News University Affairs

Jan van Deursen left Mayo Clinic, accused of bullying

Cancer and ageing researcher Jan van Deursen has silently left the Mayo Clinic, over allegations of bullying.

The Dutch-born biologist Jan van Deursen is a very senior figure in the field of cancer and ageing research, and more specifically, in the field of mitotic cell division. His personal profile and lab websites at the Mayo Clinic at Rochester, Minnesota (USA), its Cancer Center and the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology are still online.

Only that Professor van Deursen has apparently left, months ago even, and apparently not voluntarily. It is all very hush-hush.

Bob Nellis, manager of research communications at the Mayo Clinic, confirmed van Deursen’s removal to me:

Mayo Clinic is in the process of responsibly concluding the research activities associated with Dr. van Deursen’s laboratory, including the important work of our students and employees.  By policy we do not discuss publicly discuss personnel matters.

Update 24.06.2020. A source wrote to me with this timeline of events:

an investigation into his treatment of employees and students had begun around late November. [Jan van Deursen] was placed on administrative leave on 16th December 2019 and he was asked to never return on 21st January 2020, the same time at which the rest of the lab was informed“.

Why did van Deursen leave, his PhD students and postdocs left behind for others to take care of? It transpires, over accusations of “bullying and unhealthy lab environment”, as his lab members were informed, which Nellis did not deny when specifically asked to. A reader told me this:

Van Deursen was forced to retire about 6 months ago by Mayo after an investigation into accusations of denying a student maternity leave, and for a long history of abuse and manipulation over his students and employees. […] However, he has since been given opportunities to go to new institutions, possibly in Texas or John’s Hopkins, and his abuse will definitely continue there as no one outside of Mayo knows about what has happened. He has purposefully delayed students graduating, denied vacation, denied overtime for years. The abuses he has yelled and threatened students and employees with, has caused depression and mental issues […]

I know his senescence results have gotten raised eyebrows over the last couple years, and there have been issues with reproducibility by fellow and neighboring labs. The pressure that he puts on students to give him the result he wants is unbelievable. He can’t see beyond what he thinks the result should be, and won’t accept the answer if it doesn’t match with what he’s made up in his mind.

Johannes Martinus Adrianus van Deursen studied in Nijmegen, Netherlands, but moved to US after his PhD (his CV here). In 1999, he joined the Mayo Clinic, where he was (until his recent removal) Chair of the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and, without any medicine training, Consultant (senior physician) and professor of Pediatrics at the Mayo Clinic. Among his honours are honorary professorships at universities of Nijmegen and Groningen (reader comment below reveals that the Groningen professorship ended recently).

van Deursen also co-founded the company Unity Biotechnology which aims to sell drugs to remove senescent cells and rejuvenate the body. The anti-aging field is indeed where big money is made with big promises, people spoke of “fountain of youth” when discussing van Deursen’s discoveries. In 2019, he celebrated such senolytic approach to anti-aging in a perspective in Science. Both van Deursen and his company Unity Biotechnology were promoted in a 2018 Guardian article.

Despite, or because of his leadership style, van Deursen’s Mayo lab received a constant stream of NIH grants, the most recent R01 grant was awarded in 2020. He published in all the top journals. Despite the above cited rumours or irreproducibility, there are so far no PubPeer or any other records of data manipulation in van Deursen papers. If Mayo Clinic really made him to resign over bullying, the bullying must have been very bad indeed.

My own interactions with van Deursen were about his participation in the 2018 semi-private We-Stand-With-Rudolph conference in Jena, Germany, which sole purpose was to restore the damaged scientific reputation of another senescence researcher, K Lenhard Rudolph. The latter was forced to resign as director of his Jena Institute, found guilty of research misconduct by his own Leibniz Society and by the national research funder, the DFG, and explicitly shamed in public press releases and news reports, something which happens in Germany extremely rarely. Rudolph also featured in German newspapers over animal abuse in his institute, police raids included, another absolute no-no in Germany. In short, what Rudolph, formerly a star of ageing research and Germany’s top scientist, has done, must have been very bad to cause such public shaming in Germany.

