 |
| Alan Cooper, U of Adelaide |
I'm reproducing here a Facebook post which sums up recent investigations of bullying, harassment, and other issues in Australian archaeology and anthropology. This will be updated as the investigations continue. One important update as of June 13: A letter from the Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists about the importance of investigating these issues.
Some colleagues here may have noticed that I have been Tweeting quite a bit about my investigations into accusations of bullying, harassment, and unethical handling of indigenous remains concerning ancient DNA expert Alan Cooper at U of Adelaide and archaeologist Michael Westaway (now at U of Queensland.) I began going public on this when a significant number of sources had related their experiences about both men and there was no longer any doubt that the allegations had merit. New people are approaching me every day and the universities involved are fully aware. A lot of colleagues in Australia, ranging from junior to very senior archaeologists and anthropologists, are getting involved behind the scenes because they see this as a chance to finally make a dent in the very rigid, macho culture of Australian archaeology. If anyone here has any experiences to share, please get in touch with me privately.
I should mention that both of these investigations began when Australian colleagues approached me privately and asked me to look into it. Many people have just had enough of bad behavior by now. As one former member of Cooper's lab wrote to me:
"...I have witnessed at close quarters the devastating and lasting impact that he has had on friends and colleagues over a period of years. Maybe there are gendered aspects to this that I am not aware of, but my experience of Alan is that he is an equal-opportunity bully who mistreats men and women alike."
Update June 11: Since I first posted this, an increasing number of new sources, witnesses, and victims of this bad behavior by both Cooper and Westaway have contacted me. I hope to be able to prepare a more comprehensive report in the next couple of weeks. I should point out that I have talked to several colleagues who have a hard time believing the worst about both Cooper and Westaway, because both men are capable of being quite charming and appearing sensitive in certain situations, for example out in the field. But to their own students and colleagues at their home institutions, both men are reportedly capable of terrible bullying and other misconduct. That is often the way with bullies and harassers.
Comment from Professor Paul Harvey, former chair of University of Oxford zoology department:
Alan Cooper was forced to resign from Oxford after accusations of irregularities on a grant application, at least that was what was reported at the time (2005)--there may have been other factors as well which I am looking into. Paul Harvey was head of the department at that time. He has agreed to make the following comment:
“Alan forged data (and my signature as Head of Department) in a grant application and lied. His group came to me with a catalogue of irrefutable evidence. I forwarded it all to the University and they took over the investigation. Alan left for Adelaide under a cloud.”
Further update and a question, raised today on Twitter: Did Alan Cooper falsify a grant application in Adelaide?
See the Tweets below. As one witness describes the scene:
"Alan Cooper's gleeful words when he heard that Jeremy Austin got his ARC Future Fellowship: 'I can't believe we got away with it!'"
Update June 11: Since I first posted this, an increasing number of new sources, witnesses, and victims of this bad behavior by both Cooper and Westaway have contacted me. I hope to be able to prepare a more comprehensive report in the next couple of weeks. I should point out that I have talked to several colleagues who have a hard time believing the worst about both Cooper and Westaway, because both men are capable of being quite charming and appearing sensitive in certain situations, for example out in the field. But to their own students and colleagues at their home institutions, both men are reportedly capable of terrible bullying and other misconduct. That is often the way with bullies and harassers.
Comment from Professor Paul Harvey, former chair of University of Oxford zoology department:
Alan Cooper was forced to resign from Oxford after accusations of irregularities on a grant application, at least that was what was reported at the time (2005)--there may have been other factors as well which I am looking into. Paul Harvey was head of the department at that time. He has agreed to make the following comment:
“Alan forged data (and my signature as Head of Department) in a grant application and lied. His group came to me with a catalogue of irrefutable evidence. I forwarded it all to the University and they took over the investigation. Alan left for Adelaide under a cloud.”
Further update and a question, raised today on Twitter: Did Alan Cooper falsify a grant application in Adelaide?
See the Tweets below. As one witness describes the scene:
"Alan Cooper's gleeful words when he heard that Jeremy Austin got his ARC Future Fellowship: 'I can't believe we got away with it!'"
