is undergoing formal legal training.
21percent.org · 22 February 2025 at 19:21
Academics can easily represent themselves in Tribunals, if they wish.
Here is an example
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66ded5ad54a79f541f089249/Dr_A_M_D_Arcy_v_University_of_Leicester_2600044.2022_Amended_Judgment.pdf
Dr D’Arcy (medieval literature) won her case for unfair dismissal against the University of Leicester.
She represented herself against a KC employed by the University of Leicester.
Anon · 22 February 2025 at 19:49
Eileen
Based on your experience, I think you are the last person on earth the university would want to take to court right now.
The very attempt to do so would cause immediate backlash. It would immediately prove the point of so many posters here – that there is a culture of bullying and intimidation against victims, whistleblowers, and anyone who dares to speak out – as a direct assault upon freedom of speech and the values that are core to our democratic tradition and the broader public interest.
HR 101 · 22 February 2025 at 10:24
In many companies, all meetings that deal with legal compliance (financial conduct, workplace safety, discrimination) would be recorded by default.
This not only protects the employee against abuse, by keeping a record of any non-compliance on the part of their line manager (who is also an employee, and would be sanctioned by the company if they failed to adhere to the rules).
It also protects the company, by showing that they had been compliant were any accusation later made to the contrary.
The refusal of Cambridge HR to permit recordings is de facto a sign that a culture of non-compliance with the law not only exists, but that deliberate efforts are in place to prevent any form of accountability.
21percent.org · 22 February 2025 at 10:40
Agreed. A recording protects everyone involved.
Cambridge University’s position on failure to record HR meetings is (we understand) almost universal in UK universities. A correspondent told us that even requesting that the meeting be recorded was a potential disciplinary offence at another university (Newcastle University).
When queried, Cambridge HR say recordings are not permitted as the aim is to produce a “non-verbatim record”. What on earth is the point of that?
The final line of your post is entirely correct as to the real intention behind this. This is a red flag — a massive sign that non-compliance of the law exists and its aim is to prevent real accountability
Eileen Nugent · 22 February 2025 at 18:21
I think recordings should be permitted in these critical HR meetings. That would increase the probability of the appropriate behaviour of all parties during these critical meetings (events in the legal timeline in relation to a case) something which would protect every party in the meeting, prevent the problem from worsening in the process of trying to find a solution for it and reduce the probability of the problem escalating. It would also allow other individuals to check the case in the event the problem started escalating out of all control. The aim of an efficient remedy process is to find a solution to the problem being raised without generating any further problems. If every time a problem is raised, that handling of the initial problem generates an infinite cascade of other problems – i.e. a shifting grievance or concerns target to be remedied – that is not an efficient of sustainable approach to remedying problems.
White Bear · 21 February 2025 at 09:26
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb
Agreed to have a battle;
For Tweedle Dee said Tweedle Dumb
Had failed to brand her cattle.
Just then commenced a jolly press show,
Which raised from staff a universal joy of carol;
And this frightened both the zeroes so,
They quite forgot that
HR directors who commit serious crimes will end up in jail
Jemima · 21 February 2025 at 10:17
The dilemma is that of deciding you are so far in to the river of blood, “should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o’er”, then at some point discovering it is not a river at all but an ocean and there is no other side to reach.
Lady M · 21 February 2025 at 11:44
Well it used to be a river that flowed smoothly. One in which they could throw staff one by one under the bridge, and then, watch them float downstream without a paddle and end up out at sea.
But a group like this establishes a dam.
Cases and testimonials accumulate. Evidence piles higher and higher.
Now the flood barriers are breaking and everyone is knee deep in it.
Anon · 21 February 2025 at 12:25
🐺
X · 24 February 2025 at 08:09
They have done many foul things. But perjury is most likely what will take them down, as it is easy to prove and they have grown blasé about doing it.
Victim · 21 February 2025 at 18:59
Our lab had our grievance dismissed by Professor Bullmore.
Whether his response was a carefully scripted masterpiece from Legal/HR or a heartfelt reflection of his own indifference, one thing was certain—it had absolutely nothing to do with our wellbeing. After all, why burden himself with the inconvenience of speaking to those affected, even when the gravity of our situation warranted, at least, a perfunctory meeting?
