Bullies and Harassers of Cologne

Another case of bullying and harassment in German academia reaches the media, the second one at the University of Cologne, after the first harassment case was disastrously mishandled. In both cases, the perpetrators are celebrated professors. Plus two falsified biomedical papers, one exempt from investigation and another already embarrassingly corrected by Science, while the German national research integrity watchdog is barking at me instead.

Part I: Is it you, Brunhilde Wirth?

A genetics professor is under investigation for bullying and harassment at the University of Cologne. Sources, both first-hand and official, acknowledged that it must be Brunhilde Wirth. She never replied to my many emails, also her purported lawyer remained silent. While the university investigates, the German Research Council firmly took sides.

On 6 April 2023, the weekly magazine Spiegel reported an exclusive story, however the perpetrator was not named. Translated:

“The University of Cologne is taking action against one of its most respected female professors over allegations of abuse of power. This is evidenced, among other things, by internal e-mails from the university, which were obtained by SPIEGEL. […]

As internal letters show, the professor received an extraordinary official order from the rector Axel Freimuth in mid-March. Among other things, she was deprived of the authority to issue instructions to 17 doctoral students. In an e-mail from the university to the doctoral students, it says: “This measure is for your protection.”

Accordingly, the doctoral students no longer have to communicate with the professor, respond to her messages or attend her meetings. The university has appointed a professor as the doctoral students’ new supervisor and as their contact person “until a sustainable pacification of the situation is
achieved,” according to the e-mail. […]

The professor is defending herself against what she sees as
unjustified measures. She is taking legal action against the
official order”

These are the whistleblowers’ accusations:

“Nine doctoral students, post-doctoral students and former employees had jointly written a report of almost 50 pages with numerous accusations. They sent it to the ombudspersons of the faculty and the university in September 2021. Later, the
university management was also informed about the allegations.
The report states that the professor insults her doctoral students, calling them “stupid”, “useless” or “disabled” [insult used in German as “mentally retarded” -LS] for example. She is said to sometimes require her employees to work more than 80 hours a week. The report speaks of a “quasi-feudal relationship of dependence” and a “climate of fear” at the institute in question. The professor is said to have demanded from an employee demanded the latter come by the boss’s office every morning to personally say “Good morning” to her, the head of the institute.

The professor is said to make scientifically correct work difficult by putting pressure on her employees; there is a “pre-determination with regard to experimental results” with her, it is further said. She allegedly told a pregnant employee, “You’re ruining your career, you can’t be a mother and be
professionally successful at the same time.”

Yes, I am aware that many of you think – this also describes my professor! Sadly, academic ecosystem is full of bullies and abusers. Also this happened in Cologne:

“The report also mentions “unpleasant touching” by the professor. She is said to have “repeatedly touched and stroked” a female scientist employee on the back and “patted her thigh.” The scientist writes about the situations with her supervisor: “For me, the combination of psychological pressure on the one hand and the physical affection on the other was very uncomfortable.”
The report summarizes the situation at the professor’s workplace as, “Once a week, someone cries.””

First-hand sources told me that the unnamed professor may be Brunhilde Wirth, director of the Institute of Human Genetics at the University Clinic Cologne. She never replied to any of my many emails. But the officials of the University of Cologne and the German Research Council (DFG) clearly indicated or rather acknowledged to me that the professor in the Spiegel and Kölner Rundschau articles was indeed Wirth.

Originally from Romania (see CV here), the ethnic German Wirth left the still-communist country in 1989 to do her PhD to the Institute of Human Genetics at the University of Bonn, Germany, She was soon appointed group leader there, and in 2003 she moved a few kilometres to become full professor in Cologne.

Wirth is the recipient of a state Innovation Award NRW in 2019 and a “Life Achievement Prize” in March 2023 (see this university announcement). The latter recognition totally coincidentally happened just as those reports about an unnamed bully professor were about to appear in Spiegel.