Back in December 2017, van Deursen claimed first to be unaware of the recent misconduct findings against Rudolph, and added: “Presenting at the conference will be to advance the science on aging and should not be linked to the issues your mentioned“. I also alerted van Deursen to problems with other meeting participants, like Pura Munoz-Canovez. Less than an hour later, he wrote to me again:

“I had no knowledge of the issues until today when I opened the links you provided. Are you recommending that I withdraw from the meeting at this point because of issues with Drs. Rudolph and Canoves. Do you think the meeting should be cancelled or organized by someone else.”

I cannot now out if van Deursen participated in Rudolph’s Jena 2018 meeting or not. But he sure was not listed in the speakers list of the follow-up September 2020 meeting in Jena which is still scheduled to continue, COVID-19 or not. Rudolph’s reputation is more important.

Why am I telling you all this? van Deursen’s last message to me, on same 4 December 2017, was:

Keep up the good work on issues of scientific integrity. My best, Jan

Original images: Mayo Clinic and Jadavji Lab

Update 23.06.2020

Various former lab members of the now defunct van Deursen lab reached out to me. Allegedly, the former Mayo Clinic professor “yelled” at the aforementioned pregnant student “at the graduate school office for an hour”, and insulted her in front of the associate dean and the administrative leader.

Same source wrote:

Jan van Deursen did a lot of things…including stating that Muslims are terrorists, women are able to get jobs because they probably slept with someone, bullied an employee with cancer, physically intimidated women in 1-1 meetings and insulted people during lab meetings and daily private meetings.

The source also commented about van Deursen’s favourite lab members and co-holders of patents, Darren Baker and Postdoc Y :

About [Postdoc Y]. He was also bullied, although not as much as others. The people that had it worse were anything other than white males. [Postdoc Y] enabled Jan in a way. One time in lab meeting Jan stormed off because one student was not ready. Jan asked [Postdoc Y] to address it. [Postdoc Y] closed the doors, yelled at us some more and make the student go to Jan to apologize. She did, reluctantly, and came back with clear discomfort on her face and voice.

Darren Baker, although a nice guy, has been very supportive of Jan, and had said how tragic it is he has to leave mayo. Everyone in the lab is hurt by Darren’s comments.

People in the lab are still required to send emails to Jan to update and he is still very much in control of what happens in the lab.”

More van Deursen revelations from the source:

When the mouse tech decided to leave the lab, he yelled at her telling her she was a shitty person and if she went to HR he would give bad recommendations to her boyfriend (graduate student in the lab).

He even yelled at his wife [Janine van Ree] during lab meeting. His wife is still in the lab, pushing his agenda. During the investigations she was asking people to go to HR and say good things.

van Ree is listed on van Deursen’s CV as “Postdoctoral Fellow” he mentored, “10/2006 -01/2011”. Allegedly, Mayo Clinic ordered lab members to keep reporting their research progress to van Deursen. With his wife watching over them in the lab.

Update 24.06.2020

While I am waiting for the Mayo Clinic to explain why van Deursen’s lab members are forced to constantly report to their alleged abuser, yet another former trainee described his wife as “the least motivated, lazy, selfish” member of the van Deursen lab. The source added regarding van Ree:

She believes that people who work on the same project as her are her property and she can control and order them around to do her mundane work while she gets to go home early or take time off/vacation. She was partially responsible for a student leaving the lab last year because of the way he was treated by her and her husband. […] Despite the PI not on campus anymore, it is true that van Ree pushes his agenda from time to time, even at virtual lab meetings. She spies on the current students on what they are doing in their projects, how many hours are they working, and sometimes hints at them to reply promptly to her husband’s emails.

Update 26.06.2020

Bullying and data manipulation go hand in hand, the former done by PI causes the latter done by lab members. First very serious case of possible Photoshop fraud in van Deursen’s lab:

X Wang , JR Babu , JM. Harden , SA. Jablonski , MH. Gazi , WL. Lingle , PC. De Groen , TJ. Yen , JMA. Van Deursen The mitotic checkpoint protein hBUB3 and the mRNA export factor hRAE1 interact with GLE2p-binding sequence (GLEBS)-containing proteins Journal of Biological Chemistry (2001) doi: 10.1074/jbc.m101083200

It is not just heavy lane splicing in every single panel. The fragments look suspiciously copy-pasted (highlighted with colour boxes). This and another van Deursen coauthored paper (Riedlinger et al 2017) are flagged in the comment section.

