In recent weeks, there have been several reports and a debate in På Høyden about “my” case (Refsum vs. University of Bergen), including:
· About the court settlement (in Norwegian)
· UiB’s strong response to three professors’ unpublished letter
· Openness and free speech in science (a statement from 8 international professors)
· The professors’ response to UiB
· The Rector & Director’s letter concerning UiB’s research ethics in science
· Reply from På Høyden including links to the judgment of December 2005 and Court settlement of June 2006
Discussion in the past few weeks has been about a court settlement, an unpublished letter from three foreign professors, censorship and research ethics. But, the case is so much more. My conflict with UiB started more than 6 years ago. It resulted in the break-up of a successful research group, it cost millions of Nkr for UiB, it has been an un-detonated bomb for years, and several people in the conflict left or escaped from their jobs. Somewhere out there is also a foundation with ~100 million Nkr, somehow involved. And then there is a big trial, and more recently, a low-key court-settlement. Despite all this, the case is almost unknown outside the small core of people heavily involved. One reason is that UiB has effectively kept it quiet within UiB. And obviously, UiB has succeeded in making other people, outsiders, remain quiet too. One strategy to keep people quiet is intimidation, one example being the threat of legal action. But UiB has also followed another simple and equally effective strategy: they do not admit an error, and they say or write something that looks believable and that people wish to believe. Simple, believable presentations by authorities are not easily dismissed. Who can doubt a university, its staff director, rector and director when they solemnly assure the world that everything is OK?
The case is, however, not simple, and the facts are almost unbelievable. Until recently, UiB has remained officially confident, but recent reports in På Høyden now reveal an undercurrent: those of you with an academic’s natural scepticism will recognise that UiB is concerned and on the defence. And I can assure you that UiB has every reason to be so.
It is long and complex story. But, that is no reason for ignoring it. If not for other reasons, it is highly educational for what leaders (and individuals) should or should not do in such conflicts. It is also about a university that some might say preferred to sell its academic soul rather than to say: “Sorry, we made a mistake”.
Being one of the central persons, I hope that my views on the issues would be of some interest. My experience, in its entirety, would become a thick novel: if written perfectly, it could become a bestseller, or a book on life within the Bergen academia for those especially interested, but most people say the story best fits in the category of soap opera. If ever written up, I could call it: “Life at the Uni”.
Refsum vs. University of Bergen. An Extraordinary Case
My conflict with UiB started in 2000, following a typical academic conflict with a student, which started the year before. Below, I will try keep to the points raised in the recent weeks including:
UiB and open debate
Outsiders right to debate the case
A brief summary of the conflict and the court case
Who won this case?
The professors’ defamatory letter(s)
Access to raw data for co-authors, and the ‘extraordinary case’
UiB’s duties and rights in relation to students
Student’s ownership of data, consequences for grant applications
UiB’s true views on sharing data
A university selling its soul?
UiB and open debate
One of UiB’s arguments is that this case is an extraordinary case, and has little general interest. One of the extraordinary things about this case is that so little is generally known about it. Whispers, small fragments are out, but I can assure you, nothing is really out yet. This story has been blocked, and at many levels. I am therefore delighted to see that På Høyden now, perhaps in the name of openness and free speech, has presented a link to the judgment (Dec. 2005) as well as to the court settlement (June 2006). På Høyden even allowed some letters critical of UiB’s handling of this case to be published. Most important, however, is that UiB finally seems willing to reveal its views. So obviously things are changing, and we should encourage UiB to continue with this. Maybe then the facts about this case will become known, and eventually, the unbelievable may become believable.
“Outsiders” right to comment the Case
This new openness by UiB has been caused by outsiders’ comments about the case. It appears that UiB’s response is that outsiders, including the three professors, cannot understand the case, and therefore should stay out. But why should they? They are normally intelligent people, they have opinions, and, as experienced leaders, they recognize the reason for the deepening of the conflict over the years: poor leadership. Furthermore, the professors are not unfamiliar with the case: they know it from several sources and they have translations of several of UiB’s letters, including the main defence document of January 2004. They were also witnesses in the trial. So, UiB’s views should be well-known to them.
