[RASMB] Tenure Situation of AUC users in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics at Washington University in St. Louis

[Rushton Propst]

This open letter from Drs. Lohman, Hall, Frieden, and Elson has
circulated in many e-mail inboxes in the past week. It may be of
interest to those on RASMB as it involves, at a minimum, two long time
AUC users and four stellar biophysicists. - Rushton



The Current Situation in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics

1.  The context. On November 12, 2010, Tom Ellenberger, the chair of
the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics, announced to
us, four senior members of his department, that we would be moved to
laboratories in other locations in the medical school and that we
would report to the Dean rather than to him, effectively expelling us
from the department. We four are Tim Lohman, Kathleen Hall, Carl
Frieden, and Elliot Elson. The reasons for this action, stated in a
subsequent letter, were that the working atmosphere in the Department
has been so badly damaged by our negative reaction to his leadership
and initiatives that a separation and restructuring were needed to
restore a collegial environment and that we had actively undermined
the implementation of his vision for the future of the Department. He
concluded that our working relationship had deteriorated to the point
where a separation was needed to reestablish a positive working
environment for us and other members of the Department. Dean Shapiro
supported this action, and we were told by Dr. Ellenberger that it was
ratified by the Executive Faculty. We first emphasize that we consider
the assertion that we have actively opposed Dr. Ellenberger in his
efforts to move the Department along a new path to be serious and
damaging to our professional reputations within the Medical School and
in the scientific community at large. Dr. Ellenberger has stated that
he does not regard his action as punitive. Nevertheless, separating us
from our colleagues and the Biophysics environment in the Department,
as well as from easy access to equipment and instruments that we use
for our research can only have a substantial negative effect on our
work and on the students and postdoctoral associates in our
laboratories. Compounding this disruption, Dr. Ellenberger suggested
that we four would not remain together but would be moved, perhaps in
groups of two to different locations. Furthermore, Dr. Ellenberger
suggested that we would no longer have any say in Departmental
business although we would remain members of the Department unless we
chose to change our affiliation. In addition the four of us represent
a significant fraction of the biophysics faculty in the Medical
School. Our expulsion from the Department is likely to have a negative
effect on the reputation of the university’s biophysics program and,
beyond that, the Medical School and Washington University in general
and therefore on recruitment and retention of students and faculty.
Fragmentation of the biophysics community will have a negative impact
on all its members including our junior faculty colleagues, either on
the tenure or non-tenure track as well as students, who will certainly
become anxious about the future of biophysics in this university


2.  Failure of Due Diligence. Dr. Ellenberger states that he has been
considering and discussing these issues with faculty and university
officials for eight months. In all that time, however, he has not once
discussed with any of us whether or not we have done what he alleges
we have done, i.e., actively impeded his efforts to steer the
department in new directions or interfered with

recruitment of new faculty. Despite the fact that he has not discussed
this with us, he has leveled serious charges against us—serious
enough, anyway, to merit our expulsion from the Department and serious
enough to blacken our reputations. Why did he keep all this a secret
and why has he not discussed these matters with us to learn if his
perception is correct? The same questions can be asked of the Dean,
who supports Dr. Ellenberger in his actions and has sent messages to
the faculty that leveled serious accusations against us. Why have the
Dean and the Executive Faculty not bothered to discuss these charges
with us to ascertain their merit? These failures of due diligence
weaken our confidence in the upper levels of the administration of the
Medical School.


3.  Merit of the Charges. Is there merit to the charges against us?
Although we have asked our Chairman for specific instances in which he
thinks we have actively opposed his efforts on behalf of the
Department, we have received nothing more than vague allegations that
we actively undermined his efforts, without citing specific instances.
We can all say that we did nothing to sabotage any department
activity, especially including faculty recruiting, and that on the
contrary we have actively supported all department functions and on
numerous occasions have offered advice as to how he might better
achieve his goals. Certainly within the Department we have been open
in our criticisms of aspects of Dr. Ellenberger’s program. There is,
however, a big difference between free expression of opinions and
active interference. Although we have not acted to prevent any
departmental function, including the recruitment of qualified faculty
in the area of chemical biology, we insist that as a tenet of tenure
we should be allowed to express our opinions without fear of reprisal.
In fact, our opinions were always made out of concern for the welfare
and future of the department and our colleagues. A failure of this
protection of free speech will have ominous consequences for the
faculty as a whole throughout the Medical School.


4.  Proportionality. Expulsion from the department and charging us
with, in effect, sabotage are serious acts with respect to their
effects both on our ability to carry on our work and on our good names
and reputations. Are these actions and charges in any way
proportionate to what we have done, i.e., to express our opinions
about Dr. Ellenberger’s ideas and vision for the Department’s future
and the ways in which he proposes to attain his goals?


5.  What to do next. Members of the faculty of the Medical School and
the University at large must decide wheter they think that the actions
carried out against us are justified and appropriate. It would be
helpful to all of us if those that disagree with these actions would
make their opinions known to the Dean, their Department chairmen, and
possibly also to the Provost and Chancellor. It may also be useful for
us to convene a general faculty meeting at which to discuss these
matters further.