The death of Dr Jane Ying Wu, covered in Nature Careers (2026), is a profound tragedy. Following an administrative investigation at Northwestern University that resulted in the loss of her laboratory and funding, she was left without the work to which she had devoted her life. She killed herself on 10 July 2024. Her death raises questions about how institutional processes can affect not only careers, but the well-being and dignity of those subjected to them.
The managerial class in many Universities would rather drive someone to suicide than be shown to be wrong or criticised.
While this case occurred in the United States, similar patterns can be observed elsewhere. At Cambridge University, there are troubling instances in which administrative actions, prolonged investigations and a lack of any accountability have caused lasting mental harm to researchers and their teams.
In one case, a medical researcher and an entire group were subjected to a four-year investigation initiated by unsubstantiated and malicious allegations from colleagues. During this period, the laboratory operated under severe restrictions and repeated audits, creating an atmosphere of uncertainty and strain. Although external reviews ultimately found no basis for the claims, the process itself had already taken a lasting toll on all the researchers. The laboratory did not recover. It is now closed. No formal acknowledgment or apology followed.
In another instance, a researcher faced a sustained period of distress during an investigation into false allegations that were never substantiated. Attempts to challenge the process were met with prolonged delays and inaction. When the researcher sought support through formal channels, the response was stonewalling. Important evidence — including medical documentation — received insufficient consideration. The outcome left the researcher without meaningful resolution or reassurance. She took a years sick leave and was haunted by dreams of killing herself.
A further case in the Clinical School involved the sudden removal of a researcher’s access to their work following an unverified claim. Although the matter was later clarified and the researcher was found to have acted appropriately, the consequences were immediate and disruptive. Access to data was lost, and no formal redress was provided. There were months of anxiety and sick leave.
Across these Cambridge cases, a common pattern emerges: processes that extend over long periods, decisions made before evidence is fully established and zero accountability when errors occur. The consequences are not only professional but deeply personal, affecting mental health, stability, and a sense of belonging within the academic community. In all these cases, the researchers came close to the edge.
The loss of Dr Wu underscores what is at stake. These are not abstract procedural issues; they involve people, livelihoods and lives shaped by years of dedication. When institutions fail to act with care, transparency, and accountability, the damage can be irreversible.
A more humane approach is needed — one that ensures fairness, timely resolution and genuine responsibility when mistakes are made. Without such changes, the risk of further harm remains.
(The 21 Group is publishing this on behalf of a researcher at Cambridge University. Photo Credit: Elizabeth Rao)
20 Comments
The Reaper · 27 April 2026 at 19:26
Death by HR
TheResearcher · 27 April 2026 at 20:56
This is a very sad story indeed. Unfortunately, one cannot compensate her loss and the loss of others. Thinking about our local context, it is abundantly clear that Cambridge University became a serious health hazard to many people, and it seems that there is no one in the senior leadership who is willing to step forward and prevent further damage. There is always an excuse for not acting, for looking the other way, even when the abuses are right in front of their noses. HR do what the senior leadership let them do.
xx · 28 April 2026 at 09:26
It’s really sad to see how far the University has fallen. We just must do better than this.
Anon · 28 April 2026 at 11:27
When bad things happen, I do try always to understand how it could be done by people who are (on the most part) not “fundamentally” evil. In this case and the others I think the key problem is that HR has no real overlap with or contact with ordinary university staff. They give instructions to management; they never bother with anyone else. This means that they miss the “underlying reality” of academic life – rival factions who constantly compete against one another for access to resources and will use HR (and anything else they can) to attack their opponents without explaining their true motives or caring for the damage rendered. HR has no idea of the real structure of “academic politics”, so it happily initiates baseline investigations that institutionalise bullying instead of blocking it: all the while ignoring genuine reports of abuse (often ones in which they themselves were at some point complicit).
