Azhir Mahmood  🚀 🤖 🧬 🧠 🪐

It’s not “mere inaction” if that’s the primary enabler of a toxic enterprise Can we write off university admins enabling a predatory rockstar prof as “mere inaction”? We need to make academic Ponzi scheme as unacceptable as sexual harassmenthttps://twitter.com/Raamana_/status/1345184627456143361?s=20 …

As an example: how many ppl do you estimate were convinced to stop hoarding data as a result of the twitter mobbing of Jack Gallant, as opposed to disengaging from and distrusting the open science community?

let me try get us back to my original question: why is public shaming okay to achieve changes in sexual harassment policies but not okay in dismantling academic ponzi schemes?https://twitter.com/Raamana_/status/1345184627456143361?s=20 …

Sexual harassment, esp. with a power imbalance, is a clear reprehensible behaviour, and often illegal. Public shaming in this instance restores the imbalance of power. (Tho it is still not the ideal solution). There is no equivalence imo to, e.g., publishing choices.

why isn't there an equivalence? both are reprehensible harassment -- as a mentor & friend for many intl students, I know toxic advisors inflict non-negligible pain (much more mental than physical) even in relation to sexual harassment; with "scars" that stay with you forever!!

pain and abuse from toxic supervisors is one of the highest pains I and many other PhD students faced in their life. many academics are desensitized abt it - almost to the point that exploiting trainees is INDEED acceptable (in fact encouraged to sustain the Ponzi scheme)

Maybe you should specify what sort of behaviour you're talking about. My assumption was publication practices...

they are all tied to publi practices, as that's the primary metric we are judged by: both 1) seeking "highly prestigious" venues as well as 2) maximum number of papers lead to toxic environments, and painful abuse and exploitation of trainees, sustained by every1 participating