‘We need to do something right now, otherwise people will get even more frustrated’

After interviewing faculty dean Isabel Arends and department chair Stefan Rüdiger, DUB asked chemists to react to the news. How do they feel about the entire department being scrutinised? Do they recognise themselves in the results? But, most importantly, what should be done?   

The professors contacted by DUB were more than willing to react to the report, while PhD candidates were more hesitant. Many of them said they had no time to talk to us, that they hadn’t read the report, or that they needed more time to reflect on the inquiry’s findings. 

Only one PhD candidate was willing to comment on the article, albeit anonymously and via e-mail. This person prefers their name not to be revealed to avoid the risk of being confronted because of their statements. The PhD council of the Graduate School of Natural Sciences also provided us with an answer via e-mail. Here are the answers:

The PhD candidate who prefers to remain anonymous says in an e-mail: 

“I appreciate that they’re paying attention to this dilemma and that the study didn’t aim to find the ‘truth’ but rather to collect people’s experiences.” They continue: “I recognise the image that emerges from this study. I see it happening around me; it’s the kind of experience that we exchange when taking a coffee break, for example. I think that this sort of problem is endemic in academia, not just in our department.

“What stands out to me is that it’s always the same people who are interested in gatherings and studies about this topic, and there is also a group that is always absent. Some people don’t participate for several reasons: they may have never had any problems of this nature, or they may be more resilient to that, or they are at peace with the fact that’s how things go.

“I think something must change in the way PhDs and postdocs are supervised. Research leaders should introduce more structure to their projects. They generate so much stress and work pressure because projects don’t have a clear direction or it’s not clear what is achievable and what is necessary to complete the project.

When it comes to abuse, including those of a sexual nature, PhDs must be reminded that we should treat each other professionally. It is okay to be friendly when working with someone, but we’re still colleagues, so there are limits to what we can do during working hours or at work-related parties. But it remains complicated to truly address this problem.

“I’ve noticed that the reactions to the report vary. Some people have never had any problems, so they are either shocked by the findings or do not believe them. Others appreciate that the faculty is paying this much attention to the issue. Some consider the results too vague, and not concrete enough.

I’ve also heard that some people are scared of ‘not being able to say anything anymore’. They are probably referring to a certain type of humour or joke, which wouldn’t be allowed anymore. Personally, I don’t think those jokes are the main problem, but they do illustrate that many people experience a ‘grey area’ in which it is not entirely clear what is acceptable or not.”

Ineke Braakman, Professor of Cellular Protein Chemistry:

“I think it’s really good that the department and the faculty have commissioned a study about this. That the dean and the chair of the Chemistry department have done it so publicly is a great display of courage too.

However, it’s about time something happens. We have gone the wrong way. And I don’t just mean Chemistry, I hear similar things are happening in other faculties and universities.

I am not surprised by the results. I’ve seen discrimination and bullying happening in all sorts of places. A lack of diversity persists at the top of the organisation and, by this, I am not only talking about gender but also in terms of respect for opposing opinions and other research cultures.

In my opinion, one of the reasons behind the problem described is the great focus on money. The importance of obtaining financing overpowers everything else and the workload gets pretty high.

The most important thing is that something will change for real this time. A lot of people doubt that, but if this report doesn’t get an effective follow-up, I am sure people will get even more frustrated. We should get to work. Chemistry could become an example for other departments.

We should talk about this with our teams and do it in a way that ensures everyone feels comfortable, which is not easy. In the classroom and the lab, too, it is a matter of balance: we try to teach young people to critique others and receive critique professionally, not personally, but that’s a learning process. People have also become more aware and sensitive.

Fortunately, every section is being supported by the two researchers who authored the report. I wish all UU colleagues would get this kind of support because we should work on this right now.”

Chemistry PhD candidate Nicolette Maaskant, representing the PhD Council of the Graduate School of Natural Sciences: 

“We feel it is important that issues around social safety gain more attention throughout the university. The fact that the chemistry department conducted an elaborate investigation towards social safety is a step in the right direction. We hope this development does not stop here and other departments will follow suit. 

In the report, we recognise some stories that were shared with us by PhD candidates from the department, yet it was shocking to read about the extent of the issues. For us, as the PhD council of the Graduate School of Natural Sciences, this emphasizes the importance of giving attention to social safety. Currently, we are actively exploring ways to contribute to social safety. For example, we hope we can contribute to the development of a system where the experience of PhD candidates across the graduate school is monitored regularly. In addition, we serve as a communication channel from PhD level to higher up and people can approach us, especially if they see structural issues. If issues are noticed earlier on, hopefully, it becomes easier to adequately address them. Therefore, we would like to encourage all PhD candidates to keep reporting issues if they arise, no matter how big or small, e.g. to your graduate school council or confidential advisors. 

Of course, it is not sufficient to only be aware of what the issues are. We would like to see guidance from social safety experts about how to invoke the cultural change we need, specifically for supervisors and department heads, as we feel most scientific leaders are not adequately trained for this. We hope to see concrete steps to create a cultural change and improve social safety in the department. We hope that these steps will be visible and communicated clearly to all employees to show that the signals shown in the report are being taken seriously.”

Bert Janssen, Professor of Structural Cell Biology:

“It’s nice that they have commissioned this study. There were enough indications that things were happening in the Chemistry department that needed to be looked into. The report meets our need for more clarity in that regard.

One of the takeaways is that the supervision of PhD candidates deserves more attention because things often do not go well. Unfortunately, it looks like the work environment we offer is not always how it should be.”

“As a team leader, you should also take a look in the mirror. I love it here and I feel at home in this department, and I hope others feel the same. But the report shows that’s not true for everyone. Sometimes you wonder: what is different from before? What changed? I don’t have an answer to that question.

“But the most important thing is to keep on talking about this topic in my group. Group leaders could also use some help with that. The report is but one of the first steps of a process.”