21percent.org · 28 April 2026 at 13:09
This is a very good point with which we agree
Culture · 28 April 2026 at 13:15
jealously and resentment are a huge factor I mean if you look at the REF rankings… modern languages, history, politics, architecture are all ranked poorly and so it is not hard to explain why they have so many problems, b/c really it is insecurity and fear that explain how they are treating people. A good HR would see that this is where the problem is.
TheResearcher · 28 April 2026 at 17:07
That does not explain what is happening in the biomedical and physical sciences that produced some of the biggest scandals! There are dishonest people across the University and they are allowed to thrive and persist because of the poor leadership we have who put institutional reputation above anything else. The culture of secrecy and cover up of misconduct is deeply engrained in UCam and it is by choice because those who openly challenge suffer institutional retaliation and are ultimately purged.
Fables of the Academic Zoo · 28 April 2026 at 18:29
In my experience there are two kinds of bully in academia: the ogres and the snakes.
1. “Ogres” – highly accomplished and celebrated scholars who think of themselves as untouchable. Predominantly male. See themselves as having a free license to sexually harass, cajole, and coerce whoever and whomever they like. Brazen and unconstrained until they meet a bigger beast, step on an angry scorpion, or, in some happy cases, taken down by a troop of aggrieved bonobos.
2. “Snakes” – scholars who produce little substantive research if any at all, but have slithered their way up the administrative hierarchy through guile and use of tongue, and are possessed by a writhing, resentment-induced inferiority complex. Can be either gender. Rarely overtly aggressive. Instead their poison is inked in malicious references, false rumours, backhand budget cuts, and passive aggression of all kinds. But the violence is no less real for all that, simply harder to detect.
TheResearcher · 28 April 2026 at 20:02
Trust me, there are other kinds of snakes 😉
https://21percent.org/?p=2443
Eileen Nugent · 28 April 2026 at 14:27
This is an extremely tragic case, a person works their whole life to get an opportunity to do the work they love only to have that opportunity they had already earned suddenly taken away from them through no fault of their own. It’s a heartbreaking end to a person working their hardest on what they are most able to do for society to make scientific progress so that others may live a world whether better health is made possible for all by continuously developing a better understanding of health.
When the level of trust in the relations between two big countries drops, people can get caught in the subduction zone of two big social tectonic plates. This means that people can find themselves in situations that are not of their own making but are instead arising due to the existence of international tensions. A person can be put under abnormally high pressures in such situations. Tensions between two big countries operate on scales that are orders of magnitude higher than tensions between two individuals.
If the pressures being placed on a person are arising as a result of international relations dynamics the resultant pressures on a person can be orders of magnitude greater than pressures a person has ever faced before, the pressures can have completely different dynamics to any pressures a person has ever faced before and the pressures can leave a person in situations that it would not have been possible for a person to end up in had such pressures not been put on them.
If the level of trust between two big countries drops, the pressure that can be generated at the international level can reach extremely high levels, that can generate extremely high pressure at the national level in each of the big countries, that extremely high pressure at the national level in each of the big countries can then be focussed on specific individuals in each of the countries as a result of individuals holding highly specialised national roles and therefore being a part of highly specialised international relations contact points.
If the level of trust in the international relations between two countries drops this means that highly specialised international relations contact points and any individual connected to one can be being subjected to an extremely high level of scrutiny which can put a person in unusual positions with regard to be able to carry out their work. This can put an individual in a position where breakdowns in trust and confidence at all levels are possible for a person through no fault of the person themselves – with national funding agencies, with a university, with colleagues, with students – leading to a full breakdown in all the relations a person is relying on to stay in a stable position in a nation and to maintain a reciprocal relationship with a nation.
That can eventually result in a complex breakdown in trust and confidence between an individual and a nation state which can generate pressures that are unbearable for an individual. The normal pressures of a highly specialised job could be already be extremely high, they could already be more than most people could cope with and a person could have sustained being under those extremely high pressures for 20 years. These international pressures operate on a completely different scale and it’s a completely different challenge to deal with them particularly if there is no dynamic emotional and financial support for the individual when dynamic pressures of that scale are been placed on a individual in a position where the pressure inherent in the position is already extremely high.