With unwavering loyalty, he staunchly defended the University’s actions, citing compliance with regulatory bodies—though curiously, no tangible evidence of these so-called mandates was ever produced. Instead, we uncovered that the supposed “instructions” came from a conveniently unrecorded phone call with a single senior investigator, who has since retired into the sunset, unburdened by accountability.
When we took it upon ourselves to verify these claims through FOI requests, multiple regulatory bodies responded with a resounding “We have no record of any such communications.”
While we struggled under the weight of what was happening to us, he did what was expected: he did nothing at all.
WTF · 22 February 2025 at 07:44
WTF how is that possible?!
Such bury-head-in-sand behaviour is why universities have been enshittified.
Victim too · 22 February 2025 at 08:46
I was in the same lab and can confirm this.
Bullmore is all BS and no spine.
AnotherVictim · 22 February 2025 at 09:00
I am another victim of the same lab
What happened was shameful.
Victim as well · 22 February 2025 at 12:08
I too am a member of this lab. I needed counselling paid out of my own pocket as University would not pay for counselling for lab members who had left. Think University was glad to see the back of us “affected alumni” and I can assure you, Professor Bullmore did nothing to help. He as Head of Psychiatry should have understood how traumatised we were.
Innocentatlarge · 22 February 2025 at 14:44
This is a really huge scandal that needs investigating. It took place at CRUK, Cambridge
It’s the usual Cambridge problem, collusion between HR and out-of-control academics.
As noted by Vox, “We are all inside this system where we know bad things are happening and have zero confidence in the administration to protect us and our reputations, rather than deceive us, withhold information, ensnare us in their acts of abuse, and finally throw us under the bus the moment it looks like they will be found out”
My view is Bullmore was placed in an impossible situation.
Dawson · 22 February 2025 at 17:40
Words cannot express how appalled I am to learn of this. Cancer research saves lives. So when someone disrupts cancer research, that means being indirectly responsible for the potential loss of unique treatments and therapies with the ability to improve the lives of millions.
It is a matter of the highest public interest. So I hope that Prof Bullmore will inform the public of exactly what happened and which individuals may need to be held accountable.
I do not personally allege any wrongdoing, but the mere possibility of wrongdoing on such a matter must elicit a robust public investigation to determine the facts.
Reporters needed · 22 February 2025 at 21:45
Bullmore always had a choice to do the right thing: to initiate an investigation into the handling of the situation. Of course, he chose to dismiss the case.
But the fact remains:
Charity and taxpayer money was misused to conduct a witch hunt to eliminate one of the most impactful and highly cited breast cancer research labs in Cambridge.
Millions in research funding wasted due to ridiculous 4-year-long halts in studies and experiments. Students and early career researchers completely screwed over, unable to publish or progress in their careers, intimidated and traumatised to the point of requiring expert help.
People who spoke out were threatened with lawyer’s letters and frivolous lawsuits. How does CRUK and Cambridge pay its lawyers? Funds from taxpayers, tuition fees and charities (CRUK).
All this literally goes against the aims of CRUK. People donate to CRUK thinking the money will go to help patients with cancer, yet it is squandered in petty politics
If there are any investigative journalists who want to look into this, you won’t have to dig very deep to find people willing to speak out, given how many people were affected.
Banshee Chorus · 23 February 2025 at 12:49
“Charity and taxpayer money was misused to conduct a witch hunt to eliminate one of the most impactful and highly cited breast cancer research labs”
They are the perpetrators of pure evil.
May their sleep be forever haunted by the wailing cries of dying cancer patients.
I hope their faces are splashed in the tabloids, and they never walk the streets again without judgement and shame.
Owl · 23 February 2025 at 12:56
Misuse and abuse of lawyers & barristers is also the case for the disaster that has engulfed the Institute of Astronomy
People who speak up & advocate for those being harmed are then harmed themselves in turn.
As for Cambridge University HR, there are no words: Do you really think you can evade accountability for all the harm and damage you have done? Of course not.
Engineer · 23 February 2025 at 15:11
I would like to retract my earlier remark regarding the need for civility in debate. Such a rule cannot apply when human lives are at stake.
I was not aware until now of what had been going on at Cancer Research UK. But when lives are at stake, bullshit must be called out for what it is.
Eileen Nugent · 23 February 2025 at 23:47
Care is needed in debate, when human lives are at stake, care is what is needed in debate. These situations are exceptionally stressful for everyone and it’s very difficult to remain calm in them at all times but care is what is needed in the debate. Carefully calling things that need go be called out, out.