In 2018, Wirth was celebrated for having discovered a cure for spinal dystrophy (translated):

“Prof. Wirth and her working group found the only known gene a few years ago that SMA schütz – Plastin 3 (PLS3). The protective gene PLS3 and a protein interacting with PLS3, coronin 1C (CORO1C), has led the group to the cellular mechanism of the disease. […]

“The scientific findings from this research could also represent important links to other neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, ataxia, hereditary sensory motor neuronology (CMT2) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS),” says the head of the Prof working group, Brunhilde Wirth.”

I happen to have here an example on how Wirth’s revolutionary Plastin 3 research for muscular atrophy works. This was posted in January 2024 on PubPeer by Sholto David (and reported by me to Science, the University of Cologne and the DFG):

Gabriela E Oprea , Sandra Krober , Michelle L McWhorter , Wilfried Rossoll , Stefan Muller , Michael Krawczak , Gary J Bassell , Christine E Beattie , Brunhilde Wirth Plastin 3 is a protective modifier of autosomal recessive spinal muscular atrophy Science (2008) doi: 10.1126/science.1155085  

Totally fake microscopy images, in Science no less! Surely the journal won’t tolerate this malfeasance for a second? Well, the Editor-in-Chief of Science, Holden Thorp, is a professional chest-beater whenever anyone mentions publications ethics, e.g.:

• Thorp, “Generative approach to research integrity” (2023)
• Thorp, “Correction is courageous” (2024)
• Thorp “Universities need to stop hiding from research integrity problems” (2024)
• Thorp, “Instead of engaging, institutions want to keep hiding from integrity problems“, (2024)
• Thorp, “Earning respect and trust” (2024)
• Thorp, “Genuine images in 2024” (2024)

The last editorial reveals that Thorp is an aficionado of Proofig, that certain image integrity software:

Armed to the teeth with Thorp’s ethics expertise and Proofig’s AI tech, Science pulled no punches and issued this Erratum on 30 May 2024:

“In the Report “Plastin 3 Is a Protective Modifier of Autosomal Recessive Spinal Muscular Atrophy” (25 April 2008, p. 524), Fig. 4B shows three representative microscopic images of primary cultured motor neurons. During the generation of Fig. 4B, the authors made aesthetic alterations to the background of the assembled figure. They have prepared a new version of the panel that accurately represents the original microscopic images without any cosmetic changes to the background. The conclusions drawn from this figure and the paper itself are not altered by this figure revision.”

I suggest using the word “a thorp” as a general insult for pretentious virtue-signalling little white men in big hats.

Wirth herself commented on PubPeer, enjoy:

“Thank you to both PubPeer for identifying the aesthetic alteration and Science for publishing an erratum with an unaltered image, along with an explanation that neither the data nor the conclusion have been affected.”

An older Wirth paper, which surely must have paved the way towards a therapy for spinal muscular atrophy, was flagged by Sholto, also in January 2024:

Yvonne Hoffmann, Brunhilde Wirth hnRNP-G promotes exon 7 inclusion of survival motor neuron (SMN) via direct interaction with Htra2-beta1 Human Molecular Genetics (2002) doi: 10.1093/hmg/11.17.2037 

I reported this also to University of Cologne and the DFG, but not to that toxic Oxford University Press journal where bad science flourishes and whistleblowers are hunted down:

The Ombudsman of the University of Cologne replied to me and announced to investigate both papers. As I understand, the investigation is still ongoing. But the DFG completed their investigation swiftly. Here is their decision, private and confidential, sent to me on 14 June 2024:

Sorry for the convoluted language, DFG is incapable of communicating in anything but awful, incomprehensible Beamten-Deutsch parlance of German bureaucracy. Translated:

“With regard to the publication “Hofmann et. al.”, it was not possible to establish a funding reference which is required for an investigation by the DFG, but such a reference exists with regard to the publication “Oprea et. al.”.
In the case of this publication, it is alleged that Figure 4B was created by copying and pasting and inserting various parts.

We kindly ask you to continue to treat your suspicions and the fact that the DFG to remain confidential.

The Scientific Integrity team has examined your suspicions in a preliminary inquiry and heard Ms. Wirth about the allegation – admittedly without disclosing the origin of the notification.

