In January 2020, Yale University immunologist Akiko Iwasaki tweeted about her experiences with difficult PIs and offered to help other young scientists dealing with this issue. She woke up the next morning to find her “DM box exploding with messages from students and postdocs suffering from abusive PIs all over the world.”
Conflict, microaggressions, and abuse are not just relegated to subordinates in the lab. A study of clinical laboratory personnel published in 2023 found that 68% received work-related, person-related, or physically intimidating threats from others at work. The statistic is more than twice that found in studies of nonlaboratory workplaces. And while managers were the perpetrators in 22% of the cases, peers were the bullies in 56%! As persistent harassment leads to a variety of health issues the results indicate that the lab is a very toxic workplace.
What factors contribute to this problem?
In my recent AWIS webinar, I pointed out that lab spaces are like any other workplaces where common conflicts abound. Conflict at its most basic level is merely a disagreement, a situation in which two or more people have taken different positions on a topic. Several factors contribute to typical disputes in the lab:
- Structural/systemic issues—Most conflicts involve some differential in power. Laboratory power is hierarchal, but often that hierarchy is poorly defined, fluid, and informal. A lab director may assign several people to a project without clearly designating separate roles. The hierarchy can be fluid in the sense that individuals assume their specific roles in the lab only to relax them during social gatherings. Differences in cultural backgrounds and experiences can also lead to confused expectations regarding status within a lab. The global economy has brought people together who may hold different views of roles for ethnic groups and genders based on their cultural norms.
- Competition for power and resources—In academic labs, resources are temporary. Lab heads must compete for salaries for themselves and their personnel, as well as for space and access to equipment and supplies. These pressures increase lab competition for access and support
- Differing needs and expectations among personnel for outcomes and deliverables. For example: PIs need deliverables to receive support. Postdoctoral personnel seek deliverables to launch their careers. Graduate students need deliverables to obtain their degrees. Undergraduate students require grades to obtain their degrees and references for employment. Technicians want stability and support. These expectations are often unspoken, and lab members may make the self-centered assumption that everyone’s goals are the same as their own!
- Lab deliverables—Research labs produce both abstract and concrete products. For example, research labs test hypotheses. Their theoretical f indings advance disciplines and form the basis for practical solutions. Practical solutions can lead to patents, create revenue, and possibly launch a business or enterprise. Clinical labs generate findings that directly impact patient health.
The extent to which lab members value these outcomes drives their individual efforts. Because research is a group effort those who rank higher in the hierarchy may not be fully aware of the individual contributions of other lab members. Thus, the PI may attribute contributions to the wrong people and in a rigid hierarchy those without power may be reluctant to speak up. - Leadership—Perhaps the greatest source of conflict in any lab is determined by how well it’s managed. Many lab heads have excellent research skills and lack experience and education in leadership and management. As a result, they fail to realize that they must realize and address issues. Some PIs avoid disputes, hoping they will go away or reach a resolution without input from anyone else on the team. Others welcome and even encourage competition that can lead to conflict, based on their own past experiences and the attitude that “That’s the way I learned” and that “Competition builds character.”
What can be done about these challenges?
These systemic issues are difficult to resolve because they reflect the culture of the institution. Still, they must be addressed.
- Educate those in power. Lab heads have immense power in their labs and often are the only ones who can resolve issues of accountability and status. They must be properly educated to identify, address, and resolve issues among personnel before they escalate to levels that inflict harm.
- Provide resources that address conflict. Because most people are unprepared or lack the desire to address conflict, they must have easy access to resources that can help with negative situations. These include ombuds, Title IX coordinators, and legal service providers. These offices must be visible and empowered to address the situation, provide solutions to power imbalances, and report trends or shortcomings in policies and procedures to the institution’s administrators. Professor Iwasaki recommends that graduate students utilize their thesis committee for help, request meetings with members when things become difficult, consult with committee members outside the presence of an abusive PI, and include senior faculty in the composition of the committee.
- Clarify by increasing communication. Many conflicts arise from assumptions and misunderstandings. Lab directors should clearly communicate roles and expectations as they conceive projects and adjust them as necessary as projects proceed. Communication must be a two-way street. It is not enough for lab heads to wait for issues to “percolate” to their level. Regular, one-on-one meetings with individuals in the lab can help identify the issues before they escalate.
- Empower those lower in the hierarchy. Lab heads should endeavor to create safe spaces for those in lesser positions to express their frustrations or challenges. Social events can help build trust and understanding and close cultural gaps.
- Hold those responsible accountable. University administrators should tie the promotion of the lab PI to how well they manage the lab, rewarding or sanctioning them as a result. This approach poses some problems for how to address PIs who already have tenure, but at the very least, students should be discouraged from joining a lab with an abusive PI. Those who have been subject to abuse should receive counselling at the perpetrator’s expense and assistance in completing their work, even if that means finding a different lab for them to work in while completing their studies.
Why this matters
Workplace abuse is a serious problem worldwide. Abused employees can suffer a variety of illnesses, from headaches and gastrointestinal distress to PTSD and suicidal ideation. Abuse in the laboratory can lead to falsified data, misrepresented clinical results, and significant drops in productivity. It is well past time for us to realize and address the phenomenon.
You can listen to the recording of this and all past webinars at awis.org/ whats-next-webinars.
Jennifer Swann has worked within and outside higher education to promote equity and inclusion. As one of Lehigh University’s Ombuds, she assists faculty in addressing conflict to promote healthy work environments. As a member of Lehigh’s faculty senate, she helped create a faculty code of ethics and more equitable positions for non-tenured faculty. Her work extends beyond Lehigh University to include serving on the of the Academic Parity Movement, as chair of the DEIAB committee of the International Association of Ombuds, and as a mediator for Philadelphia’s Eviction Diversion program. She is the founding member and CEO of Black Swann Solutions LLC.
This article was originally published in AWIS Magazine. Join AWIS to access the full issue of AWIS Magazine and more member benefits.