Unfortunately for UiB, the defence document, and the trial itself, did UiB little good. One of the professors found UiB’s strategy disturbingly similar to that used against dissidents in the previous Soviet Union. ‘Character assassination’ was his term. He started using this description after the attorney general’s lawyer in the trial had a nice exchange with him in a hotel lobby, and gave him the impression that UiB’s defence would rely on the witness statement by a psychiatrist. I say “gave him the impression” to avoid another libel case. But in short, the three professors’ evaluation is only to a limited extent based on what I did, how I am or what I have told them; it is a result of UiB’s leadership, UiB’s actions, UiB’s documents and UiB’s strategies. During the last few months the professors have experienced UiB at first hand. If they had any doubt before, they have none now. And I assume that they have every right to express that opinion.
A brief summary of the conflict and the court case
The case can be briefly summarized. In 1999 a student thought I was presenting her research data in a newspaper, and she accused me of taking her project and of being dishonest. Her views were spread outside the department, and the conflict started. In 2000, the dean cleared me completely of the student’s accusations. Shortly thereafter, the dean decided that in relation to a joint paper with the student, I could only see raw data under supervision, because the student thought I might take her project. It then became a conflict between UiB and me. The conflict expanded, and 3 years later I sued UiB and three private persons for harassment and libel. The court case was in September 2005. The judgment came in Dec. 2005; I lost. I appealed against the UiB. A court settlement was reached in June 2006, which is the final and only outcome of the legal case between UiB and me.
I will briefly mention something about the court case, since UiB focuses so much on the outcome of the trial, and implies that the judgment gives an accurate description of the case. The judgment is like honey for UiB, written as if by their own hand. Simple, and therefore believable. Several people who have read the judgment have expressed complete disbelief in how I ever believed I could succeed in court. Or, as UiB frequently said: I must have lost touch with reality. UiB even had a psychiatrist saying the same in court (the one mentioned above). That the psychiatrist had never medically examined me, and that in court he stated that he had not evaluated the conflict either, is probably of less importance. He got almost 150.000 Nkr for his 12-day court job, and given how he looked during his witness statement, he deserved every “penny”. Anyway, the judge must have been surprised about the interesting academic life at UiB, and in particular about my personality. Kindly (or was it wisely?), she avoided referring to most of the details, including most of the psychiatrist’s speculations and UiB’s grave accusations about my character and dishonesty in science. She also, for shortness and simplicity I am sure, did not refer to the many statements in favour of me, perhaps because so many of these witnesses did not come from Bergen and so surely could not understand the Bergen way? So the judge wrote a clear and simple judgment, and made sure that nobody could be in doubt: UiB and the others were 100% right and I was 100% wrong. Indeed, the judge did not find one single incident over 6-7 years of conflict where UiB had behaved in an objectionable manner. So, if that is your preferred story, read the judgment, or even better, the UiB defence document. But if you are just a bit curious, then read the court settlement afterwards. And ask yourself: how could the judgment and the court settlement refer to one and the same case?
Who won this case? An example of winning the Battle but loosing the war?
UiB has recently made repeated statements that I lost the court case, which UiB won. UiB seems, however, very much to have forgotten the final outcome, i.e., the court settlement. So, who won in the end? The judgment is legally binding in relation to the three private individuals; they won over me. However, two of them represented UiB, and I appealed against UiB, including UiB’s liability for their employees’ actions, and this resulted in the court settlement. One of the outcomes of the settlement is that UiB succeeded in getting rid of yet another bothersome female professor, certainly a clear victory for UiB. But, was that a loss to me? And what about the rest of the court settlement? After 6 years, UiB has admitted their responsibility for how UiB and its employees, including the two mentioned above, handled the conflict, UiB has admitted, a bit reluctantly perhaps, that they have no reason to doubt my scientific integrity and honesty and UiB has expressed regret that my name became involved in an Ethics Committee ruling that does not decide my case. We did not agree on the issue related to access to raw-data, but we were willing openly, in a legal document, to state our disagreement for others to judge. For me, the court settlement is a complete victory of the things that matter to me. That was worth the time, effort and cost. So to conclude who won the legal case: Well, the court settlement says it all.