The proceedings have now been discontinued because the suspicion of scientific misconduct could be refuted based on the statement by Ms. Wirth. Ms. Wirth explained in a comprehensible manner that the work done at that time, which led to the creation of Figure 4B, had been carried out in a laboratory of a cooperating scientist. Ms. Wirth herself did not make the changes in question to Figure 4B.
A assumption of “co-authorship of falsified publications” is also ruled out. First of all, it is not certain and cannot be verified by the DFG whether the person involved actually manipulated the figure in the sense of scientific misconduct. Moreover, Ms. Wirth would also have to be at least grossly negligently unaware of any such image manipulation. That in the given case Ms. Wirth would have infringed the care required in the circumstances to an unusually high degree and disregarded what was necessary that she disregarded what should be obvious in this case, is not evident to the DFG Head Office.”

This DFG decision reminds me of how DFG decided in the cases of Ralph Schermuly (read April 2024 Shorts), Antonia Joussen (read March 2021 article) or DFG Senator Roland Lill, read below.

All these German professors were officially whitewashed completely, retained all their positions of power, money and respect. For DFG, German professors are only responsible for their papers when those are used to apply for DFG funding. When later on those same papers are found to contain falsified data, the same senior authors cease to carry any responsibility whatsoever.

Regarding the Hofmann et al 2002 paper, the DFG blatantly lied. Of course that study was DFG-funded, exclusively by DFG even, but yes, the funding statement is behind a paywall and hence presumably not evident: “This study was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Grant SFB400-A6, Graduiertenkolleg 246)“. I pointed it out to them, and this was their reply:

“The publication “Hofman et. al.” was available to the DFG when the allegations were reviewed, and we are of course aware of the funding provided by sub-project 6 of Collaborative Research Center 400 and Research Training Group 246. However, it is no longer possible for the DFG to review the allegations for legal reasons.”

The legal reasons are simple, to me at least: the paper has 2 authors, Wirth and her former PhD student. Turn it any way you like, the principal investigator would be responsible for those copy-pasted gel bands.

Conveniently, the Oprea et al 2008 paper has more and even international authors. The first author (and fellow Romanian) Gabriela Oprea is a former PhD student of Wirth’s, who according to her LinkedIn profile left University of Cologne and academia in 2008. Wirth accuses her US collaborators, i.e. either Christine Beattie (Ohio State University) or Gary Bassell (Emory University) of having provided this falsified figure. Beattie died in 2018, aged merely 53. Bassel didn’t reply to my email. It’s not nice to scapegoat dead people.

Now, recall what the current whistleblowers accused their Cologne professor of: a “quasi-feudal relationship of dependence”, a “climate of fear”, forcing them to work more than 80 hours a week, making scientifically correct work difficult by putting pressure on employees and, finally, a “pre-determination with regard to experimental results”. Bullying and bad science always go hand in hand, see the Scottish case of David Argyle:

Assuming this professor is indeed Wirth, wouldn’t bullying explain how figures got forged? I asked the DFG to consider those aspects. The DFG Research Integrity Team remained firm:

“As already explained in our letter dated 14.6.2024, the allegation was examined in detail and a statement was obtained from Ms. Wirth. According to this statement, the figure to be examined was prepared in another laboratory, which was also clearly separated in terms of location, and without Ms. Wirth’s specific influence on the work there. It is therefore not apparent that Ms. Wirth exerted any undue influence on the specific preparation of this figure.
There is no evidence that Ms. Wirth influenced the people who created the illustrations in advance. […]
We are therefore unable to comply with your remonstration. The procedure for investigating scientific misconduct has been completed.”

After I announced to publish all that, the DFG attacked me for breaking confidentiality which I not only never agreed to, but always explicitly rejected. They told me:

“In addition to the rule of law principle of confidentiality, there is also the principle of the presumption of innocence. In proceedings conducted in accordance with the rule of law, it is not sufficient for purely objective “abnormalities” to be recognizable in order to establish scientific misconduct.”