- ...but he has not responded to three requests for comment on it. Some will recall that Cooper was forced to resign from @UniofOxford in the wake of allegations of grant application irregularities and possibly other issues. There are first hand witnesses to Cooper’s boast..eply
...Let’s get everything out in the open before more lives and careers are wrecked, shall we? There’s just too much at stake and Adelaide is not protecting students even though it knows about many episodes of #bullying.
[To be absolutely clear, it's Jeremy Austin who did not respond to three emails asking him to comment or clarify this allegation. A number of people have told me now that they just can't believe that Jeremy would engage in unethical behavior. Perhaps he didn't. Those colleagues should ask him about this directly, and see what he says. Don't just feed the rumor mill, confront the issue directly and honestly, please. Is Jeremy covering for Alan Cooper? Did it never happen at all? Or did Jeremy have a lapse in ethical judgement and go along with one of Cooper's schemes (he has a history of fraud, re Oxford.) Let's get at the truth.]
 |
| Michael Westaway, U of Queensland |
![Peter Rathjen: Serial sexual predator, pedophile protector, and manifestation of all that is rotten at the University of Adelaide? [Update July 20, 2020: Rathjen resigns due to "ill health"]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhv2zZDdkMCZ682nm_jjaMKj10YQlHM_1NXSBgpRCHqJJXltcoS7wFYbh8aYMX_M8EEkiW-gBGZTxuW6icTYY5hrPEDlBalEStHCvh6wWUS6Pl30v6Jhw45a726-uLQKtPE1tuCq9MyXqRV/w680/Rathjen.jpeg)
22 Comments
You liken Alan to a business owner or football manager. From what I have heard from numerous colleagues who have been through that lab, the latter analogy might be more accurate. But should science be a competitive, contact sport like football, or a more cooperative endeavor that fulfills some of the more noble aspects of humanity? That might sound idealistic, but it really should be the ideal in the minds of many people.
Then you refer to those who have complained of bullying (and, btw, sexual harassment) as "snowflakes." In the US that term would peg you as a right-wing Republican Trump supporter. I hope that's not the case.
Despite your dismissal of those who have complained, there are actually quite and few of them, and some have managed to go on and have successful careers despite still suffering from trauma. Others are still there and just trying to survive the experience. One colleague described to me two basic strategies for coping with Cooper: Keeping one's head down and making it through, or surviving by being a sycophant. You say that you argued with Alan sometimes, so perhaps you were not a sycophant, but in the end your defense of him could be construed to mean the same thing.
Finally, the Oxford story has never fully been told, why Cooper really had to leave. I believe it was more than just irregular grant applications and I am likely to find out more as I continue to investigate.
Welcome to the world of trying to be successful in a highly competitive field. Some snowflakes prefer a softer environment.
Or one might alternatively say, some people with a stronger sense of morality and ethics prefer that academic competition be genuinely merit-based, and not based upon one's capacity to engage in outright aggression and intimidation. It's to the point in Australian archaeology where we even have a term for such people: silverback. If our wish to move beyond the era of the silverbacks in archaeology makes us snowflakes, so be it, but as others have phrased it before, if you get enough snowflakes in one place, you get an avalanche. The environment of professional academe, especially in Australia, is in places highly toxic and change is long overdue.
Also, with respect, your opinion of whether or not Alan Cooper is a bully and a liar is not particularly helpful in deciding whether or not he actually is a bully and a liar. The very worst bullies and abusers often get away with it for so long precisely because they're capable of switching on great charm and charisma at will. People look at them and say, "Surely he can't be a bully, he's such an engaging and charming person when he's with me." Which then means victims are disbelieved, their self-esteem continues to corrode, and eventually you end up with a sort of gaslighting by proxy, where the victim may begin to doubt their own experience because nobody else will believe their word over the word of a more powerful person who just has an excellent poker face. We're just learning this lesson in Australia after the conviction of Cardinal George Pell, who even while on trial managed to obtain character references from not one, but two former Prime Ministers. That's the degree of charm that can be turned on and off at will.
This sort of behaviour in academia must never be tolerated and must never ever be excused.