The professors’ defamatory letter
It was the court settlement that led to the three professors’ now famous (or notorious) letter. UiB and På Høyden initially reported that a court settlement had been reached and that I would resign my position. One of the three professors said that it sounded as if I had been sacked. På Høyden corrected this misunderstanding, but was reluctant to publish other details, including the sections of general interest. Thus the professors wrote a letter, which was not published because of its supposed defamatory content. But what was defamatory in their letter? Almost 3 months after the letter was submitted, UiB and the attorney general have still not come up with an answer; indeed, the attorney general lawyer has refused to answer. Furthermore, no one has followed up on the professors’ kind offer to apologise if they had said something wrong. So, perhaps the second group of international professors were right in suggesting that this is censorship, again reminding us of the old Soviet style. Those of us who have seen the original professors’ letter can understand why UiB fears it. It is brilliant, and it is a shame that it has not been published.
The original letter was distributed to many of my former colleagues and friends in Bergen, and is easy to get hold of for anyone interested. As UiB is aware, the initial distribution was my responsibility. Since I am protected from further legal actions in this case, UiB has to target someone else, i.e., the three professors. My experience is that UiB, when under criticism, does not take a minute to consider whether the criticism is valid, or whether there is something to learn from it. No, they counter attack. So too, in this case: UiB has even officially announced that they consider legal action against the three senior foreign professors for presenting their opinions. UiB is clearly very concerned.
I am sure the letter eventually will be published, but, briefly the professors raised two points of general interest for UiB’s employees. First, they argued that UiB’s view as expressed in clause 5 in the court settlement is against custom and practice in science, and that this clause could affect the standing of Norwegian science. UiB on their side argues that clause 5 has no implication beyond the concrete conflict. Judge for yourself, here is clause 5:
“The parties disagree about whether co-authors are entitled to have raw data for an article transferred in cases where full trust does not exist between the co-authors. Helga Refsum believes it is particularly important in such cases that raw data are transferred so that the co-author can work freely on the raw data, and she regrets that this has been controversial in the present case.”
Secondly, the professors explained that clause 4 related to the University’s Ethics Committee’s case 2/2003 could have consequences for other people at UiB. At the time of my case, UiB changed the rules of the committee, so that the accused person could no longer present his or her case to the committee. With the case prepared by the other party, with an Ethics Committee accepting the unique terms of evaluating a partly invented case but with real people, I was doomed to lose, and I did, at least UiB and the attorney general’s lawyer thought so. Impossible, you say, but it happened. I lived with this Ethics committee evaluation of my scientific (mis)conduct for the following 3 years. As late as January 2006, my so-called loss was reported in a newspaper (Dagens Medisin, 26/1-06). Clause 4 refers to my concrete case, but how an Ethics Committee carries out such delicate work in the future should concern every academic at UiB.
Access to raw data for co-authors and the extraordinary case
UiB has argued that their handling of the situation, including breaking with custom and practice for access to raw data, is due to the “highly extraordinary background”. They have also presented some details, indicating that the student needed protection. But these explanations have only the intention to deflect the readers away from the principle (a co-author’s right to study raw data) to me as a person. This needs more explanation.
The student was reluctant to let me have raw data on 3 articles, but it followed a similar pattern each time, so let’s focus on the first article, in May to October 2000. After she had accused me of dishonesty in 1999, natural exchange on the progress of the project had stopped. So, when I received a draft paper in late May, I wished to study the data carefully; thus I asked for the raw data. I was senior author on that article, as recommended by the dean, based on my contribution in the preceding 4 years. The dean had also looked into the student’s concerns that I was dishonest, and had completely cleared my name, and he had set up guidelines for our ongoing collaborations, which were according to custom and practice. So, everything should be ready for a “normal collaboration”, despite the conflict. However, this was not to be. The student did not want to send me the raw data; she would only let me see the data in her office with her present. I contacted the dean, who revealed that he was responsible for the proposed solution. I got upset, to say it mildly, in particular that he had made such a decision without discussing it with me. The dean then suggested an alternative solution, i.e., that I could sit in the Head of department’s office, with HoD present. He explained that the reason for his “proposals” was the student’s belief that I would take her data. No other explanation was given then, but over the years, UiB began arguing like the student, i.e., that she had a reason to suspect me and that I had a reputation for taking over projects. We repeatedly asked for evidence, but UiB could never come up with any. And, as the court settlement indicates, UiB has failed to find evidence, even after years of searching.