Update 17.07.2020

Two more van Deursen lab whistleblowers speak out, one chose to remain anonymous (their identity is known and verified, just like with all other sources quoted above), the other is Robin Ricke. Read their accounts here.

Update 26.07.2020

van Deursen and NOBODY ELSE now engaged a notorious German law firm Hoecker (which specialises on threatening journalists) to get this article deleted. They [used here as gender-neutral term and not indication that there ever was another party involved] announce two separate court actions for libel. Read here. I wish to reiterate that the identities of all sources cited in this article have been verified.

In his cease-and-desist letter, van Deursen admits to have resigned as pensioner on 24 July 2020. The Mayo Clinic has now completely deleted his profile and CV webpages.

Update 27.07.2020

This memo was sent by Mayo Clinic to all graduate students and faculty on 18 February 2020, full document for download below. I bet van Deursen did not show it to Hoecker Lawyers.

Mayo Clinic recently received reports about the behavior of a long-standing researcher who also supervised students and others. We conducted an investigation which determined that the behavior violated several Mayo Clinic policies, including our policies regarding Mutual Respect, Harassment, and Unacceptable Conduct. Mayo Clinic also concluded that the researcher’s behavior was inconsistent with the Mayo Model of Professionalism and Mayo Clinic’s core values. A recommendation for termination of the researcher’s relationship with Mayo Clinic was made, and a decision was made to close the laboratory involved. The researcher chose to retire and did not challenge the recommendation through termination proceedings. We are thankful to those who shared their concerns and exposed the unacceptable environment that existed.

Mayo Clinic is actively supporting those impacted by these decisions and is in the process of transitioning affected individuals into other opportunities. A coordinated effort is in place to ensure student protection while completing ongoing research projects. Importantly, the researcher will not be permitted to return to the laboratory and is not allowed to have unsupervised communication with any student who wants to coordinate the completion of research. Mayo Clinic has also met its obligation to report this situation to the National Institutes of Health. The combination of these actions, including eliminating the unacceptable environment, and assisting those affccted, reflects Mayo Clinic’s commitment to its values, policies, staff, and students.

Update 8/9.09.2020

This article has been modified for legal reasons, further modifications might occur. I requested internet archive services to urgently remove any possible backups of this website and reject herewith all responsibility for all 3rd party internet content.

Otherwise, this from PubPeer:

Cynthia J. Sieben, Karthik B. Jeganathan, Grace G. Nelson, Ines Sturmlechner, Cheng Zhang, Willemijn H. Van Deursen, Bjorn Bakker, Floris Foijer, Hu Li , Darren J. Baker, Jan M. Van Deursen BubR1 allelic effects drive phenotypic heterogeneity in mosaic-variegated aneuploidy progeria syndrome The Journal of clinical investigation (2019) doi: 10.1172/jci126863

Red boxes: The BubR1 +/L1002P and BubRR1+/- panels appear to show an overlap.

Darren J. Baker, Meelad M. Dawlaty, Tobias Wijshake, Karthik B. Jeganathan, Liviu Malureanu, Janine H. Van Ree, Ruben Crespo-Diaz, Santiago Reyes, Lauren Seaburg, Virginia Shapiro, Atta Behfar, Andre Terzic, Bart Van De Sluis, Jan M. Van Deursen Increased expression of BubR1 protects against aneuploidy and cancer and extends healthy lifespan Nature cell biology (2013) doi: 10.1038/ncb2643

Figure 1D: All bars have the same mean and error. This is highly unexpected.



Donate!

Donate! If you are interested to support my work, you can leave here a small tip of $5. Or several of small tips, just increase the amount as you like (2x=€10; 5x=€25). Your generous patronage of my journalism will be most appreciated

€5.00

69 comments on “Jan van Deursen left Mayo Clinic, accused of bullying

  1. Claire Francis

    J Biol Chem. 2001 Jul 13;276(28):26559-67. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M101083200. Epub 2001 May 14.
    The Mitotic Checkpoint Protein hBUB3 and the mRNA Export Factor hRAE1 Interact With GLE2p-binding Sequence (GLEBS)-containing Proteins
    X Wang 1, J R Babu, J M Harden, S A Jablonski, M H Gazi, W L Lingle, P C de Groen, T J Yen, J M van Deursen

    Affiliation
    1Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA.

