Research misconduct and breach of ethics

How Luis Serrano, CRG's (Barcelona) Director, lied to the Catalan/Spanish Court

Below is how His Excellency Luis Serrano, CRG Director (Spanish/Catalan research institute of Excellence™), did his best to protect reputat...

Showing posts with label crg-barcelona. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crg-barcelona. Show all posts

Thursday, January 04, 2018

Style of doing science: FAQ on CRG, Barcelona and EMBL-EBI connection


After having known/read my experience in working for science (not real one, but so to say, science), my friends and colleagues keep asking me mainly these two questions: 
I. What happened at EMBL-EBI and why are these cases connected?
— Serrano lab used to be a part of EMBL System Biology Unit, apparently they foster phenotypes like that.
II. Why didn't you quit on your own once you realized that the environment in CRG, Barcelona, was so toxic?
— I did want to, my mistake was that I relied too much on a snitch, was mislead by a «good cop» (Luis Serrano's left hand, whereas his work-wife was a «bad cop») — they all were just a perfect match for each other.
I just could not believe I saw it all real and not in my sleep.
I could not accept the idea that the guy was just a cad.
Also, there was a tiny subjective reason… which kinda shadowed my objective assessment of the situation.
Here are the answers elaborated.
  1. In April of 2013 my boss at EBI-EMBL reported on me to HR after I had used capital letters in one word of the working correspondence: that was the exclamation-like «WHAT?», — he said then that I was rude and impossible to collaborate with (indeed I wasn’t much collaborative in some sense, see below p.13).
    HR explains me that writing one word in email using capital letters is equal to shouting. But on the other hand she looks confused and keeps asking me whether I have something more to tell her. I don’t want to tell more.
    However, the project coordinator, who was the addressee of that my email, says in the presence of HR that she hasn't considered me rude and inconvenient to collaborate.
    Meanwhile I'm excluded from acknowledgement in inner EBI meetings concerning the project: up to the extent that they later say «all right, they took your results and presented them as their own, but they’ve had you acknowledged as they thanked Systems Microscopy consortium and you are a member of it» (nice, isn’t it?).

  2. In June of 2013 all of the sudden my Dad falls down in a swoon and cannot walk well after getting back, I urgently come back home from the UK. My bosses are apprised.

  3. On 25/06/13 my Dad passes away on my arms in a hospital after having tremendously suffered from the acute AAA rupture.
    =
  4. Staying home on my vacations (they were approved) that summer and busy with documentations following the funeral I’m getting a quite boorish email from the project coordinator at EBI that I have to correct something in the code ASAP as she's preparing a paper (in fact the project wasn't ready then for the paper yet and that paper was later written by myself with the help of my boss of the later time).
    Also she writes me that my talk on the ISMB conference was prepared badly — it was very soon after the funeral, though she lied, almost the same talk was also given for the SM consortium spring meeting, later I could bring several references from both conferences proving her falsehood.
    She doesn't forget to note that she understands that I'm in a hard life situation.

  5. I tell her to fuck off: not that words directly, of course, just that she's misbehaving and I won't read her emails until I’ll come back to work from my legit vacations.

  6. When I come back I'm told that my contract is suspended for insubordination and unauthorized leave. The custom was that folks at EBI, including bosses, didn’t care much of vacation paperwork, spoken agreement was usually enough. I’m advised to leave the campus ASAP.

  7. Being in the state of a catatonic stupor I do nothing for about a week, but a colleague meets me and brings EMBL-EBI’s docs and proves me that their actions against me were in contradictions with their own legislative papers. He urges me «Catherine, don’t stay like that, do something, go to a lawyer».

  8. I go to the Cambridge Citizen Advice Bureau, they ask me questions like «Did you hack them? Did you steal something from them? Who is this employer?» and advise me to write and to call to the EMBL-EBI Head Office in Heidelberg, they also give me a list of lawyer addresses to visit.
    I follow their advice.

  9. Next day after my contact with EMBL-EBI HO the Head of Administration at EBI calls me, apologizes for the suspension of the contract and invites me back to work.

  10. All my email/servers etc credentials are withdrawn, I spend some time to get some of that back, but not everything. I’m implicitly hinted that they are prepared to give me an EOC agreement (End of Contract).
    I write to EMBL-EBI Head Office again.