I explained to DFG that presumption of innocence is not about denying the evidence. Imagine a murder trial where the accused’s lawyer, instead of presenting an alibi, outright denies that the dead body actually is dead. Or that the victim was ever alive in the first place. In a paper with fake data, the evidence of a “crime” is established, and the potential guilty parties signed it even. DFG, supported by Science, however go for denying the obvious: that the data was indeed falsified, insisting on innocent “abnormalities“, and that the (senior!) authors are not responsible for the content of their papers. Rest assured that Wirth took full responsibility for the Oprea et al 2008 Science paper ever since it was published and until now, to successfully apply for DFG funding. There, DFG granted Wirth full credit for everything in that study. Until “abnormalities” were reported, that is.

On 14 April 2024, the local Cologne newspaper Kölner Rundschau brought an article about this bullying and harassment investigation. The bully professor wasn#t named again, but her lawyer: Frank Wertheimer. I contacted him and his of Krauss Law office for a comment, providing the DFG letter and the media reports, while informing him that official sources acknowledged that the unnamed bully professor was Brunhilde Wirth. Silence again and no denials, not from the lawyer, not from Wirth herself.

Now, here is an interesting quote from the lawyer Wertheimer in Kölner Rundschau (translated):

“”Since March 17, our client has been in possession of an official order from the of the Rector of the University of Cologne, which has led to a considerable impairment of the scientific work in the institute she heads. The consequence of this order is that the scientific process is disrupted at her institute, several publicly funded research projects are jeopardized by this,” says the lawyer Dr. Frank Wertheimer to Rundschau. One of the tasks of doctoral students is often to apply for external funding.”

No, your legal highness, tasks of doctoral students do not f***ing include applying for external funding, simply because there is nothing for them to apply for, safe for own fellowships. PhD students are generally not entitled to their own research funds. To apply for funds is the exclusive task of principal investigators (PIs) like Wirth, that’s also why they call themselves such. Forcing a subordinate PhD student to ghost-write a grant application, which a PI then submits under their own name, is a) power abuse and b) nothing but plagiarism.

It’s safe to assume the lawyer speaks for Wirth, who expects her PhD students to write, or more likely ghost-write her DFG grants. I notified the the University of Cologne and DFG about this possible ghost-writing, which if proven, would count as plagiarism. The university’s Ombudsman told me that he spoke to members of the research integrity commission, and:

“Based on the facts of the case, it is not apparent that the facts to which you refer could give rise to a finding of scientific misconduct. In particular there are no substantial indications that Prof. Wirth would have claimed intellectual property of other persons (ghost writers) for herself.“

Actually, one would need to interview PhD students and ask them for documental evidence of possible ghost-writing. According to my information, nobody ever did that in Cologne. The grant-giving agency DFG simply ignored my notification in that regard.

The DFG announced not to communicate any investigation outcomes to me anymore, because I am a such a bad person. Pah. I know in advance how all these investigations get terminated with findings of nothing untoward. I mean, even their own Ombudsman endorsed papermilling when it’s done by German professors:

From what I heard, Wirth is reaching retirement age in 2 years and doesn’t supervise or recruit any PhD students. Her university refused to comment on Wirth’s case due to, quote, “running investigation“.

---

Part II: Is it you, Sascha Topolinski?

There was another harassment scandal in Cologne, just months before the above case. It was disastrously mishandled. In December 2022, the Spiegel brought a story titled “Professor in Underpants”. The perpetrator is again not named (disguised as “Daniel Möller”), but the identities of the whistleblowers were very easy to find out from the article (also because it mentions their #metooscience project).

From there, one quickly arrives to their likely former supervisor, the faculty member Sascha Topolinski, Professor for Social and Economic Cognition. Of course he didn’t have to be “Daniel Möller”, yet Topolinski didn’t answer to my emails and send a lawyer instead, to aggressively threaten lawsuits should his name be ever mentioned in any context.