    Figure 1C.

    Figure 3B.

    Like

  2. “He can’t see beyond what he thinks the result should be, and won’t accept the answer if it doesn’t match with what he’s made up in his mind.“”

    I might call this Raoult’s Law of Biomedicine (not to be confused with the Raoults law in chemistry): If the advisor thought of it, it must work, and if your data does not show this, you are incompetent.

    If you think this way, you most certainly should not have any involvement in scientific research, especially leading a lab.

    Like

  3. Interesting read on JvD’s company:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2018/06/05/how-a-biotech-entrepreneur-aims-to-make-aging-less-awful/#593171e2c203

    My favorite line: “David’s (the president of the company based on JvD research) five (previous) companies have raised $1.5 billion and made investors close to $2 billion without ever actually turning a profit.

    I have come to appreciate if you want to make a lot of money in science, be sure either to be faculty at an R1 institution selling longevity, or get someone with Harvard/Stanford/Berkeley/MIT on their resume to sell longevity stuff to big pharma. David Sinclair makes it look easy.

    JvD’s senescence research may be irreproducible (above)? Hope for the companies sake that isn’t determined before they make the big sale. I’m surprised big pharma has not learned their lesson by now, or maybe it just shows how desperate they are with their collective pipelines running out.

    Like

    • 4mrPTDoc

      This is an educated aging scientist who knows the history of the field. Great comments…

      Like

      • Quite frankly, I’m a failed scientist who failed because he is dumber than a box of rocks! I am unworthy. bows in the direction of Cambride, MA

        Like

  4. Cannot Say

    The senescence (and cancer cell biology to some extent) field is in an unprecedented crisis precipitated by some of their most pre-eminent scientists catching the limelight for data forgery again and again. Maybe the rise of senolytics and the money involved was too much to resist, and science and robustness had to pay the price, as well as all honest scientists working in the field that is now permanently damaged by a few individuals.

    See the mostly unaddressed Pubpeer records of Kirkland, Bischof, Dejean and now van Deursen. Cancer biology: Vousden, Karin… I am sure Dr Schneider has even more to add.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I am unfortunately in no position to tell you whether senolytics work or whether you should buy Unity Bioscience stock, as i lack the required expertise in senescence or financial stock market analysis.

    Like

  6. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Cell Res. 2017 Oct;1864(10):1785-1798. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2017.07.005. Epub 2017 Jul 16.
    NF-κB p65 Serine 467 Phosphorylation Sensitizes Mice to Weight Gain and TNFα-or Diet-Induced Inflammation
    Tabea Riedlinger 1, Marleen B Dommerholt 2, Tobias Wijshake 3, Janine K Kruit 2, Nicolette Huijkman 4, Daphne Dekker 4, Mirjam Koster 4, Niels Kloosterhuis 4, Debby P Y Koonen 4, Alain de Bruin 5, Darren Baker 6, Marten H Hofker 4, Jan van Deursen 6, Johan W Jonker 2, M Lienhard Schmitz 1, Bart van de Sluis 7

    Affiliations
    1Institute of Biochemistry, Medical Faculty, Friedrichstrasse 24, Justus-Liebig-University, D-35392 Giessen, Germany.
    2Section of Molecular Metabolism and Nutrition, Department of Pediatrics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713, AV, Groningen, The Netherlands.
    3Section of Molecular Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713, AV, Groningen, The Netherlands; Departments of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street Southwest, Rochester, MN, USA.
    4Section of Molecular Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713, AV, Groningen, The Netherlands.
    5Section of Molecular Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713, AV, Groningen, The Netherlands; Dutch Molecular Pathology Center, Department of Pathobiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
    6Departments of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street Southwest, Rochester, MN, USA; Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street Southwest, Rochester, MN, USA.
    7Section of Molecular Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713, AV, Groningen, The Netherlands.

    Figure 3A. Much more similar than expected.

    Like

    • Max Power

      I am not sure why you posted this.