  11. Administrative Director of EMBL, Keith Williamson at that time, comes to the UK to talk to me. It turns out that he’s mislead about the project which they declare as accomplished (it was just a stupid lie, I wonder how further they’d report about it).
    After my talk with him I’m fully restored in my rights.
    They recognize that everything is fine with my holidays, I was wrongly accused in insubordination and unauthorized leave, though no apologies now, except spoken ones from Keith (he was the one who at least seemed a gentleman in all that story).

  12. I’m invited for a chat in the EBI Director office (Ewan Birney) along with my boss and his proxy on R&D tasks. I’m told that I have «questionable personal qualities» (btw, ad hominem is the most beloved fallacy and trick of rogue scientists — Birney repeats the same after my boss) and this is me, who had a lesson now and must comply with their way of doing R&D.

  13. I write another email to the EMBL Head Office with cc to my boss and Birney where I ask (at last) why is that me who has «questionable personal qualities», why was I bullied, why did all this happen after my boss didn’t have me responsive to his invitation to private bike rides (and to have a look together on concert posters, — but I don't mention that), I claim for fair employment practice — that was completely ignored, I also ask to change the person who authorizes my leaves — that was accepted after the investigation, see below.

  14. I get a response from Director General of EMBL, Iain Mattaj, where he implies that the bullying was alleged but that I dared to accuse my boss in sexual harassment and that all needs to be investigated.

  15. I reply that I didn’t say that the conduct of my boss was a sexual harassment per se, all I asked: the explanations of the bullying and I mentioned him hitting on me in that context.
    This my reply was ignored.

  16. I’ve never got any explanation. I was told off that I brought forward the accusation of sexual harassment with no reason. I was made guilty for the mention of the fact that my boss had hit on me and then bullied me.

  17. However, Iain Mattaj apologized for the bullying itself, he even used a word «harassment» in his apologies. After the investigation I’ve got the apology letter from him where he enlightens me that I took the suspension of my contract, accusation in unauthorized leave and removal of all my credentials at work etc for the bullying because my father passed away right before that.
    All the rest was just fine.
    Basically, he didn't apologize for the damage itself, he apologized that I felt damaged.
    Yet better that way, than nothing.
    He also generously spared me from a discipline sentence for my alleged accusation in sexual harassment™ of my boss.
    Nice, isn’t it?
    Although they’ve swapped my boss for his proxy and that was the second gentleman in all that story (minding top level).

  18. After getting that hysterical email from Maria Lluch-Senar — Luis Serrano tandem at CRG 
    (I was surprised, really: Luis himself never was that verbose with English that poor, didn't used ES layout, although this didn't matter: NB — they used ad hominem again, but that was just only Maria's personal way to communicate her problems: 
    «if I do not want to take even an effort to get into your app's functionality — this is your problem, that I have difficulties understanding you» in reply on my rebuttal to her manipulations and lies…)
     
    — I asked Luis Serrano to behave fairly and that I wouldn’t be just silent and shocked, I’d been prepared by this case at EMBL («you are guilty if I'm rude with you and even if I breach our own protocols and rules» — their MO). 
    Maria used to imitate work activity while getting disrespectful and aggressive without any attempt to follow the elementary guidance, like — how to load heavy data (she couldn't use even corporate FTP properly instead of corporate emails, when it was absolutely necessary due to the type of data being transferred… and every time you were guilty with any her problems below any professional qualification!)  
    Although, Serrano lab used to be a part of System Biology unit of EMBL, they had to follow their rules:
    «maintaining a culture based on the principles of good scientific practice, throughout the Laboratory and in their respective Units».

    I believed that they had to follow that at least to the degree that EMBL was able to (appologizing a bit afterwords as «ah, we'are sorry you've feeled that way» — not for the damage itself, of course).
    But Luis Serrano, once the Head of EMBL systems biology Unit and CRG Director, president of SOMMa (some local Spanish Network of Excellence™) said me that he didn't care. Literally:
    «I don't care, we are at CRG here, we have nothing to do with EMBL».
    All right.
    Those were their good scientific practice.

  19. Shortly after this email exchange (where I was trying to get free from the creepy situation) and direct threats to be fired (but with «a lot of money» — yet another dishonesty from the CRG's Director) I apprised Luis Serrano that under the conditions he put on me I’d better quit on my own at the end of the year. Naturally!

    They ignored that, apparently that was not a way to bring them satisfaction (however they did try to fire me first as if following my wish: they prepared papers for that by the end of October to fire me in a couple of weeks after that, see below their lies about 3-months term to make me obeying to the Director's favorite).