This is what Spiegel wrote on 17 December 2022: “Daniel Möller” used to invite his female PhD students to his office clad only in his underpants. They were supposed to watch him try on new fashion clothes. 12 women lodged a complaint, there was an institutional investigation by the University of Cologne, this is the result (translated):

“Two of the affected women agreed to talk to SPIEGEL about their experiences if their surnames will not mentioned. Victoria S., 33, and Franziska S., 29, once wanted to work for Möller do a doctorate. Victoria S. later quit; Franziska S. let her employment contract expire before she finished her dissertation.
Going public “a step out of helplessness,” says Franziska S. When they tried to raise awareness within the university regarding Möller’s behavior, to protect others from him, they were not taken seriously.”

This is how the research group operated, and apparently University of Cologne had zero problem with it, because, as the article mentions, the leadership saw in “Daniel Möller” “a rising star“:

“One of his former employees puts it this way: »He is on the lookout for female employees who are from his point of view cute little sweethearts – who put up with everything. He draws strength from it.” […] Franziska S. says Möller »treated doctoral students like house- and court servants«. One would have to buy for him food and flowers, cigarettes and vodka. […]

Möller regularly freaked out, according to a report. It speaks of an “aggression attack”. Franziska S. tells about a day in the summer of 2019 where Möller placed himself in her office to work. The wheels of his office chair blocked, he became so angry that he kicked the chair and threw it against the office wall. Möller is said to have insulted people with dark skin with the N-word, a homosexual colleague he called a “faggot”.

Other whistleblower reports about “Daniel Möller”:

“Victoria S. says Möller called her with in reference to her research results as »slut with robust data«. Another time he told her that men who wanted to sleep with her had to “submit a request” to him. In her report, Victoria S. describes a situation at the group’s Christmas party: Möller reportedly asked her into his office and locked the door behind him. A person who stood outside confirms that.
The professor and Victoria S. reportedly sat on his sofa, he is said to have come ‘ever closer’ to her. He reportedly took a picture of her, even though she said that she doesn’t want that. She reportedly got up to leave. On parting, the professor reportedly kissed her on the cheek. […]

The female scientist, whom Möller during daytime fetched to his office for fashion shows, had to accompany him at night on his trips to a Cologne strip club. The professor took her there almost 20 times, recounts the woman. In some cases she had to pick a stripper for a private lap dance. Also other employees of that research group had come along, as well as visiting professors from universities abroad. She »felt like an escort«, says the former doctoral student.”

In the article, the lawyer of “Daniel Möller” didn’t even deny in Spiegel the strip club visits, but insisted those were entirely after work and voluntary.

In November 2020, the two whistleblowers finally wrote to the rector of the University of Cologne. Who only replied 4 months later, in April 2020. In September 2020, an investigation started. The whistleblowers were ordered to arrive to an interview. Without a lawyer or union representative, but “Daniel Möller was present, with his lawyer.

“On 15 September 15 2020 at nine o’clock Franziska S. entered a meeting room in a building of the university administration, with her father, whom she was allowed to bring along as an accompanying person. She sat down at a table, opposite of her two legal counsels of the university, to her right Möller and his lawyer. In the middle of the room stood a recording device that recorded every word. This is how the scientist describes it.

The university prepared transcripts of the interrogations. If you read them, you get an idea of whose side of the legal advisors stood: Victoria S. described during her interrogation a scene with Möller at a university event during the carnival season. She was dressed up in a costume and wore a wig. The professor told her that her wig won’t soon look look so nice anymore because he will “jerk off on it tonight«.
Instead of inquiring, the legal counsel plays it over. The word “jerk off” has for Möller a “special word meaning apart of the general meaning of the word,” she is quoted in the protocol. Möller sometimes use the word “to jerk off” as synonym for the word “to write”, explained the legal counsel. […]

During the interrogation, Möller’s lawyer asked Victoria S. when did her ex-boyfriend break up with her. He asked if she was interested in a love affair with her PhD advisor. “Under no circumstances,” she replied. Today Victoria S. says:
“I felt like a defendant, not like a witness.” Another woman who also had to testify, reported that during the interrogation she was given the feeling that Möller’s behavior wasn’t that bad since she worked for him for years: “That was victim blaming.”