UiB, however, also had other explanations for the dean’s proposals, most of them I first heard about after I filed the case against UiB in 2003. I apologise if the wording is not precise, but the arguments included expressions like: I am impossible to work with; I abused and suppressed students in order to advance my own career; I had tried to stop this student’s career; I had made threats against her, and I had said that I would physically harm her (“cut her up”, to be exact); and in court, it was even said that I had sexually harassed the student.
If we consider the first argument related to the student’s belief that I would take her project, should a professor in a time of conflict accept to be treated as if she is not trustworthy in her scientific work and needs to be guarded? Is it good for the reputation of UiB to treat senior academic members as if they are scientifically dishonest? Should UiB use solutions that humiliate a staff member in front of her colleagues, because of undocumented accusations, which in retrospect, 6 years later, it must be admitted were based on beliefs, not on facts? This is not a criticism of the student’s belief, it is the simple question how UiB should deal with these issues. Because, in contrast to what UiB try to make you believe, such lack of trust between co-authors is not an extraordinary event.
If we then consider UiB’s later arguments, i.e., that the student had every reason to fear and dislike me, what would the rational solution be? Personally, I consider it negligent that a superior should suggest that a student should sit in close proximity with an impossible, (sexually) abusing, and potentially dangerous professor, while the latter studies raw data in a joint paper. So was that really the case, or were these ghastly descriptions of me just used in court so that UiB could focus on me as a person rather than defending their decision (so-called “proposal”) to solve the problem? Even if these characterizations were true, it would be a very unorthodox, indeed an extraordinary way to discipline the professor. But maybe it is the Bergen way?
Quite simply, what the three normally intelligent professors have recognised is that UiB’s proposed solution was against customs and practice in science, that it was not in any way rational given the problem, and that it was outright demeaning for one of the parties. Such a solution did not, and will not ever, stimulate co-authors to analyse the raw data.
UiB has repeatedly made a point that I did get the data in the end, indicating that I have no reason to complain. This is to simplify the problem beyond belief. To summarise my choices and the consequences of the choice I made:
I could see the data under supervision, accepting that UiB found it reasonable to take the student’s beliefs seriously. It was, however, not a rational solution, and the reason given to me was deeply humiliating. Furthermore, it did not provide a suitable working environment for analyzing the data. I rejected it.
I could let the paper be submitted without me evaluating data. I rejected it.
I could withdraw as co-author. However, I had funded the project for 4 years, and I had responsibilities to grantors. I also find it disturbing to let a co-author think that by refusing access to raw data she can exclude co-authors she does not like. I rejected it.
I could prevent submission of the article until I had had a chance to analyse the data. I chose that solution, but it was the incident that started my conflict with UiB, and it was that incident that eventually led to the trial. Furthermore, the Ethics Committee later considered my action consistent with scientific misconduct because it delayed the student’s work for a few months. I had to live with that evaluation for 3 years.
That was the consequence of the dean’s proposal and UiB’s support of the student’s decision to keep back her data for months. And that does not include the years with severe stress, loss of good friends and colleagues (wisely most of them chose to support UiB), and loss of what I then thought was the job of my life. Before UiB responds to this, I can recommend the Sudbø commission’s report (http://www.rikshospitalet.no/content/res_bibl/6621.pdf), and I would be happy to hear UiB’s views on what they would have done today in light of the lessons learned from that case.
UiB’s duties and rights in relation to students
This leads to the next point. In their recent letter, the Rector and the Director of UiB state that: “UiB has neither a right nor a duty to decide questions of rights that arise between collaborating partners.” But the Rector and Director do consider that “UiB has, not least, a responsibility for ensuring that a candidate who has been admitted to a doctoral programme is given an opportunity to complete his/her doctorate.”
It is a sad state of a university in post Sudbø times, when it says that it has neither right nor duty to teach students about normal co-authorship rules. It is an even sorrier state if a university finds it more important that a thesis is completed than how it is completed. I don’t blame the student. I question UiB’s views about their duties to their students. I question whether this student received the best advice from her superiors. As far as I can understand, the student was led to believe that she was entitled to keep the raw data, and UiB also relieved her of personal responsibility for the delay in her progress when on two occasions she refused to give me the data for several months. What kind of teaching is that?