  20. But then, in the end of September'2016, they were just about to go to their lab retreat, Serrano wrote me that my presence there would be «awkward» and it’s up to me to go or not, I did not want to go to their retreat, I was preparing to quit anyway.
    But a colleague asked me to come, she also assured me in her support (instead, she started to coercing me to hypocrisy and simulations, allegedly she was suffering from Maria domination and manipulations but turned out to be just a snitch for Serrano).
    Better I’d never seen that part of their specific culture at that retreat (so freaking lowbrow level even ignoring complains of other guests of the resort).
    That was awkward.
    Indeed, shortly before the retreat Luis Serrano accused me that I can work with no one, whereas I had no communications and collaborations with his people by that time — his Maria just cut communications with Serrano lab's folks by any means.
    No one in my lab confirmed the falsehood of me unable to collaborate: I was working in another lab and Serrano—Lluch-Senar were about to move me to their lab, allegedly for better collaboration.
    In fact I was alienated from any collaboration in Serrano lab: instead Serrano had been forcing me to talk to his favorite only alone.
    Later Luis Serrano lied to the Court that they had transferred me to make me follow the discipline I have allegedly violated.

    If they feel better on the way they have chosen: lying, threatening, making their research labs the places of so toxic ambiance with no respect, no open discussion, licking asses, making folks lick asses, humiliating them, snitching on each other, where even their own written code of good scientific practice is violated,
    — it's up to them.

    Below
    are the other parts of the story.

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

CRG, Barcelona, Spanish/Catalan science: yet another way to carry out research activity (and lies even to the Court)

Update after Catalan Court hearing:
Luis Serrano, CRG Director, lied to the Court

«There is one single problem with spanish, as José Ortega y Gasset explains so well: "no code of honor". No rules, nothing... In other countries also you will find people without code of honor, the vast majority, but there are others that they do have, a percentage. In Spain that percentage is so small that can be considered non existing. No matter the social level, you can't trust them. … Emotionally speaking, are most of them broken. This is why they are impulsive, they call that "hot blood", but the real meaning is lack of emotional intelligence, they are ruled by impulses.» [The Spanish Personality]

Here are the threats of legal persecution I've got from CRG, Barcelona, signed by Managing Director Bruna Vives on behalf of the Centre and Luis Serrano, CRG Director. Look at the Centre for Genomic Regulation at their finest in intimidating and disrespect.
My notes are below the copies (clickable to enlarge).
CRG, Barcelona: job and threats after they have interrupted a work contract, page 1, in English, by Bruna Vives CRG, Barcelona: job and threats after they have interrupted a work contract, page 2, in English, by Bruna Vives
Spanish version:
CRG, Barcelona: job and threats after they have interrupted a work contract, page 1, in Spanish, español de Bruna VivesCRG, Barcelona: job and threats after they have interrupted a work contract, page 2, in Spanish, español de Bruna Vives
  1. Here we have a classical actus reus.
  2. This threatening from CRG, Barcelona under the claim to keep «professional secrecy» (are these people even sane?) and «confidentiality», i.e. the claim to keep silence about their excellence in research misconduct, followed by these threats where I'm named as «and / or» doing even something «criminal», — look like fit of anger unless just laughable. They are supposed to represent a Spanish intellectual elite, aren't they?
  3. Solely this claim to keep their threats confidential (see also the bottom of the pages) should be enough to launch the investigation on the activity of the top employees of CRG, including here-below mentioned favorite of Luis Serrano, CRG Director (ah, all right… she's supposed to be on the top anyway…).
  4. NDA (appendix to the work contract) I signed, concerned the contract in force or expired.
    My contract is not expired or in force: it was interrupted (terminated — as they've recognized it themselves in their threat) by CRG, Barcelona due to alleged disobedience to another employee who was not even my immediate superior, the latter was silently dismissed from being such, excluded from the working process and substituted by incompetent, but badly ambitious and passively aggressive Director's favorite, Maria Lluch-Senar, as a «co-leader» of the project with so peculiar correspondence style (how come that such individuals can even get MS and even PhD in Spain? do they colourize their thesis that way too?)
  5. I was slandered and mobbed by this M Lluch-Senar, CRG staff scientist (intensively supported by her patron, Luis Serrano, CRG Director in whatever she's been saying about me) several times, she announced me that I'd be dismissed anyway the very next day after she was set as my boss by Luis Serrano.
    Luis Serrano was persistently coercing me, in written too, to talk only alone with his favorite (who by the way is craving for a PI position and her henpecked one is desperate to help her as no one wants her in this.. hum.. another role). I called for CRG's Conflict Resolution Committee (and then they concocted the facts presenting them as if it was them who called for the Committee), — the Committee has completely ignored my complains and followed Luis Serrano's non-negotiable instructions forcing me to recognize scientific authority of his favorite, who persistently lied about my personality, aggressively refusing to get or accept any technical reasoning out of her competence.
    Moreover.
    She was misleading me with data sources and urging me to work with erroneous data concocted by herself.
    I said no.
    I was given «24 hours» to confirm my response.
    I was fired by the end of the same week.
  6. CRG was already clearly told off about the neglect of their duty and reputation — they have completely disrespected the words of the conciliation officer, they have even refused to present themselves directly on the hearing.
    They had given no care to their reputation then and now suddenly they have recalled and decided to take care about it, starting with threats, apparently from the bottom of their hearts and their notion of what the (academic) culture is.
    Surely they don't just perform only a bare money laundering using their positions in Spanish science.
    Now they claim that one of their former, thrown out on the streets, employee is damaging their «honour» or «reputation» even «with the intention».
    Bruna Vives, CRG, Barcelona: shameful performance of responsibility
      Dear CRG, Luis and Bruna,
    • If it's possible for you to put a word «or» between «honour» and «reputation» which you claim you have (after you have lied so dishonourably) — then, obviously, only an upper authority could explain you something about what honour and reputation are: it seems you're still uncertain about these entities. No wonder you have failed to keep them intact.
      You did it on your own.
      No one has forced you to behave like you have.
      Paraphrasing Bertolt Brecht («Vertrauen wird dadurch erschöpft, daß es in Anspruch genommen wird»), your honour and reputation begin to vanish the very moment you claim you have them damaged the way you do it, — especially after you were utterly unable to display at least a minimum respect to your employee, let alone the kind of integrity you have shown as pertinent to you.
      My story is just a shadow on the sand in the background of your behaviour and culture. I'm too small comparing to your own self-exposure.
      «We trust that your knowledge, skills and experience will be among our most valuable assets» — remember the text of your offer? — you gave no respect to any of thus enumerated (by your own) qualities. That's why the only point you could use to attack me with your misconduct was a «discipline».
      Which is ridiculous since you do not have any notion of what it is.
      Not to mention work ethics.
    • I don't damage your «honour or reputation» as you claim «with the intention».
      I speak out, that's it.
    • And of course I would only greet an independent open investigation of your professional activity and of its compliance with your own Code of Good Scientific Practice. 
      Even then I doubt that it could depreciate your significance and self-worth acquired with such diligence by your so creative advertising of your excellence, with your passionate appeal for money throughout your much more conspicuous networking, connections, pulls and of course… well… social network accounts. 
      Just don't stop disseminate food & drinks for your subscribers and sponsors as you used to do it: to make sure they would love your excellent science. 
      And, Bruna, seriously… I am so sorry, but having known now the story of your appointment, this your threatening burofax speech looks like a sincere coming out, especially when it's read in Spanish. But of course, of course, it's not how it looks like.
All the corresponding docs on CRG/Barcelona's research misconduct, mobbing and lies are on GitHub or DropBox.
Given the whole story I reckon that the above text is not too harsh and I apologize if someone's sensitive feelings are touched, —
Katerina aka Catherine

Tuesday, February 07, 2017

Luis Serrano & Maria Lluch reject conciliation under a weird pretext; Luis Serrano, CRG director, lies to the Court


«Academia is full of rogue scientists doing their own shit
using public assets»

These people turned out to be unable to stand up to their own deed.
On 06 Feb'17 in Barcelona there was a conciliation meeting with the CRG's legal representative about legitimacy of a computer scientist's dismissal from this Spanish research institution.
CRG's legal representative was a young girl from a lawyer firm, so they decided to spend money for the legal service, having their own legal department.
This girl has burst into tears after being told off by the official in the conciliation office (Department de Treball, Afers Socials i Families, Generalitat de Catalunya).
She had nothing to do with these people and she took it hard.
Conciliation officer (Maria Bachs) told that she met such disrespect the first time in her practice: when a public organization (scientific one!) which can't help admitting the breach of the law, is so disrespectful to it, also clearly demonstrating no care about its public reputation and lack of responsibility.
So unless the following is signs of corruption and rogue science, there should be another reasonable explanation.
They had to admit that the dismissal was illegal, but they said that they want to bring the case to the Court because they are «accountable for the money».
How is it consistent with the payment to the off-site company for a legal service, having it their own on site?
But there were a lot of weird inconsistencies in this case, please see below.
Update: Court hearing is scheduled for 31 January 2018. This is Spain.

Update, Feb 2018:
Luis Serrano, CRG Director (Catalonia/Barcelona) lied to the Court

Friday, January 13, 2017

María Lluch-Señar & Luis Serrano at CRG, Barcelona: lies, damned lies and dismissal notice

Dismissal notice (the same day got, the same day fired)
Conflict Resolution Committee of the CRG was called by Katerina, not by Maria Lluch-Senar & Luis Serrano, as they so basely imply it in their dismissal notice (see below).
Also in this document they have actually just repeated their slander — see as well in the time line schema: «no one can work with you, you have bad communication with everyone» — this was said to Katerina in September as their reply on her question: why they wanted her to move in the lab if they asserted that she was so bad as a person?

They asserted this shit («no one can work with you») once she had agreed to move in their lab in July: she was told then that they wanted her to move because they needed for her expertise. Would you agree to move in the lab when you're told that you can work with no one? The last trip up was especially nice from them whereas initially M Lluch-Senar had excluded Katerina from any communications with data providers even though it was an utter requirement for the tasks which Katerina had to perform.
So she was working alone and had to figure on her own what were the data sources, and, surely, everything was fine with the other colleagues, no communication problems, just normal lab folks, who have been just helpful and nice. Otherwise, without them, the project could not move at all. But it has moved, please see its timeline: at no point that progress owed to Maria Lluch's activity, which was appallingly destructive.

Also in CRG's dismissal notice they have lied explaining the reason for the dismissal as if it was a repeated insubordination to Maria Lluch-Senar, i.e. to the favorite of Luis Serrano, CRG Director. She was not even an official boss of K., she was only set up as such after already having been set up as a project co-coordinator (exclusively by the authority of her patron). Yet right before Luis Serrano has appointed this M Lluch Senar to be a boss for K. (with no documents, no signatures of course), this Maria Lluch-Senar slandered about K. that K. could work with no one.
And immediately after announcing her slander M Lluch Senar wrote to K. that the latter would be fired anyway. Nice, isn't it?


The truth is that firstly it was repeated harassment, slander and repeated lies.
Maria's misconduct and incompetence, imposed as her «scientific authority» and unaccepted by K. (and the acceptance of that was not her duty at all), K's refusal to give in to data manipulation had that cost: the dismissal.

Maria Lluch Senar is a real Director of CRG! — Ella manda
— it turned out they were too shy to speak English in this disgraceful act, K. had got it only in Spanish.
However later CRG, Barcelona gave a care to translate their threats in English (international scientific institution of excellence) — it seems for them it was really important that K. would have gotten those threats.

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

CRG, Barcelona — recollection of phrases I wanted to say but did not dare…

…thought it'd be too funny/indiscreet and could make things worse: 

[Please read also how Luis Serrano, CRG's director lied to the Court]


— OK, Luis, she says nobody can work with me (the slander they both insisted in), but there is a certain proof that I can work at least with you! then why did your favorite turn out to be so furious by the results of this work? %)

— Luis, please calm down, I am not recording this conversation %)

— Maria, what exactly is going to happen when we are alone? >%[
Of course there were no problem for me to come up to her and that happened on many occasions. I just could not get why I had to be coerced to talk alone with her even when I asked for help while she'd been getting dumb blind or dumb unable to get a point.

Update after 31/01/18:
On the Court hearing Luis Serrano, CRG director, lied that I constantly refused to talk to her.
I never refused when it could have any sense. I just asked for help!.
I never refused any direct request for meeting, at most I felt annoyed by her dull «if you wish we can talk» — only in that cases I could openly respond: I don't.
— Luis, what exactly is Maria going to do with me being so necessarily alone with her? >%[
(no way that was really necessary and it was felt so freaking creepy!)

— James, what kind of science exactly people do here that this «closest to Luis person» claims to recognize her scientific authority? and you too, why do you have to coerce me to this scientific authority recognition on behalf of Luis Serrano? %-O

— All right I can recognize this scientific authority. But can I use a sound recording device to keep all fascinating quotes of such authority for posterity and then to display them for public appreciation and future generations? %P

Only in that case that'd make sense, I wouldn't mind to suffer for the sake of science!
I'd promise to skip details when this authority kindly enlightens ignorant-me about the differences between coding and non-coding RNAs…
Thank God Maria didn't start with teaching me how to count to 10, only to 15 — «I have fifty publications, I will teach you! — fifty or fifteen?… — well, fifteen»
But once I did take notes after her speech as I just felt uneasy — she claimed I'd tore out the sheets (I did) and handed them to her (I didn't). Creepy! %-|
— Let's send her hand-made Excel file to the group-list, it'd be fun!! :D
(where M Lluch Senar had been unable to calculate correctly mapping coverage between TSS & TTS in MS Excel and was trying to make me use it as a primary data source for the DB)
— It'd be good to have this email published, shall I forward it to…
(where a colleague writes me, after having advised me to simulate a depression*): «ask for an external, independent psychological evaluation of you two (then it will be clear she has a psychopathy»)
I felt so touched by their so considerate intrigue (underlining above is mine), which was not a big deal to unfold though.
Yet disgusting.
Director's chihuahua surely happened to be not the only one little psychopath: he had a look very much the same in so many ways (for instance, shouting on me in his office just for bringing up an email citation from my official boss) :-|
And the person who urged me to simulate depression, stopped talking to me once I refused to follow her so solicitous directions, — isn't that charming, uh?
— Why can't I work with an another colleague for the same project? — I would be happy to recognize her scientific authority!
Unfortunately this question was too rhetorical (a colleague was surely professional, way more smart and educated than M Lluch Senar, but obviously I had been coerced to recognize only one very particular «scientific» authority», with silent support by that demonstratively totally cowed colleague, so no way it could have been carried out)…
«she has destroyed my career, she will destroy yours!» — Hedgehog is scared by a naked ass! :]
Not exactly everyone is giving in to anything.
Moreover, that self-humiliation of the career race victim was rather a game in pathetic submission under highly positioned henpecked's requirement than really a true and irreparable loss.

*) I could do it to save my position at CRG: Spanish law in that case would assess the dismissal as invalidated, yet legitimizing employer's inclination to humiliate an employee and make slanderous statements about her qualities which was a favourite MO of Maria Lluch-Senar and Luis Serrano's so creative and productive tandem.

Luis Serrano, CRG Director, his chihuahua M Lluch Senar and his suite: Bruna Vives Prat, Juan Valcarcel, James Sharpe, Julia Ponomarenko were actually performing this
And of course I didn't say that… —
Maria Lluch CRG — M Lluch-Senar and her scientific impact








Monday, December 19, 2016

Events preceding: Iain Mattaj, EMBL, making sure misconduct is supported

When I was accepting the offer from CRG, Barcelona I had no idea how closely they are connected to EMBL. I just could not imagine how this academic world is small and stinky. If I were a bit more perspicacious and familiar with so peculiar Western European academia ambiance and work ethics, if I were more prudent, I would never accept their offer. In a few months after the start of the Contract with CRG (later dishonestly broken by them) I began to feel as if I was snared. A bit later my worst foreboding just came true.

These people have very specific concepts of honesty and integrity, including research integrity. They fail to follow their own so hypocritically declared document on research misconduct: nobody even knows that such document exists. They love to harangue about ethics as if they are concerned, but this speechifying has no ground in real life whatsoever. Folks who'd decide to stand up to misconduct have no place or a person to turn to: usually they are intimidated and chose submission instead of opposing to the rogue scientists (or… they become the same).
Here is a brief story about how EMBL, in particular Iain Mattaj, deal with sexual harassment clause making sure that other non-gentlemen's misconduct is supported
(oops… apparently silently censored or twitter's moments (X's events) do not work any longer… nevertheless you can enjoy the story just seeing at the both scans below: they tell so much when taken together…) — at CRG, in one way or another, I was threatened several times: «do you want that story repeated?», at the end it was «this is all right, you've already had a story with EMBL, haven't you?»
One of the finest was: «all right, they are mobbing you, but do you want the EMBL case repeated? give in!» — I almost felt like honoured with a star to the wings of my plane…

History never repeats, it reflects from the heavens to come back like a new dawn or backfire.

EMBL makes sure research misconduct is supported attacking on the ground of sexual misconduct
EMBL makes sure research misconduct is supported attacking on the ground of sexual harassment yet admitting harassment