SophiesWorld · 21 February 2025 at 19:41
https://21percent.org/?p=1371
Solidarity · 21 February 2025 at 20:07
Thank you for sharing this. Yet another dismal case of young researchers having their careers and futures destroyed at the university, and nothing being done to support or protect them.
It is time we put this travesty to a stop. No more victimisation of early career researchers. Full stop.
Now.
YoungLivesMatter · 21 February 2025 at 20:51
NO MORE ABUSE OF CAMBRIDGE YOUNG SCHOLARS
seriously, what the fuck is wrong with us?
For Shame · 22 February 2025 at 09:46
All of those responsible must be found out, and then put in the University’s Hall of Shame.
disappointment · 22 February 2025 at 11:49
was hoping it would be more Walk of Shame but I suppose we could settle for this
Chandi · 22 February 2025 at 19:27
The Cancer Research case is shocking. But here is even worse news – there are at least five more cases exactly like this in the past few years alone.
We are talking here about – research centres closed. ECRs and postdocs bullied and terminated. Complaints ignored. Funding blocked. All either ignored by HR or coordinated together with our lawyers.
So ashamed I cannot look people in the eye. I cannot understand why others do not feel the same. The same sense of injustice. It goes against everything a university is meant to be and do.
21percent.org · 22 February 2025 at 19:34
We know of many similar incidents & will be taking action.
If you feel able, please use contact@21percent.org to tell us of these cases in confidence.
Chandi · 22 February 2025 at 20:54
Some are alluded to in comments on this blog. Others perhaps are yet to come to light.
For now one thing I would like to emphasise – and I should say that this in response to some of the comments above – is the fact that few of these conflicts were at the outset “initiated” by HR.
Instead, what happens again and again is that there is an act of corruption or nepotism by a senior professor, resulting in a legitimate complaint.
Then rather than investigate the matter or meet with victims, we only meet the culprit responsible for the abuse and their justifications or excuses are taken as the “truth”.
As a result HR swing behind the person(s) responsible for the abuse and as soon as there is any hint of legal action, legal services do exactly the same.
At no stage does anyone really bother to determine the facts. Even if there is legal action no-one outside of a very small circle properly reviews the evidence properly until right before the final hearing.
That is why I want to say that while I support the proposal to have some kind of investigative committee, it must be completely free of such influences.
The members of such a committee should be majority external to the university. And they must be vetted to ensure no connection at all to insiders of any kind, whether HR or senior professors.
21percent.org · 22 February 2025 at 21:13
We think this is a good summary of what is happening again and again
It starts with a badly-behaving senior academic. Then there are failures of HR which compound the problem. HR swings behind the senior person responsible for the abuse. And then Legal does too.
The culture of an institution is set by those at the top. There need to some changes at the top before the university will start to heal.
Our view is there are too many bodies for the university to ride this out now with the current management.
Anon · 22 February 2025 at 22:00
I agree with you that matters are mostly not initiated by HR. The DSAR established matter referred to above was not initiation, it was escalation as part of a scenario along the lines of the one you describe.
A Head of Department was out of control, removing grants from colleagues, interfering with grant applications, with recruitment, trying to block grants from being received, to make people redundant or retire them, damage their reputation and much more.
HR sided with him and manipulated communications in his favour, attempting to deflect informal complaints, and eventually escalated a particular matter towards a formal grievance, which would be manipulated even more. The HR Business Partner sprang into action, organised an external investigation out of policy, then parachuted herself into the investigation as a witness, told a few porkies (all in favour of the abuser) while discussing with others ways in which the forthcoming investigation report could be used (against the aggrieved).
All part of the service to the rogue HoD…
It destroyed an entire department, and the “truth” established by HR is still there to haunt us to this day.
Juvenal · 23 February 2025 at 03:28
“The HR Business Partner sprang into action, organised an external investigation out of policy, then parachuted herself into the investigation as a witness, told a few porkies (all in favour of the abuser) while discussing with others ways in which the forthcoming investigation report could be used (against the aggrieved)”
This individual should be facing disciplinary action. He/she is dangerous.and corrupt.
If this individual rises further in HR (whether in Cambridge or elsewhere), then he/she is likely to be even more dangerous.
