David P. Kramer

After you are abandoned by a trusted institution and publicly shamed, the headlines and mobs eventually fade. What you are left with is isolation. People who claimed to be your friends abandon you. Very few will say anything positive about you. People generally pretend you are dead. Others dismiss or worse take credit for your work and try to write you out of history. Vultures swoop in from every direction. This is what happens when fourth-rate administrators make decisions affecting people’s livelihoods without concern for what they are doing to their lives. These are scientists who were among the best in the world at what they did. They passed up careers in pharma, finance, tech and administration that could have paid them vastly more for their skills. When I was younger, people in my programs who gave up on science early went on to make fortunes on Wall Street, in biotech, and in Silicon Valley. Those who stayed pursued their passion for the love of it at the cost of millions of dollars. When an administrator steps in and dismantles that life’s work, far more than a job is erased. Laboratories take years to build, and scientific problems take years to develop and eventually solve. Experiments, research materials, collaborations, and accumulated expertise cannot simply be restarted somewhere else. The field keeps moving while your work is stopped. The time lost is also the time lost that could have been spent making money - that part a court will never be able to figure out because juries are ordinary people not dedicated scientists. Then comes the gaslighting. People assume it must have been your fault because an institution like MIT or Duke is supposedly so trustworthy and meritorious that it would never do this to someone who was not guilty. Institutional prestige is a substitute for examining the evidence. I recently attended a meeting on academic freedome at MIT where Dorian Abbot’s name kept coming up as their fallen hero. They cited a cancelled lecture of his at MIT as their rallying cray. It was treated as an institutional catastrophe. It was insane. David was an afterthought among people supposedly concerned about the climate at MIT and self-appointed to change the culture there. They simply believed MIT’s PR messaging that they have always been focused on merit despite some small missteps like the canceling of a controversial lecture. I had to point out repeatedly that MIT is not the MIT they attended 30–50 years ago. The priorities reflected in its newer hires and leadership have moved far from the scientific excellence they associate with it.