So now let’s see...that’s:
(i) a relatively poorly planned (impulsive) attempt to bully me
(ii) clearly by someone too cowardly to take responsibility for his actions, who
(iii) had such a happy lab that it resulted in its frustrated staff doing poorly planned attacks on others, unless,
(iv) the postdoc was innocent and the PI made a habit of blaming his staff for his poor behaviour.
I remain anonymous to maintain the dignity of the postdoc in question, just in case he was innocent of the charges and just a tool of the PI. Although perhaps, P Bruvs, the PI's behaviour was simply the kind of thing you expect in high pressure labs, that we snowflakes can't handle?
I had lots of run-ins and arguments at both the institutions mentioned. Some quite feisty indeed. On the other hand we were all gifted with a wonderful chance to do high level, cutting edge, research on fantastic materials.... if we had the imagination, drive and scientific chops to grab those opportunities. Some of us did... others... less so. I thought - and still think - that the feisty, argumentative, atmosphere there was stimulating. The plain-speaking constructive criticism, given and received, was vital in helping to prevent wastage of time and resources, both of which were tight up against some of the world's best labs - and certainly helped to sharpen up and improve my papers and hypotheses (and I like to think I did the same in return). I expect the many other people who worked - and still work - there for years feel much the same. In contrast, I've also worked in labs where everybody is polite and collegiate and 'supportive'. In labs like these, there was just as much - probably more - easing people out, back-stabbing, plotting etc. But all done behind a veneer of middle class academic politesse. Two-faced hypocrites, basically. I preferred the in-your-face factory-floor, say-it-to-your-face, atmosphere. But I understand, given the socio-economic backgrounds of the great majority of 'academics', many might have found it tough. Go and work in a factory or a building site FFS. I have. And some of these people weighing in, now there's a bandwagon, are indeed snowflakes, frankly; who look everywhere and at others for reasons for their disappointment except the place they should look... the mirror.
As I'm no longer involved directly in the game, this will be my last comment on the issue. Bottom line, the snivelling and back-stabbing on display is unedifying and I'm far from being the only ex-lab member - both males and females - who thinks it's pathetic. You wonder why plenty of normal folks hold academics in contempt by and large? Look at all this shite and try to imagine viewing it from the point of view of a plumber, welder or footballer. End of...
As for anonymous posting on this comment thread: I do hope that the only colleagues posting anonymously are those who are really vulnerable and at risk, and not senior scientists whose livelihoods and careers cannot really be threatened but still hide behind the mask of anonymity. Perhaps everyone could think about following the example of Tanya Smith at Griffith, who just bravely named her bully:
https://drtanyamsmith.blogspot.com/
I will remain anonymous as I am up for tenure in a couple of years, and depending on how this all shakes out, my file could well be sent to Cooper for evaluation. I enjoy gainful employment and am not willing to put it at risk.
I would not expect someone up for tenure to take big risks, so that does not refer to you. But there are tenured, senior, untouchable scientists who still post anonymously.
I can only speak for myself and say that I did not know about the Oxford events before I joined, even if other folk did. People in ACAD come from a variety of academic backgrounds and not all moved in aDNA circles beforehand to have heard the rumours. First I heard of it was when someone shared with me the Nature story from May 2005 (vol. 435, p.398 - News in Brief https://www.nature.com/nature/volumes/435/issues/7041) about his departure from Oxford.
I agree it's an interesting phenomenon why people would knowingly throw in their lot with someone with that kind of history. I think an even more interesting question is why the University of Adelaide was willing to hire him in the circumstances. As the Nature story from 2005 makes clear, his Adelaide lab was already in the pipeline at the point that he left Oxford, so the University cannot claim ignorance of his background. The institution needs to be held accountable for making a bad choice, and for sticking with that bad choice.
I left Alan’s lab about 1 year before the Oxford investigation so don’t have the details first hand, but my understanding is that the investigation Paul Harvey refers to concluded that the misconduct related to grant issues. Its not my place to say what the details were - and perhaps there were fraudulent facts in the grants. I do not condone this for one second if true. (I also don’t condone any of the other alleged behaviour this series of posts is about, if they are shown to be true).