Truth is: most universities behave like University of Cologne did. Whistleblowers should sue them for abuse, but of course they won’t because troublemakers can forget about graduation. Both women had to leave Cologne.

The Chief Communication officer of the University of Cologne wrote to me in an email, the same text she issued as press release on 19 December 2022:

“We firmly reject the accusation of conducting investigations in a partisan way.“

And the horrible interrogation Victoria S experienced?

“It is a consequence of the applicable legal framework.“

As I mentioned, the whistleblowers’ full names are easy to find thanks to Spiegel‘s hint to their project #MeTooScience. From there, a quick online search swiftly brings you to their likely former supervisor, Prof Sascha Topolinski, whose research group also happened at that time to list two PhD students and an undergrad (all female, European and conventionally good looking), just as Spiegel mentioned. The two PhD students disappeared recently, right now there’s just a secretary and a student assistant listed as Topolinski’s group members.

Topolinski graduated at the University of Würzburg in the state of Bavaria, also just as Spiegel hinted. His PhD mentor there was Fritz Strack, a bigwig of German psychology and a member of the Leopoldina academy of sciences. As it happens, Strack’s own big research discovery of “facial feedback hypothesis” (Strack et al. 1988) was exposed as not reproducible by Wagenmakers et al 2016. To which Strack reacted by lamenting himself as a victim of persecution and by appointing himself as world’s top expert on the “alleged crisis” in psychology where he alone decides on the rules for replication. So you see where the untouchability and the star status of Strack’s mentees comes from.

Ah, and by the way, another mentee of Strack was one of the biggest psychology fraudsters in recent history – Jens Förster, mentioned here:

Professor Sascha Topolinski did not answer to my emails, and eventually sent a lawyer to threaten me with lawsuits, from the notorious law firm Hoecker (which specialises on threatening journalists, their most famous clients are the German far-right party AfD and the Turkish autocrat Tayyip Erdogan). As it happens, “Daniel Möller” also refused talking to Spiegel and sent his lawyer instead, to make sure his real name is not published.

In a string of emails to me, the Hoecker lawyer Christoph Sch. repeatedly insisted his client must be heard, but despite my asking, both the lawyer and Topolinski failed to provide any statement via email. The Hoecker lawyer also refused to confirm or deny the association with “Daniel Möller” (which I explained derived from the Spiegel clues and a quick internet search), despite several of my inquiries. Instead the Hoecker lawyer in a string of emails aggressively kept threatening to sue me, both on Topolinksi’s and even on his own and Hoecker’s behalf (translated):

“As is well known, without such a hearing any form of reporting would be illegal. Irrespective of this, our client naturally enjoys full anonymity protection. […] Any form of identifying suspicion reporting would be illegal. […] My client would, of course, take legal action against violations of his personal rights.“

Which suspicion reporting? Nobody accuses Topolinski of anything, he merely was asked for a comment because he seems to have previously acted as the supervisor of the two Spiegel whistleblowers and should therefore know who that “Daniel Möller” is. Refusing a statement when repeatedly asked for it is certainly not the same as not getting a chance to be heard. Why not just denying the association but threatening lawsuits instead? And Topolinski wasn’t media-shy before, like here , here , here , or here:

Whoever this “Daniel Möller” really is, this “rising star” is presently drawing serious research funding from the national funding agency, the German Research Council (DFG).

So I approached the DFG, and its press speaker replied, making clear that the DFG is absolutely not interested in finding out who “Daniel Möller” really is, and:

“On the other hand, the events described in SPIEGEL fall under the responsibility of the employer and, if necessary, the law enforcement authorities.”

The DFG has no procedure for when their public research funds are used by professorial sociopaths to recruit dependent victims for the purpose of bullying and sexual abuse. DFG only seems to have procedures for whitewashing when those professors are caught with fake science.

---

The above material was published in whole (Coda) or in part in earlier Friday Shorts. I studied biology at University of Cologne and was a DFG-funded fellow as postdoc.

---