This is an individual who should not be in charge of anything that can in any way impact the lives of other people.
Anon · 23 February 2025 at 09:17
“This is an individual who should not be in charge of anything that can in any way impact the lives of other people”.
I would agree with you. However…
The Director of HR sprang into action and asked the ill-behaved colleague to provide some self-exonerating prose. Which was then duly forwarded. End of action taken.
The Head of School took responsibility for all and everything done, knee-deep in brown and soggy stuff.
And the Business Partner remains in charge of advice and decision-making impacting on our lives every day to this day.
Eileen Nugent · 23 February 2025 at 23:59
I think in most of the situations where things have gone really wrong the situation has been approached with a closed organisational mind. A target organisational outcome is selected by someone and the job of HR-legal is then to “create” the organisation reasoning to make the target organisational outcome the “correct” one. Instead of approaching the problem with an open organisational mind, what is the root cause of the problem? could the situation be remedied to the benefit of all concerned? what are the risks of not remedying the situation? if we “solve” the situation as an organisation in this particular way which may seem convenient now will that leave behaviour in place that is likely to mean a reoccurrence of the same type of situation in future?
GossipMonger · 21 February 2025 at 22:08
When VC Stephen Toope announced he was leaving early, there was a scramble to find a senior & distinguished academic to serve as Acting VC.
A number of academics were sounded out about the role. They all made it a condition that there must be reform of HR. This was declined.
Anthony Freeling took up the post on 1 October 2022 & held the appointment for nine months, until the appointment of Deborah Prentice.
Bad Acting · 21 February 2025 at 22:43
It is so good that we aren’t wasting spades of money hiring expensive and talentless and vacuous and useless management consultants since that time. I for one would not have wanted anyone to get the wrong idea.
Eileen Nugent · 21 February 2025 at 23:14
Since then HSE introduced a new health and safety obligation – work-related stress regulation. Since these the University of Bristol was found guilty of contributing to a student death when its reasonable adjustments processes went wrong. Completely different legal landscape now, completely different set of legal obligations and of legal risks, changing the processes to introduce effective safeguarding to meet these new legal obligations at the level of the organisational is a massive organisational task. No one in the organisation will escape the change process. If the organisation wants management consultants to continue to rescue it i.e. offer it excuses for maintaining the status quo and “protect” them from having to make any significant changes, it’s not going to happen, not on this particular set of issues. That strategy might have worked to fudge it before on other organisational issues, can’t fudge this.
Anon · 21 February 2025 at 23:44
Thank the gods for that! No more student deaths, no more retaliation against whistleblowers!
Eileen Nugent · 22 February 2025 at 01:15
It’s a massive cultural shift, people would have to genuinely care about what happens to other individuals in the organisation at every level in the organisation. That doesn’t mean no one could lift and eye brow or criticise anything otherwise nothing would ever get done in a university, no critical thinking is possible if its not possible to criticise anything, but it does mean that if there was significant stress and health risk being generated for a particular individual in the organisation this would be investigated and dealt with to manage the health risk to the individual. That includes the leadership – which in an organisation with >25,000 people is a group of people who most people in the organisation will never meet but who everyone would then have to care about. That includes HR. That includes the Legal Team. Reciprocal care throughout the organisation.
Given the current state of the organisation it is a huge challenge to get to that state. Very difficult for an individuals to retain a high capacity to care when the organisational processes are left to beat the psychological shit out of them without any effective intervention to spot and prevent such cases. When you read through the Cambridge university reporter, it’s clear there has been a problem with employment processes for decades, it didn’t just crop up over night. Its the accumulation of decades of unsolved problems with employment processes taking them close to breakdown which is why there are so many strikes, then this new obligation is introduced to regulate work-related stress and it generates a complete breakdown because it taxes the grievance processes, the concerns processes and the whistleblower processes and is incompatible with the organisational default of not remedying serious employment situation.That incompatibility is now turning employment cases into serious health and safety cases which – instead of going through grievance processes and out to an employment tribunal – go through concerns processes, whistleblowing processes and then out to a national health and safety regulator.
I think once this problem is finally solved, it will then become clear that the problem is embedded in the whole organisation. I think that will become apparent in the end of the organisational reform because the whole organisation will have to change to solve the problem and that will demonstrate that it really was a problem embedded in the whole organisation, in the processes being applied to people and culture of the organisation.