      First, it seems like you trying to compare two western blots to each other, which you CANNOT do — you can only compare WITHIN the same blot, and furthermore, actin isn’t the reliable housekeeping gene for each fraction. Importantly, the authors’ conclude that the protein levels don’t change, but that “the re-export of nuclear p65 was slightly delayed inthe p65 S467 expressing cells, as revealed by Western blot” — which is supported by their data. Look at the N2 fraction for the mutant MEFS — p65 signal is strong the entire duration, whereas in WT MEFs it decreases by 60 minutes and stays decreased. You need to look across the time point for the respective housekeeping gene for each group of MEFs.

      Like

      • “Max Power” is an awe-inspiring name, but you just discredited yourself and your previous comment with that confused rant about image integrity. Zebedee is “Clare Francis”, look them up.

        Like

      • Cannot Say

        @Max Power: Dude, your biochemistry is shit. Are you sure you are a scientist?

        Like

      • Max Power

        I apologize for misinterpreting the motivation for posting the image.

        Forgive me, and explain it to me like I’m the moron I am?

        Like

    • Yeah Homer, I mean Max. The post indicates that the actin band is not a loading control for both blots, in fact it’s not the control for either from what I can see.

      Like

    • Max Power

      I am so sorry, and revoke my science card. I thought the actin was just two exposures and I ignored it and jumped to a conclusion, and did not see that it was literally the same panel used twice. I don’t know how I missed that and am very embarrassed.

      Yikes. Face is red. I will go slower next time.

      Like

      • Max Power

        (same panel used for each blot).

        That said, while H3 is the control for the nuclear fraction, it certainly calls into question the integrity and trustworthiness of the entire blot.

        I’ll show myself out.

        Like

      • It doesn’t matter if it’s same picture twice or two different exposures of same blot. Those are different experiments, FFS.

        Like

      • Yeah, the whole thing is dodgy as hell. In a real journal like JBC this would be yanked automatically, but these fakers obviously have a club going in the eurosphere that ensures their crap gets in with little scrutiny, and nothing is ever retracted. See it all the time.

        Like

      • Max Power

        @Leonid

        Yes, I realize they’re two different experiments. That’s why I made my post — I thought poster was comparing the two. I thought we were looking at three independent panels of actin, and that the experiment on the left just had two different exposures. I did not look carefully, and I see that that the arrow meant the actin from the left and right are identical. I thought it was comparing them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Max Power

        Look — I made a mistake. If I could delete my post, I would.

        I did not actually look closely at the actin because I jumped to a conclusion that the figure was posted over the interpretation of the blot, and I focused on the housekeeping gene for N2 (the H3 panel).

        I THOUGHT the actin on the left was two different exposures for the SAME experiment, and that it was DIFFERENT than the actin on the right for the second experiment. I thought the arrow was trying to compare the experiments, which obviously you cannot do. I am blind today or something, I only glanced at it, I’m sorry.

        I see now that they are, in fact, all the same d@mn actin panel which is absolutely HORRIFYING and indefensible. Very, VERY WRONG.

        I am sorry for wasting my and everybody’s time because I didn’t look closely and made assumptions.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Thank you Mr Power! Important is we all agree here, misunderstandings happen, but we solved it and let’s move on.

        Like

  7. For three out of five labs I have worked in, the wife of the PI was there, and it seemed to make the lab a little to a lot worse. For me:

    Case #1: wife was a PhD stay at home mom and not a faculty member, but wanted people to work on projects she did as a post-doc, asked for equipment to be bought off PI’s grants that was never used.

    Case #2) wife in the lab (was the PI’s grad student) was in a miserable marriage with the PI (my advisor), she flirted/propositioned me (and presumably other post-docs). I rejected the proposition, had to flee the lab or I would have been fired.

    case #3) lazy, spied for her PI husband, everybody hated her, PI extorted the school (by getting another school offer) to get her promoted to tenure track, which she most certainly didn’t deserve, due to her laziness and stupidity.

    I am grateful that my current advisor, who can be very difficult at times, does not have his wife (now ex -wife) in the lab. She has mental illness, I think in part due to extreme envy of her ex husband (my advisor) for having a career in academic that she so much wanted but could not get. I guess the idea of not “being the boss” and lording over cheap labor can literally make some individuals insane.

    Like

    • Maybe these PI wives are just projecting their dislike for that git whom they had to marry for social advancement reasons, upon his defenseless lab equipment?