What i can say, is that i know of no research fraud that relates to any published work from his lab, during my time there (2000-2003). In that time Alan’s role was always in the creation of projects and publishing resulting papers. His students and postdocs did all the data generation, analyses etc. Alan simply had no hand in that. For all his alleged sins, he’s a very smart scientist and extremely good at taking results and spinning them into great stories, and that’s what he did on those of our projects he cared about.
I know almost all of those who overlapped with me well. And do not for one second think any of them did anything but the highest quality science. If there are incorrect facts in papers resulting from that time, i do not think they were intentional, as i don’t think any of our cohort would have tolerated any attempt by Alan to change any facts. And at least in my case, Alan never once gave the slightest suggestion any fact/data be changed. ( I never wrote a grant with him mind you...). I would hope that whatever Alan is alleged to have done at ACAD did not fall to pressuring employees to make up data. Not least as he’s smart/creative thinking enough not to need to do that, and presumably reflected on his last days at Oxford.
So yes grant fraud is bad. And research fraud is bad. And big scientists treating people badly is wrong at so many levels. I neither condone, nor excuse any of those in any lab - despite the argument presented by one poster who says its the reality, that’s just bull. In labs run by bullies it might be. But that’s not representative of most labs i know, many of which are very prolific and have many happy alumni and current staff.
But to get back on track, its important that the rumour mill keeps to accurate details of what happened at Oxford, and that IF Alan is guilty as charged, its for things he actually has done, not which legend now says he did.
Tom Gilbert
D.Phil with Alan, 2000-2003
Professor at the University of Copenhagen
PS as i said, i was not at Oxford when the investigation happened and what i know is through the alumni. I’d be very happy to be corrected if what i state above is wrong about what he was proven to have done.
It remains, however, very troubling that there are credible and reliable witnesses to Alan having boasted of doctoring a grant application for his deputy Jeremy Austin around 2010/2011. This was for a Future Fellowship award from the Australian Research Council. Given the Oxford situation, it would form a pattern if true. I have heard that some colleagues are angry that I have raised this allegation concerning Jeremy, who is well thought of. But Jeremy has not responded to my queries (three) about whether it is true or not, and whether Alan might have been bullshitting or exaggerating when he made this claim in front of multiple witnesses. I hope those colleagues who think highly of Jeremy will ask him themselves, directly, and that this matter will be cleared up soon. Meanwhile I will continue to pursue it, and frankly the University of Adelaide and the ARC should be doing the same with all of the allegations.
However, Michael, I am stunned that you’ve potentially thrown Jeremy Austin under the internet mob justice bus based on a few contextless overheard words, with Alan Cooper saying, “I can’t believe we got away with it”. This means almost nothing. Maybe he felt they’d undersold an aspect of the application and thus were fortunate to be successful or it could just be typical Aussie/Kiwi self-deprecation. My advisor often referred to grant and paper successes with, “We fooled them”. Then there’s a gossip-style mention (above) of sexual harassment. I can’t comment on Adelaide, but it’s this sort of rumour-mongering that was part of the Oxford story and that often condemns the innocent if difficult to disprove or alternatively, if proven false, can free the otherwise guilty of their less sensational malfeasance.
So, I don’t blame Jeremy or anyone else for not wanting to discuss this situation on this forum. Some of this looks like pitchfork journalism, which hardly engenders trust. Investigations that ignore context and causal relationships and fail to carefully tease apart fact and fiction may ultimately even help select for more insidious bullies and empower false accusers.
To be clear, I am in no way suggesting that Alan Cooper should be free from scrutiny. Universities should give any bullying claims the full attention they deserve.
Matt
Alan did not just idly say "I can't believe we got away it it" or "oh we fooled them."
He described in detail to those present how the grant application had been falsified.
I understand the desire to protect Jeremy, but why don't you ask him about it directly? I have not heard from one colleague yet who has actually done that. He can speak for himself about this, if not to me, to others.
As for sexual harassment, again, these are not vague accusations but at the moment specific sources have to be protected by being circumspect about the specifics.