The organisation could go looking for yet another VC or yet more management consultants to fix this problem but that could be taken as a further sign that all the whole organisation wants is for someone, anyone, to come and rescue it from having to make any changes at all and that the organisation itself is not prepared to do the work necessary to change as an organisation. That is choice is not available here, these changes are not optional.
I can say these things. I have already explored the full range of unfair dismissal types and had 7 firings. I think someone does need to say these things.
NicoCeaușescu · 22 February 2025 at 21:15
Cambridge is beginning to have the feel of Bucharest, December 1989
25121989 · 22 February 2025 at 21:37
Turkeys be cooking
Christmas cannot come soon enough
Timișoara
Gadfly · 24 February 2025 at 17:03
One thing I find funny about the conversation here, is how for the professors (or people I presume to be professors) the narrative is a bit like
>> Look at these nasty HR people who twist our arms and stitch us up to take the fall
While for the HR posters (or presumed as such) it is more like
>> Look at these sneaky professors manipulating us to fight their internal battles / abuse their underlings
So I wonder which of these is correct?
Eileen Nugent · 25 February 2025 at 02:56
The organisation effectively became unregulated on employment over a significant period of time > one decade, it became accustomed to ignoring employment law when convenient to it and to making employment errors and not fixing them. If any individual insisted on an employment problem being fixed it constrained the remedy as much as possible by gaming employment law in its favour. It is now trying the same approach on serious cases of work-related stress cases but because these cases are constrained by health and safety law and human rights law neither of which can be “gamed” in the favour of an organisation at the expense of an individual, the approach stopped working. Not dealing with employment tribunals any more, dealing with national regulators now.
Eileen Nugent · 25 February 2025 at 03:28
An academic that is high up the governance structure in the organisation is having problems with an academic lower down the governance structure in the organisation. HR typically see the academic higher up the governance structure as the organisation and the academic lower down the governance structure as not the organisation [especially if they are not yet permanent]. HR typically does not feel it can disagree with the academic higher up the governance structure because they feel this person has the power to fire HR whilst the person lower down the governance structure does not have the power to fire HR. If the academic higher up the governance structure wants to push out the academic lower down the governance structure in an internal battle its unlikely HR will resist, if its clear that resistance will cost HR their job and the academic lower down the governance structure will anyway be pushed out then HR will not resist. Other academics get caught up in these difficult cases because of internal investigations that surround them.
This is why work-related stress regulation is a key development. Not only can HR put work-related stress risk assessments in place for individuals to enable HR to safely moderate any particularly difficult internal battle and get the right organisational solution to it, one that does correctly balance the interests of the different parties, HR can also get a work-related stress risk assessment in place for themselves if their own employment is being unnecessarily threatened in these situations. They can then bolt a safety line for themselves onto the health and safety governance structures in the organisation or onto a national regulator – health and safety executive – by interacting with them.
Anonymous · 25 February 2025 at 07:17
It is both. As several posters have pointed out, these things start with a badly-behaved professor, who then ropes in (apparently without much effort) HR to do their dirty work. HR then coordinate to ensure other professors have their hands on the knife too, without providing them any context or the full extent of the personal liability involved.
Eileen Nugent · 25 February 2025 at 12:13
Cases the where the root cause of the case is continuing acts of bullying/harassment are exceptionally difficult cases for an organisation to get right and there are serious consequences for an organisation if it doesn’t get them right
Eileen Nugent · 25 February 2025 at 04:13
Work-related stress regulation can be applied to any difficult internal battle in an organisation. Once the safety line is put in place for any particularly difficult prolonged internal battle anyone caught up in that situation within an organisation can avail of the same safety line. In very rare cases i.e. in an exceptionally difficult internal battle where a serious health and safety risk has been generated, that safety line could be bolted on to the health and safety executive, as a national regulator it has the power to bring any serious health and safety situation under control.
Eileen Nugent · 25 February 2025 at 04:47
I raised concerns in relation to specific organisational faults with regulators because that is what is usually of concern to regulators – problems at the level of the organisation – not problems at the level of individual with the organisation. The concerns do not relate to the specific actions of any particular individual in the organisation who handled my case, they relate instead to difficult situations that a particular set of organisational faults has the potential to generate for individuals, something which would happen irrespective of the particular set of individuals who are then tasked with handling the difficult situations generated on behalf of the organisation.