      Like

      • Nah. I’m sure it was true love between PI and PI wife, right? RIGHT?

        However, it appears to my untrained eye that these situations are consistent with the predictions of the tenets of evolutionary psychology: women like to marry “up”. Although I might question that it maybe more an attraction to egotistical sociopaths who like to lord over cheap labor, which insures reproductive fitness for providing for a female. Sad!

        Like

      • Oh come on, men “marry up” even more eagerly. Hence the traditional practice of dowry. Evo psychology is a bunch of misogynous crap.

        Like

  8. Max Power

    @Cannot Say: I missed the reason why the image was posted, and I apologized. That said, nothing in my interpretation of the blot was incorrect. Can you explain what you take issue with?

    Like

  9. “My own interactions with van Deursen were about his participation in the 2018 semi-private We-Stand-With-Rudolph conference in Jena, Germany, which sole purpose was to restore the damaged scientific reputation of another senescence researcher, K Lenhard Rudolph. The latter was forced to resign as director of his Jena Institute…”.

    No longer director, but still at the institute. https://www.leibniz-fli.de/research/research-groups/rudolph/

    https://www.leibniz-fli.de/research/research-groups/rudolph/

    Like

  10. I think there is a stereotype about bullying in academia: an older male boss offends young female fellows. However, bullying can come from students. I have seen how much students and postdocs bully each others and often their bosses. Usually these attacks are stronger when the student/postdoc cannot take holidays randomly out of the blue and cry out that (s)he was bullied. Many cases are childish conflicts, coming from the “bullied” student and not from the boss. Sadly however, I have also seen severely bully professors, and despite reports, HR did nothing.

    Like

    • Another possibility is the white male professor bullies/is rude to people because he is in a difficult marriage. In one case I am familiar with, the wife was envious/jealous of the white male PI’s career so she treated him like shit at home, and he was always in a crappy mood on Monday (plenty of weekend time with the angry wife), and he took it out on people in Monday’s lab meeting.

      In light of all of the crap that gets published, ‘Im not so sure that not having a career in academia is something to get angry/jealous about. Besides, good honest researchers are selected against versus cheaters, so to quote my president “the system is rigged.” Why get angry about not being in a crappy, unfair system?

      Like

      • Bullying is gender and ethnicity and sexual orientation neutral. I know bully females from minority groups, and honest white males who are great colleagues.

        Like

      • In one case I am familiar with, the female deputy director was envious/jealous of the white male PI’s career so she treated him like shit at work. 🙂

        Like

    • blatnoi

      Yeah, I know of a case where the director hated the professor and wanted to get rid of him. So, they started a fishing expedition with all the students and postdocs. Everyone did not bite, and reported back to the prof. Then eventually they found a former postdoc who was in industry, and was doing badly and about to be fired, and he bit. Started saying stuff about data manipulation and bullying. They hired him back to the university somehow, and started an investigation against the prof. Couldn’t prove the data manipulation since there was actually none, but the bullying charge is of course impossible to disprove if you’re fighting the whole administration and the HR department. They destroyed the whole group just because the director thought the prof was disloyal or something. Luckily this prof still has a future in science because nobody outside the institute believe it. Insane. Now that these bullying charges are popular, real bullies can take advantage of them and use them to bully others. Not everything is always as clear as in this van Deursen story.

      Like

      • blatnoi: You nailed it. Impossible to disprove bullying charges especially when they come from a struggling doctoral student who is about to canned.

        Like

  11. Has the Mayo clinic notified Dr. van Deursen’s grant agencies for the reason of his dismissal (hostile work environment)? At least the NIH requires this. I suspect they are attempting to sweep it under the rug much like they did the 20+ years that he bullied students/staff/postdocs.

    https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-20-124.html

    Like

  12. Big Daddy

    This is a total smear job. Leonid, you have a great future working in the Celebrity tabloid press. Jan and his wife are two of the hardest working people I have ever known. I have no doubt he is firm task-master but this unnamed source innuendo is just horse shit.

    Like

    • “Firm task-master”, signed by “Big Daddy”? What kind of business are you in, BDSM? The sources are unnamed to you, for a good reason.

      Like

      • Big Daddy

        Winning an argument on the internet is a little like winning the special olympics. …right Leonid?

