Thread by @dgurdasani1

I recently wrote an open letter to faculty in my dept at @sangerinstitute copying in @JeremyFarrar. The letter outined my journey as a scientist at the institute, and the change in culture I've witnessed over the past two years. Please read thread below ..1/N

I drafted the letter after it became clear that plans for the next 5 years of the institute excluded any plans for an Africa or global health programme, despite some great ideas being put forward for genomics research in Africa....2/N

My concern was that the person making this decision (the head of dept) was conflicted, and I and another senior faculty member had implicated him directly in our whistleblowing complaint which pertained to exploitation of intellectual property of our global partners .. 3/N

On bringing this issue up with the head of dept. I received no response. No clear explanation for why a programme of research that is so valuable to human genetics should not even be considered in future planning.... 4/N

This would unfairly disadvantage African researchers just because they, and us had raised concerns the conduct of the head of dept. It seemed as a move to push out a senior faculty member by starving his funding with the 'collateral damage' being African science funding 5/N

I outlined my experience at Human Genetics, where I feel he culture at the @sangerinstitute has become more autocratic and repressive, with little open discussion around science. Personal ambitions of those in power often drive decisions about science and funding. 6/N

And alliances are made based on fear, and not the best science. Scientists have to align with those in power to survive because challengers are kicked out. I expressed concern that this was not the best environment to foster science and young scientists.. 7/N

I urged senior faculty and our head of dept to rise above personal ambition and grudges and to foster the best science. I outlined the impact this culture was having on individuals, including myself and others that had trusted me to share their experiences 8/N

Importantly, I urged those in power to not disadvantage global health research, and African researchers because of my actions, and those of other faculty members, as whistleblowers, as this would be unfair.. 9/N

As I raised concerns about the head of dept being conflicted he wrote to me to essentially point out that I was not a part of the planning meetings, and was not invited; and therefore had no say in these decisions, which would be made by those at the meetings. 10/N

I asked if I could contribute as a CDF and HDR UK fellow, and was supported by another faculty member who invited me to contribute. 11/N

Following my open letter, I received a response from the head of dept, expressing deep concern for my 'mental health'. He explained that he had sent my letter to the director of HR (without my consent), and my line manager (without my consent) so I could access care... 12/N

Here's the letter. This was inappropriate on many levels, including breaches of confidentiality. What makes it even more inappropriate was that he knew that the Director of HR was implicated in my complaint as being involved in coercion, retaliation and suppression of info.. 12/N

My response to him below again queried why the African programme was being excluded, and I was being excluded from QQ planning. See below. 13/N

In response he wrote an email to all faculty (excluding me) outlining that the QQR process would be transparent and open and others would be given a chance to contribute. I found out about this through another faculty member! 14/N

I queried why I had been first dismissed questioning my mental health(!) and then excluded from the very thread I'd initiated! He replied to say he felt it was inappropriate for me to attend as this was only for faculty (although I'm a CDF..).. 15/N

He also wrote me another email to criticise my conduct. See his email. He also made clear that I wasn't invited to planning meetings, as no other CDFs had been. I know for a fact this is not true for other programmes, and historically for HumGen where senior leadership... 16/N

and anyone who was keen to and could contribute were included in discussions. And decisions were not made by single individuals with the rest of faculty just being able to 'comment on these'. This really showcases the current culture in HumGen and is deeply worrying.. 17/N

Where single programme heads can make decisions about £40M in funding without any oversight. Half of this has been allocated largely to the head of depts. own project, with the remaining divied out among other programmes, with the notable exception of African research 18/N

I have received no response to my open letter from @JeremyFarrar. My understanding is that another whistleblower has now sent these on to the @wellcometrust exec board and board of governors... we're waiting on a response. 19/N

This is the basic issue when power in academia becomes concentrated with the few; a culture of fear arises where researchers are disadvantaged if they reasonably challenge and don't necessarily align with those in power... 20/N

I left my head of dept with this final email. Yet to receive a response... exclusion from the QQ is likely the way whistleblowers will be pushed out of the institute. While that saddens me, I feel even more saddened by the harm this will do to African and global science N/N