Student’s ownership of data, consequences for grant applications
UiB and, more recently the Rector and the Director of UiB, also indicate that I demanded to get the student’s “own” data. I will not debate data ownership here. I will also save you from the dispute between UiB and me about who was the project leader. But when a person is listed as senior author related to her scientific contribution, has used her grant money to fund the project, has helped the student in the design of the study and has helped the student directly and indirectly with data collection and with blood sample analyses (e.g. by providing instruments, staff and resources) over 3-4 years, a student cannot be the sole owner of the data, even if it is part of a doctoral thesis project, or even if, as in this case, the student argues that she had the concept, did the design and carried out the project all by herself. If UiB disagrees, I suggest that UiB sets this in print, and ask every senior staff member to make this particular UiB rule known to potential grantors. The granting institutions have the right to know that the applicant, even if a senior staff member, might very well lose all influence over the data in a project if a student is involved.
UiB’s true views on sharing data
It should be clear to everyone by now that access to raw data has been a central issue in the conflict. In the court settlement, we solved this by agreeing that we disagreed, something that is now stated in clause 5. As far as I understand, UiB considers that the “disagreement provision” in clause 5 does not express UiB’s general position on co-authors’ rights. If UiB thinks so, fine, but UiB cannot expect everyone to share this view, particularly in light of UiB’s handling of the case. What is to stop a third party in Norway from claiming that the Court settlement allows them to withhold raw data from a co-author, as the three professors wrote, “simply by invoking the vague principle of lack of trust.”
Much has been said about what UiB call the “highly extraordinary background”, but written evidence exists: Let’s look a bit closer at UiB’s main defence document of 2004 (p14 & 15):
“The student expressed that she was afraid of her previous supervisor, and did not wish to give her more than she had the right to. Among other things, she did not wish to transfer her data to the Plaintiff [i.e., to Refsum], but accepted that she should be co-author and that she could see data…..”
“She accepted that the Plaintiff should be co-author of the manuscripts which were in preparation, and the Plaintiff used her position as co-author to delay the progress of the work, among other things, by demanding transfer of data.”
“In light of the serious conflict between the two, it is the Defendants’ opinion that the Plaintiff should have been satisfied by being given the opportunity of co-authorship. Most people in a similar situation would have been satisfied with such a solution. It is usual with co-authorship that the first-author performs the data processing; while the other co-authors usually do not participate in the data analyses, and rarely wish to have raw data transferred. If anyone wishes more information about the data, it is usual that one asks for additional analyses to be carried out by the person having the primary responsibility, …”.
“It is noteworthy that the Plaintiff put obstacles in way of the student’s work by making such demands, in particular when she should have understood that a more subdued attitude would have contributed to calm the conflict. Transfer of data provides the possibility for comprehensive use of these for generating ideas and for establishing similar or follow-up projects. It is understandable that [the student] did not wish do give a person she did not trust such possibilities…”
Thus, according to UiB, in times of conflict one should not make fuss about studying raw data. UiB also argues that co-authors rarely ask for or analyse raw data. And UiB finds it reasonable that a first author wants to limit other co-authors’ access to the raw data in order to prevent them from getting ideas for new projects.
How can a university teach their students these attitudes about research? Many of us thought that this would change following the Sudbø case, but the court settlement suggests that UiB even as late as of June 2006 maintained the same views. Now, finally, for the first time since the conflict began in 2000, UiB has acknowledged the international conventions about the rights of co-authors in relation to in my case. But, UiB says that my case was an exception to these rules because of its “highly extraordinary background”. Clearly, UiB has a long way to go, and a good first step is that UiB starts listening to what the three professors have to say.
A university selling its soul?
In this letter, I have had a chance to include just a few of the events in the conflict. But already, it should have become apparent that the UiB has gone to some lengths to win their case, including giving up normal custom and practice in terms of sharing raw data between co-authors and the abandonment of the right of an accused person to have their say in an evaluation of scientific misconduct. Furthermore, you have heard about UiB using a psychiatrist in court to characterise a person he had not medically examined, and you have heard about censorship of criticism and the use of threats to stop further debate. No matter how terrible UiB describes me, serious academics find these things horrendous. They cannot believe that any university would give up so much of its dignity, selling its soul, just to make a believable case against a difficult professor.
I welcome a response from UiB or others. In recent weeks, UiB has been far more considerate with me than usual, but if UiB prefer to return to the old ways of attacking my character, please feel free to do so. If not exactly academic, it certainly makes the reading more interesting. I rely on people with insight and experience recognizing that such a strategy is used because the arguments otherwise are weak.