Asshole behavior is a gateway drug
Critique is baked into science. We critique each other constantly, sometimes privately and sometimes publicly. Journal clubs in graduate school frequently focus on the flaws of a paper, and sometimes turn into a feeding frenzy where scientists take turns disassembling a paper. We invent critiques others might have of us and our work, leading to imposter syndrome.
Young scientists therefore have to decide: how should I critique something? If young scientists see their peers publicly and privately being rewarded for asshole behavior (harshly critiquing work or an individual), it may inspire the same in them. I was recently re-reading this amazing post on the Thesis Whisperer on this topic, which gelled some other thoughts into this post.
I’ve been thinking about the many ways that scientists slight other scientists to advance their own careers. This can be as minor as overly negative critique in a journal club, or as major as intentionally sinking a paper or grant because it’s from a competitor. What I realized after re-reading the Thesis Whisperer post, is that asshole behavior is a gateway drug in academia. Gateway drugs are “light” drugs like alcohol or marijuana that can encourage the use of “heavy” drugs like cocaine. As in drug use, I propose that asshole behavior escalates sometimes but not always.
Envision a young researcher who is first learning that harsh public critique leads to positive feedback for them. First, they learn that one can be an asshole in situations like a journal club. Then, maybe they extend that behavior to stealing a project from a labmate, and there are no consequences. Then, perhaps they hear of a successful scientist “borrowing” an idea from a manuscript under review, or other more nefarious behaviors that face no consequences, and maybe they emulate that (consciously or subconsciously). Therefore, knowing that there are often positive consequences from being an asshole may encourage many future areas of assholedom.
High impacts of asshole behavior
Positive outcomes from asshole behavior may reinforce the current lack of diversity in science. People from different backgrounds may be more or less comfortable publicly critiquing something in a harsh way. Structural advantages empower white men especially to feel comfortable publicly lambasting papers and scientists. Different people may also face different consequences for asshole behavior (women may be called “bitchy”, men “intense”).
To be clear: I’m not claiming superiority in this. It’s likely that my career has been advanced by public critique that has not always been as friendly as I’d prefer. I do try, but even when finishing my postdoc I’m certain I could have asked questions in group meeting, for example, in a more nuanced and positive way. I’m frustrated by this, and would like to change it for future scientists (and continue to try to change it in myself).
The lack of consequences for asshole behavior may also enable the far-too-frequent sexual harassment in academia. If someone hasn’t been called out on any “lesser” infraction previously, including things that are unethical, why would they be called out for sexually harassing someone?
What to do?
I started this post by stating that critique is baked into science. As such, I think it’s not practical or even possible to try to remove all critique from science. Critique can also be valuable. I am thankful for having worked with mentors, co-authors, and friends who have critiqued my work with the intention of making it better. The key is that critique should come from a place of helping and not for personal gain.
That said, there are many other behaviors that need not be tolerated. Overly harsh or personal critique (in public or private or online), being a bad “lab citizen” (we coin euphemisms to describe assholes), unethical behavior, sexist or racist microaggressions (or macroaggressions), and many more.
The structure of science, where personal reputation and networking are extremely important, acts as a barrier to calling out this behavior. Hierarchy is omnipresent, complicating circumstances where one might want to call out an action. Would you speak up after an asshole statement about a job candidate’s talk made by a senior colleague in front of you? What if it was about their physical appearance? Does your answer change if your supervisor/chair is in the room? Would they back you up? What if that senior colleague was the search chair for a faculty position you are interviewing for, or on your study section?
I don’t have the answers to this, and there may not be “an answer.” I’m happy to year your thoughts. Personally, I’m going to do my best to promote civility while aiming to do the best science possible. I’m also going to back up anyone that calls out overly assholeish behavior, and encourage positive framing of critiques. The flipside of the personal nature of science is that a collective movement to increase civility (and all its downstream effects) could gain traction. I think it’s well worth trying. I’m optimistic.
Further reading:
- The Thesis Whisperer originally recommended “The No Asshole Rule” by Robert Sutton
- Seemay Chou recommends “Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives Our Success” by Adam Grant
- Pedro Miura recommends “Assholes: A Theory” by Aaron James
- I recommend “Lab Dynamics” by Cohen & Cohen