Eileen Nugent · 29 April 2026 at 01:38
Irrespective of the origins of national pressures – international tensions, internal tensions or a combination of both – it is up to a nation to effectively manage its national pressures.
It’s up to a nation – government department, funding body, university based academic community – to work together to see that if national pressures do become focussed on a person when that person is already in a pressurised position that the person can access support mechanisms to enable the person to cope with that additional pressure that has been placed on them. It’s up to a nation to effectively maintain trust and confidence with a person in that situation.
If the end result of a situation like this – national pressures become focussed on a person already in a high pressure position and without access to support mechanisms to enable the person to cope with the additional pressure on them – is that a university-based academic community has the person arrested by its own internal police officers and external police officers to be put in a psychiatric hospital against the persons will that has the potential to result in the irreversible breakdown in relations between a person and a nation.
That type of breakdown in relations is exceptionally difficult for a person to cope with. It can put unbearable pressure on a person and result in a preventable death.
Eileen Nugent · 29 April 2026 at 02:08
A nation relies on key people – professionally trained HR staff – to understand the pressures a person is under and in any work-related situation and to prevent work-related situations from spiralling out of all control and resulting in this type of breakdown in relations.
David Dunbar · 29 April 2026 at 12:33
Totally agree. HR have that responsibility to co-ordinate support and if they don’t provide that service, having checked the details, they are failing staff.
Eileen Nugent · 30 April 2026 at 19:01
Maintenance of trust internally in a nation is a necessary condition for the maintenance of trust in a nations external relations with other nations. If a nation prioritises maintaining trust internally this reduces a nations overall risk of excess tensions in its external relations with other nations. If each nation prioritises maintaining trust internally that reduces the overall risk of excess tensions arising in international relations.
MUSKETEER · 28 April 2026 at 17:33
The SCM is a toxic place! The great scandal that is still brewing there will eventually explode in the faces of the oligarchy! It is simply not possible to cover up the gigantic wrongdoing that occurred there! World-class research was destroyed and replaced by utter mediocrity led by those that created the problem in the first place! Just look carefully at who is now in charge of what used to be the leading cancer research programme in Cambridge! Easy to spot!
M@shh1t · 29 April 2026 at 07:57
If you mean the director then he passed away on Saturday the 4th.
David Dunbar · 28 April 2026 at 17:37
HR and Legal Services need to be able to independently support and advise individuals in the university as well as look after the senior leadership and support the university’s goals and financial stability. This obviously needs manpower and specialist skills. In many places, they are not doing that at present. As per the contributors to the 21 Group, there are many, many people identifying the serious deficiencies of HE and NHS senior team member actions. A wide range of sources from the HE sector and elsewhere including HR experts, academics and others provide evidence for a better approach to staff and student treatment. Below are some examples I am incorporating/incorporated into recent articles on LinkedIn. It is quite unbelievable that some senior University HR staff do not read the literature and other media and take lessons for their own organisation. Even just reading the weekly headlines of the CIPD’s ‘People Management’ publication would suggest what not to do. Interestingly I don’t come across articles in which HE or HR experts are advocating on the benefits for the organisation on the techniques used which constitute or form part of the bullying of staff, suppression and harassing of whistleblowers or attacking both those who stand-up for them and those questioning university hierarchy behaviour etc!
Matt Jarvis, Professor, and his department’s Associate Head of People, argues for the ‘need to stop all forms of bullying and harassment’ –
‘…we need- i) to be equipped to challenge poor behaviour when we witness it and ii) an HR process that works for everyone involved and to support those harmed by bullying and harassment. I hope that we continue to learn as a community and take the opportunities to educate ourselves on how to deal with instances of bullying and harassment, whether subject to it or witnessing it, but also improve as supervisors, line managers and colleagues, working towards eradicating such behaviour in our University.’ [Jarvis M. (2022) ‘Bullying and Harassment in Higher Education’ University of Oxford Mathematical, Physical and Life Sciences Website Nov]
Cheryl Samuels FCIPD, Director of People & Culture at Evelina (GSTT), Most Influential HR Practitioner 2022 and HSJ Top 50 BAME Influential Leader in Health 2022 & 2024 (describing the case of a nurse who was suspended for months because she was alleged to have released patient-identifiable information. She was re-instated when it was confirmed that this was not the case.)
‘What is deeply concerning is that it appears to have taken the progression to an employment tribunal for that point to be properly settled. Surely that is precisely what a fair, competent investigation should have established at the outset. Investigations are not neutral just because they are labelled “formal”. They are shaped by the assumptions, confidence and capability of the people leading them. When investigators start from fear, reputational anxiety or personal bias, the process quickly drifts from fact-finding into justification.
We see the similar patterns repeatedly:
– early assumptions driving the direction of travel.
– evidence gathered to support a narrative rather than test it.
– policy used as a shield instead of judgement and suspension deployed as risk containment rather than last resort.’
In this case, there were multiple layers that required skill and balance: racial abuse experienced at work, complex issues around language, belief and identity, & the need to distinguish clearly between discomfort, disagreement & misconduct. That complexity demanded better investigation, not heavier process.’
[https://www.linkedin.com/posts/cherylsamuels_nurse-in-pronoun-row-reinstated-in-job-after-activity-7419609007444869121-umZx]
Last year a University of Salford study team comprising Human Resources and Employment Law researchers, the organisations- People Genetics and CMP Solutions [https://lnkd.in/e9T3cuMk], in association with NHS Highlands and the Scottish Government’s project ‘The Healing Process’ reported its findings –
“It’s time to move beyond the combative, legalistic approach to employment and embrace a more human-centric model—one that prioritises collaboration, respect, and shared success. When we treat employees as people, not just contracts, we foster a workplace where innovation thrives, trust deepens, and businesses grow sustainably.” [Tracy Boylin and Salford Business School (2025) ‘Salford researchers helping to protect victims of bullying in the NHS’ 24 March]]
Llandis Barratt-Pugh and Dragana Krestelica’s study ‘provides evidence that policy formation alone is insufficient. Bullying appears strongly associated with the “historical patterns of power” within higher educational settings. Without managerial development and interaction, little will change, with significant implications for staff morale, turnover, and educational delivery. Despite policy interventions, more than a third of all staff experienced bullying with the adverse consequences for subsequent education delivery.’ [Barratt-Pugh, L. G. B., & Krestelica, D. (2025). Eradicating Higher Education Staff Bullying: A Case Study of the Gap Between Policy Environments and Employee Realities. International Journal of Educational Organization and Leadership, 32(2), 127-155. https://doi.org/10.18848/2329-1656/CGP/v32i02/127-155%5D
TheResearcher · 29 April 2026 at 20:22
The 21 Group (and others) in the news…
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/cambridge-professor-new-sexual-harassment-allegations-1794233
Not clear why Financial Times is not covering this issue!
Eileen Nugent · 1 May 2026 at 09:59
When Cambridge started, it didn’t start with a large endowment, with impressive buildings, with an international reputation – it started with a group of people who were willing to work together for a better future.
People with the same exceptional courage and devotion as Dr Jane Ying Wu, people with the same exceptional persistence and determination as the Cambridge researchers above speaking out at exceptional personal cost to prevent others from being caught in one of these extremely hazardous situations that are extremely difficult to escape, people who understood that if a person is forced to struggle through no fault of their own the answer is to do what you can for them and not to take what you can from them.
That is how Cambridge started – not with money, buildings or a reputation to defend – but with people who were willing to work together for a better future.
Eileen Nugent · 5 May 2026 at 19:12
There is something more painful than grief, not being able to pay the emotional cost of grief when life demands that emotional cost be paid, there is then the pain of grief and the pain of being unable to pay the emotional cost of grief.