{"id":4644,"date":"2026-10-15T13:32:54","date_gmt":"2026-10-15T12:32:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/?p=4644"},"modified":"2026-10-15T15:43:49","modified_gmt":"2026-10-15T14:43:49","slug":"whistleblowing-in-academia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/?p=4644","title":{"rendered":"Whistleblowing in Academia"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

My article on whistleblowing, published in Nature<\/em>, is here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the University of Cambridge, whistleblowing investigations are overseen by one of three senior officers: the Registrary, the Academic Secretary or the Vice-Chancellor. Yet the\u00a0whistleblowing policy<\/a>\u00a0has still not been updated following the University’s defeat in the Employment Tribunal.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At Cambridge, whistleblowing can carry a heavy price \u2014 for the whistleblower. Those who retaliate against whistleblowers, by contrast, appear to face little risk of consequences. In some cases, their careers may even prosper. Professor Nigel Peake, for example, has been promoted to the Mastership of Darwin College.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Allegations of misleading evidence in court or lack of candour have also not, so far, resulted in any apparent consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The whistleblower, meanwhile, faces substantial financial costs and personal and professional damage. Yet none of the individuals criticised in the Tribunal\u2019s judgment has, to date, faced any apparent consequences at all or even offered an apology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those individuals are Professors Deborah Prentice, Richard McMahon, Nigel Peake, Tim Harper, Beverley Glover, Andrew Flewitt, Kamal Munir, Cathie Clarke and Eilis Ferran, as well as Ms Emma Rampton and Louise Akroyd.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What message does this send to anyone considering speaking up about wrongdoing at Cambridge?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The whistleblower pays the price. Those criticised walk away unscathed.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If this is what accountability looks like at one of the world\u2019s leading universities, what incentive is there for anyone to speak up?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And what lesson does the institution appear to be teaching?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Breaking the rules pays. Candour is optional. Accountability can be avoided.<\/em> Perjury is fine.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is this really the standard Cambridge wishes to uphold?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wyn Evans<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

My article on whistleblowing, published in Nature, is here. At the University of Cambridge, whistleblowing investigations are overseen by one of three senior officers: the Registrary, the Academic Secretary or the Vice-Chancellor. Yet the\u00a0whistleblowing policy\u00a0has still not been updated following the University’s defeat in\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":4645,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4644","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blog"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t