        You should feel great about yourself. Destroy someone’s livelihood based on rumor. Trial by media. Sleep well.

        Like

      • It is not rumor. I worked for JvD for many years. I will go get legal counsel & go to NIH if necessary for revoking his grant money. Hostile work environment is not sufficient verbiage.

        Like

      • Big Daddy

        BDSM? Really? I guess if you have no answers then always better to distract, deny and dismiss. Your middle name must be Trump, Comrade Leonid.

        Like

      • I am a Communist Trumpster? How does this work, Big Daddy? Anyway, are you sure Jan van Deursen is not a Trump supporter? You seem very confused

        Like

    • Zebedee

      ” I have no doubt he is firm task-master..” is no guarantee of good science. If they are fierce they must be good does not follow. Sounds like a manager.

      Like

      • …and a manager that has not had the humbling experience of being on a project that didn’t work well enough to publish, despite was his manager predicted.

        Like

  13. Big Daddy

    123abc
    Millennial Whiny child. Another failed scientist who couldn’t take the heat of working in a top class lab. Good luck at Starbucks.

    Like

  14. It was quite fun when my ex-girlfriend referred to me as “Big Daddy”. As much as I wanted to spank her at times, she would not let me…..

    Like

  15. quarantined bug

    Has Mayo contacted NIH about this? Has the new institution that hired Van Deursen been notified about this?

    Like

  16. jeffwkiger

    I’m a reporter for the Post Bulletin in Rochester, Minn. I’ve been hearing things about this lab since January. I have not been able to confirm any detailed information through official Mayo channels or through insider sources. If there is someone in Rochester with information about what happened in this lab and what the lab’s current status is, I’m interested in talking to you, anonymously if need be.

    Jeff Kiger, Post Bulletin

    jkiger@postbulletin.com

    Like

  17. It is totally sick report designed to destroy a talented scientist. In the best traditions of inquisition. All accusations are totally wrong and it is wich hunt. It is a sad day for Mayo scientific community.

    Like

  18. Pingback: Jan van Deursen’s bullying: lab members speak out – For Better Science

  19. Pingback: Pensioner Jan van Deursen engage Hoecker Lawyers against me – For Better Science

  20. anonymous

    I have worked in prestigious labs with mentors who are tough. But there is a limit. Crying in meetings is one thing, not providing for the well-being of subordinates another. I have interacted with JvD and have been the subject of awkward remarks, even from afar.

    I think that times have changed. PIs can no longer bully as easily as they could 20 years ago. Sexism is taboo. Societal norms have changed. JvD will have to adjust for this next gig.

    Like

  21. renegade genehunter

    Hi,
    I had problems with VD and I agree with the overall assessment that he was a bully and a bigot. I tried to help him in a couple of projects and although I was able to transfer the technology in hand all I got was insults and a bullying. I would never work with him again. As for the fabrication– you have pretty hard evidence for in the published papers– these should have been flagged by the reviewers and the journal’s forensics. The Mayo tolerated him because he was bringing in money– something must have gone wrong with that. His behavior was truly ridiculous –for years.

    Like

  22. renegade genehunter

    Luke,
    I revisited “The Mitotic Checkpoint Protein hBUB3 and the mRNA Export Factor hRAE1 Interact with GLE2p-binding Sequence (GLEBS)-containing Proteins” figures 1 and 3, the Westerns, show in my opinion, clear signs of unacceptable manipulation. I know this is a paper from 2001 but you seldom find just one roach.
    My argument in favor of a full NIH audit is as follows: 1) this clear , in my opinion, fabrication and 2) the fact that most of the workers in the VD lab where completely stressed by the PI’ s behavior and could possibly be forced to do unethical things in such an environment.
    Listen to me, I have had years of experience in molecular biology and I know its hard– but fabricated data makes it even more difficult. Once something that is wrong gets into the literature it is almost impossible to get it removed. It then hampers research as reviewers come back to the piece of work in question and use it to bash good work. Secondly its grant fraud and costs the tax payer dearly. It demoralizes good careful workers as well and they leave science. So I advise you to find a deep hole somewhere because this isn’t going away!

    Like

  23. Pingback: New JACS EiC Erick Carreira: “correct your work-ethic immediately” – For Better Science

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: