Pinker leads international attack on UCL's 'unjust' treatment of scholar - Comments

As a long-time friend of Prof van der Lely's, I'm appalled by these revelations. Friends and colleagues around the world have been horrified by the gagging order imposed on her since November last year which has prevented her discussing the case for seven months. This is Stalinist and thoroughly sinister. It defies any sense of natural justice and academic free speech and UCL should be ashamed. This has more than a hint of the MPs' expenses row in the UK - people in high office creating their own secrecy rules to prevent the public knowing of their shabby behaviour. Let's have the names of the people who are crucifying this distinguished academic and have them thrown out of their jobs. Prof van der Lely is still debarred from speaking for herself so others must come to her aid.

As a collaborator and friend of Prof van der Lely's since 2001, I have been absolutely disgusted by the way in which she has been treated by her managers at UCL during the last few years. It defies belief that a university with such a leading international reputation should set out to destroy the career of one of its own employees. This is a case of management being totally out of touch with the way that world-leading science is done - in dedicated laboratory facilities with professors, post-docs and research students interacting in shared space. The case being brought against Prof van der Lely smacks of, at best, incompetence, and at worst, professional jealousy. This injustice has got to be righted.

I am so glad this whole affair is finally receiving public attention -- thank you Emmanuel Dupoux and Steve Pinker. My collaborations with Prof. van der Lely have been very rewarding in the past but since last year she has had to relocate her facilities more than once, postdoc appointments were blocked, her communications were cut off, and she has had to spend almost all of her time to defend herself against allegations that seemed outlandish to me. UCL is behaving like a totalitarian state.

I am glad that Prof. van der Lely's case is getting public attantion. I hope it helps to shed light on the treatment of other UK academics who are less well known and who are being treated equally shabbily. This is not an isolated incident restricted to one institution. This is a sign of the times. This is the background under which many of usl work now. We know we need to toe the line if we want to keep our jobs.

I am glad that the story is being receiving public attention, as it is not justified to prevent someone to talk, express her opinion, to communicate with collegues and students. Prof. van der Ley is an international distinguished scientist that has put much effort in collaborative research. My collaboration with her has been always very fruitful and she has always been available. It is unfortunate that she had to spend her last year in defending herself against injustice, rather than putting her effort into research.

I, like Uli above, am glad that this matter is now in the public domain. As a research colleague I have seen the long hours that Professor van der Lely has put into her research over 25 years, and the many hours that have been wasted in the last year, preparing a defence against petty allegations. As a personal friend I have seen the immense cost on her well being and health and yet she manages to present internationally and continue her work as best as she can when her research tools and hard data are locked away from her (and all of us who are in research collaboration). She not only gives to research but contributes additional time and care to helping families of children with SLI (specific language impairments) as well as furthering the cause of children with communication disability, for examnple through devising easily accessible assessments such as the GAPS. The sooner she is reinstated and exonerated the better for all of us and for children with communication disabilities.and ofcourse herself.

I've chanced upon this story but how interesting.... A female professor is charged with 'insubordination' yet, no doubt, a male professor would be applauded for his 'assertiveness' when standing his corner in a similar situation. Do you think UCL understands the word 'sexism'??

As a long time professional colleague and friend of Dr. Van der Lely, I am not only appalled but utterly bewildered at the disciplinary actions of Wall. The whole thing makes no sense that I can decipher, and appears to be wholly arbitrary. How really awful that a terrific, internationally recognized, cognitive scientist, whose work is of such potential importance to educationally challenged young people, should be stopped in its tracks by an uncommunicative and unreasonable bureaucracy.

Thank you, Zoë, for reporting on this story, which hopefully will help support Professor van der Lely and other scholars who find themselves in a similar situation.

I, too was a scholar of international recognition until I was targeted by my UK employer under very similar circumstances. This is the plight of the modern British academic. Until UCU goes to court on behalf of its members who are similarly treated, instead of pushing them into hasty settlements with gag clauses, universities will continue this contemptible practice.

The actions taken by the University against Dr. Van der Lely threaten her entire career. They should be taken only if and when the University has proved the allegations of 'insubordination' (whatever that means) and not before Dr. Van der Lely has received a fair hearing. Dr. Van der Lely is a research scientist of international prominence. The actions by the University are bewildering to the international scientific community, and seem inconsistent with due process.

In his letter to Sir Stephen Wall, Steven Pinker wrote: *Professor van der Lely has been barred from entering her laboratory, accessing her data, managing her grants, using her email, and communicating with her students and colleagues at UCL. This is an extraordinary and unjust punishment. The career of a scientist depends on continuous interaction with students, collaborators, funding agencies, and research subjects. This is especially true for a scientist like Professor van der Lely, who made her mark by identifying and tracking a unique clinical population. To bar her from all research activities during a pending investigation is to threaten her scientific career.* And that really says it all. It is incumbent upon UCL to reinstate her, give her appropriate working conditions, while implementing the principles of fairness and due process.

Hmm... Why has this article appeared only now? And why were UCL's colleagues of Professor van der Lely voiceless for 7 months? Moreover, even now almost none of them (excluding closest friends and collaborators of Professor van der Lely) said here even one word. Do you say "stalinism"? What do you know about stalinism? Do you know why, when and how stalinism appear? Stalinism appears when "grey men" came for one unhappy person, and other people (friends, neighbors, colleagues of this poor person) are cowardly sitting behind their doors and fear to help this person. And then "grey men" came for them... And noone helped them. I am from Russia. I know about stalinism better than you. Moreover, I suffer the repressions JUST NOW, in modern Russia, in Moscow University. And my situation is worse than your Prof. van der Lely's one, because NOBODY wants to help me. Neither Russians nor foreign people... (But I don't fear yet. Let my enemies know it). As for UCL's academics, they are cowards! To keep silense for 7 months, knowing about the fate of their own colleague! And after this should I be surprised that none of them can help me for 3 years? I am not "native" for them. They fear to help even their own colleagues, being into troubles! Shame.

Re: Svetlana Pertsovich's comment ... I guess it is not in the professor's own colleagues' interests to speak out. There appears to be a competition for resources within her department. Presumably if she agreed to move to a smaller laboratory space, someone would benefit from the space she vacated for research that is probably not any less worthy of support.

The suspension of Prof. Heather Van der Lely sends osut a poor message to UCL's students. My daughter was fortunate enough to have Heather as her PhD supervisor, and I witnessed first hand the expertise, time, energy and enthusiasm that Heather invested in her. I know that my daughter is forever grateful for Heather's continued support of her scientific career. How tragic that Heather's current students are being denied the support of such a dedicated and talented academic. It is now time that UCL recognises that Prof. Van der Lely's fine academic status has attracted students of a high calibre to the benefit of UCL's own reputatiion worldwide, and their current behaviour towards her is damaging that reputation as well as jeopardising the future careers of their students.

Re. LeeL's comment - My impression from seeing the reconfigured layout of Prof van der Lely's lab is that it was reduced in order to make way for extra corridor space in the social area outside the lab. It is, admittedly, an aesthetically-pleasing corridor, and one might argue that having such a large corridor is necessary, but the space is certainly not being used for research.

As a Speech and Language Therapist, I am horrified to learn of UCL's treatment of Professor Van der Lely, who has made an enormous contribution to my profession.

There is always two sides to a story. About the lab space- some of the ground-breaking research in physics and molecular biology were produced in small areas in Cavendish Laboratory Cambridge, and even today a few scholars of international repute have small laboratories. If this professor concerned is slighted in a bad way, why can't she leave UCL and move to another university say Harvard which should be able to recruit her given the glowing tribute from the Harvard professor. Harvard surely has a large lab space. International scholar of repute such as this professor should have no problem in finding positions in other universities here or in America. That is the puzzling aspect here.

I think it may not be fair to compare the nature of and space requirements of Prof van de Lely's research with that of physics or molecular biology (though I know very little about either). The issue here, according to the report, is that the professor's research, involves work and interaction with people and patients, who by their very nature, require space - especially children - thus raising health and safety issues, and also issues of patient confidentiality. If UCL want international research in this area, then sufficient space needs to be provided and the issue resolved without resorting to draconian banning, gagging and disciplinary orders on the grounds of 'insubordination'.

As a former post-doc of Professor van der Lely's, and a former student at UCL, I'm very saddened by this situation. The issue is not about lab size, though it's true that Prof van der Lely's lab space was compromised over a period of many months, through continuous relocations and alterations, even after a dedicated lab space was granted (supported by a large public funding body, not by UCL). But all that is irrelevant compared to the fact that a prominent researcher has been denied access to her students and her research facilities. If such a pre-eminent university - which has a long-standing reputation for social justice and advocacy - can treat its academics this way, then we're all involved.

If the issue is not about space, then what did this Professor do to be barred from her University and charged with "insubordination". We all need to know.

Everyone, There is now a SurveyMonkey site where we are collecting online signatures in support of Heather. It can be found here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=FxBIxh6ANRwAZ00J_2bzZEbQ_3d_3d

Nothing prevents " this internationally reputed professor" seeking employment in another university, if she does not like her treatment in UCL. I suggest the supporters of this professor considers this reality. If she is so good, she could say to UCL to stuff their brrom cupbaord and walk into Hravard, Yale, Edinburgh, Cambridge or which ever university wants her expertise. The rant here is typical of academics and in the real world, a person with expertise, takes his/her expertise elsewhere.

I am surprised that there is surprise over this. In the so called corporate university, (laughable for those of us with experience in univerisites and in business) with outdated authoritarian style management practices, with power concentrated in so few hands, so little transparency and so little accountability of those with power---what in the world does anyone expect but this? They have the power---unlimited and unchecked it seems--- to do this, so they will, again and again and again, whether the world is watching or not.

Comment on the repeated suggestion by Gary Smith that Professor van der Lely should just stop whining like a 'typical academic' and leave UCL for greener pastures: What if she has a husband with a job that ties him to London? What if she has children in school here? What if she is taking care of ailing parents? What if she just loves London and doesn't want to leave? Above all: why on earth should she have to leave if she's done nothing wrong? I don't know anything about the case beyond what I read in the article, but if someone is unjustly penalized by their manager, is the solution really just to give in and look for another job? If your house was broken into, would you just sell up and find another place to live or would you call in the law, as Prof van der Levy has? If you saw a lady being robbed of her purse, would you call the police or tell the victim to just stop whining like a typical woman and ask a bystander to give the robbed lady her purses? Why shouldn't UCL's management be forced to prove their case against Prof, van der Lely if they have one? Your comments betray an extraordinary level of thoughtlessness, a disturbingly skewed sense of justice and a profound hatred of academics. I wonder if you would have the same comments about anyone outside of academia, or, in your petulant phraseology, 'in the real world.'

I would like to ask the question, which was asked by Gary Smith, by other way. No, I don't think that Professor van der Lely had to leave UCL. Why must she do so? It is her University! But I wonder why none of international academics, who supports her, hasn't proposed her the job in their Universities? Support must be complete and firm. And I am shocked by the answer to my previous comment. Competition? Secret intrigues? In best University? No, it is not worthy. It is not well. It must be changed! The best University must be the best.

To Gary Smith__ Troglodyt's methods! But today is not Primitive era and academics are not troglodytes. Suisanne, I agree with you.

Well, well and well ! Academics are whingers like the National Union of Teachers. Just open your eyes and see what people in other professions are doing if they have to leave their jobs in London. They have chldren and spouses too. I am afraid, if some one does not want to leave, that some one cannot place demands in a changing environment. Get out of your ivory towers and come and see what others equally or more qualified in other professions do in the real world sans the ivory towers, without the comparative security of jobs the academics have. If UCL considers this professor to be so distinguished and so important as many here seem to suggest, the situation would have been different.

I agree with Gary Smith and the real petulance is exhibited by a bunch of these deluded academics. UCL as a galaxy of distinguished professors in many faculties-paediatricians, surgeons, cardiologists, oncologists, biologists and chemists, all having good laboratory spaces and how come all of them are given the support and facilities they deserve, unlike this professors? It is because they are all really distinguished and UCL needs them. I am also puzzled by this professor choosing to stay in UCL with demands, which suggests that she has difficulty in securing job in another university? There are good schools and hospitals in other cities where children can go and parent can be given care. These are spurious reasonsIn life, we often have to make trade off. Moving and taking expertise is 21st century habit and staying in a single place and refusing to accept changing environment sounds primitive.

As you say Gary, there are two sides to every story, and there's presumably much to this case that only Prof van der Lely and her UCL managers know, but that we don't. Nevertheless, the point is that, according to the report we have here, Prof van der Lely has been suspended over charges of "insubordination" but that she has not actually been found guilty of this charge. Given that scientists require constant contact with collaborators, students, research participants, journal editors, grant-awarding bodies, etc, in order to keep at the leading edge of their field - her career is effectively being destroyed even though she might be found innocent of the charges being brought against her. This should not be acceptable either inside or outside the academic world, and as such it affects all of us who think that we are protected by employment law.

The actions taken against Prof. van der Lely are incomprehensible. Every institution of higher learner deals with challenging issues of space, yet these are rarely manifested in such a disciplinary action. I trust that the public airing of these issues will encourage UCL to find a satisfactory resolution to this problem so that Prof. van der Lely can return to her research.

"Given that scientists require constant contact with collaborators, students, research participants, journal editors, grant-awarding bodies, etc, in order to keep at the leading edge of their field - her career is effectively being destroyed .." We are told here what a distinguished scientist this professor is and in what high esteem she is held internationally ,supported by Harvard academic etc.. but it is also said her career like a lowly lecturer with a limited reputation will be destroyed by the action of UCL etc.. etc.. Either she is very distinguished commanding respect all over the world in which case she has nothing to worry as she can pick almost any university to where she can move. Suisanne and Svetlana, yours hence is a spurious argument as all of us have trade off s between personal iand career issues. If the former dominates and this professor cannot move elsewhere, that is tough luck and and should put up with the smaller lab space. The more one looks at this, the more one gets the feeling that UCL does not consider this professor to be as distinguished as any that Julian mentions and hence moved to limit the lab space. That is I am afraid is changing environment these days. My knowledge of UCL through my friends who are academics is that it strives to retain its distinguished staff ( there is a brother Imperial ready to have them if UCL cannot). It has provided excellent support to Fellows of Royal Society(FRS)amongst its staff and does not like to lose them to Imperial, Warwick or Bristol.

UCL's actions must be somewhere in their rulebook. Like 'A worried academic', I think the professor must have done something (which we have not been told in this report) that triggered management to take action against her.

As a parent of a child with a language disorder and a language teacher myself I think Gary you fail to realise that language is an overlooked field, lacking the attention of the more headline grabbing scientific areas in Univiersities. This cinderella status means that greatness in research is overlooked, despite the fact that it has real and practical applications in transforming the lives of individuals. Steven Pinker has done more to remedy that situation than many and his opinion is to be respected in this case. I am sure there are many institutions who are less short sighted and will offer a way forward.

Mr. Smith, why do you reason so evil-mindedly? What if you get into the same situation yourself? Aren't you afraid? Noone is insured. It is necessary to be more well-wishing. I hope that UCL will find a just solution of the problem.

You're right Gary - to someone outside science it must seem that an obvious solution would be for Prof van der Lely to move to another university. Unfortunately it's not that simple. Prof van der Lely runs a lab with post-docs and PhD students - they would have to move with her in order to finish the projects they are working on, something that I doubt is realistic. Prof van der Lely does brain-imaging studies, and you can't move halfway through an imaging experiment because the data would become invalid - all participants need to be tested under exactly the same conditions, using the same eqiupment. Furthermore, Prof van der Lely's most important contribution to science is her work with a group of severely language-impaired individuals who are based in the UK. She has data spanning, in some instances, 20 years, which she is now extending with brain-imaging data. This is an extraordinary resource, and it would be put in jeopardy if she moved abroad. And importantly, UCL is one of the best places for Prof van der Lely to be because she is collaborating with extremely talented individuals who are developing cutting edge imaging techniques. Presumably these are some of the many reasons why Prof van der Lely has chosen to stay.

It sounds as though 'Gary Smith' is the mouthpiece for some of the faceless and gutless individuals who are trying to oust Prof van der Lely from her position. So, who are your friends, 'Gary'? If anyone out there knows the names of these individuals, why not post them anonymously on this site and then we can turn our fire on them. Let's bring this debate out from the shadows and into Gary Smith's 'real world' where people have to justify their actions. In the 'real world' more than a dozen UK MPs have been forced to stand down now the spotlight of publicity has been put on them. Let's do the same with Prof van der Lely's accusers. I'm not an academic and know little about this work, but Chloe Marshall has ably answered Gary's other rather fatuous points.

Svetlana forgets that this is a blog where another opinion can be expressed. Hope she understands what a free speech is and how an alternative argument can be made. I do not want to give credence to her spiteful remarks I have been in academia and industry( incidentally I am from applied science discipline) and have moved jobs whenever the "heat in the kitchen" became unbearable. It was not always easy but instead of sitting in the same kitchen and carping, I took my services elsewhere. I was not alone. There were hundreds who did this. Alastair is deluded and he thinks that no matter what the changed circumstances are, there should be jobs for life in the SAME PLACE. He is not a neutral observer having declared his interest and I ignore his malicious outburst for its sheer unreality. There are no status quo's in 2009. He thinks that because I make an argument which he cannot accept, I must be in some way connected with UCL management or those who want to oust this professor. Grow up Alastair, your point about MPs which has no parallel to this case shows that you lost your argument. Let me set right the delirious imagination which Alastair has. I am an ordinary individual unconnected with UCL but knows more about the real world unlike you. In the real world , there are no jobs for life, nor can one sit holding onto facilities for ever. I come back to the same point. If this professor is so disntinguished and world class, she can take her team out of UCL into another university, and can still establish collaboration. who would shun collaboration with a world class scientist, if she is really world class. COULD ANY ONE ANSWER THESE TWO QUESTIONS STRAIGHT. 1. WHY IS THIS PROFESSOR SEEM NOT TO HAVE ANY OFFER FROM ANY OTHER UNIVERSITY? 2 .IF SHE IS SO DISTINGUISHED WHY UCL THINKS SHE CAN BE SLIGHTED? Julian has given some examples of really distinguished professors in areas in UCL who are comforable in UCL. WHY SHOULD IT BE DIFFERENT IN THIS CASE?

Gary, I think your 2 questions have already been answered by myself and various others above to the best of our ability given what we know. There is much we do not know about this case because it cannot be reported in full, for obvious reasons. Idle speculation does not help, and is not fair to side at this point.

Correction: the last sentence above should have read "...is not fair to EITHER side at this point".

In my area of medicine and allied sciences,distinguished academics for various reasons not happy in one institution have moved to another seamlessly, and yet continued with their research successfully. It has happened in cases like UCL to Imperial and vice versa. If what Chloe says about the data resource is true, it is owned by UCL hosted on the computers which are perhaps acquired through research grants by the professor by being an UCL academic. The professor though a joint owner can do very little about it. Also it is said she is dependent on her collaborator in UCL imaging specilities. But like Gary I am puzled why Imperial for example, which is known to get world class researchers, had not offered her a position before or even now. If this happens, like the professors I know Imperial can negotiate with UCL to get an access to the data bringing in organisations who provided the grants for the research. This I know happened in examples I indicated above. UCL administration I suspect thinks that this professor's research activities are no longer world class or bordering excellence. This is the case in many academics. Reducing a lab space is a serious matter and UCL I assume did not consider it lightly. This act of reducing lab space is a clear indication o the quality of research by an academic in any discipline.

Chloe, Q1 is not answered. You simply said giving reasons why this professor cannot move. which is not a neutral stance, I should say. You did not say whether she has had any offers ( If you know) These are two different points. It appears she has none -otherwise THES would have reported it. Q2. Perhaps her research is not world class now, as Julian comments. You see, people who jump up and down accusing an institution in an open forum like this, should pause and let the facts surface. I put an obvious point that academics of distinction are rarely let go by their institution and in the rare cases , they are quickly snapped up by a rival as Julian says.

I can't imagine the professor moving to Imperial. Birkbeck maybe. Royal Holloway maybe. Imperial does not have much of a tradition in developmental psycholinguistics and cognitive neuroscience, which are the professor's areas of expertise.

I just gave Imperial as an example as it happened in a few cases I know. UCL to institution X in or near London or even in the UK where similar research exists. These are the days of GRID technology and data can be shared remotely with a very large bandwith. Research grants clauses explicitly encourage data sharing by institutions they recognise once the data is data is collected and categorised in a database. Because of this reason institutions bend over backwards to keep a distinguished academic as they know that rival institutions will benefit. Even in the case of Einstein, it is generally commented that his best research work was done close to 20th Century, but Princeton kept him well into the middle of 20th Century because of his extraordinary status. I agree with Gary that lab space limitation when imposed is a sign of research contribution of limited impact value at a particular time.

Julian and Gary (sounds like something from Round the Horn) must live in a fairy-tale world where universities can just invent jobs out of thin air and lure eminent scholars from wherever they want. Two points Jules and Gar: 1. It don't work like that anymore - there's no spare cash in the system; 2. Even if they had any, UCL with its charges still unreslolved after 7 months have put a blight on her prospects. Even a nobel-prize winner, with charges of insubordination against them, would - I suspect - not be able to walk into another job. Finally, as other have pointed out, why SHOULD she have to move just because the authorities can't resolve a case like this in a reasonable time? Jules, I think. simply doesn't understand how things work in the humanities and social sciences. Gar, on the other hand, appears to be an unpleasnat troll who gets his kicks from reading the THES blogs just so he can't post something unpleasant. Gar - get a life kiddo - just cos you couldn't hack it in academe, stop bitching about cases you know nothing about, Sheesh !!

Even Noblel Prize winners cannot leave UCL, but should stick around maoning and carping because they will not get another job in another university. The UCU-inhabited feline truth is that only lesser mortals will refuse to move.

With "cerebral " Feline Holt as a supporter ( well we were talking about scientists and not those in humanities and social sciences, something some one has missed! ) this professor's case has no earthly chance of success!

So - there is no a conflict between Professor and UCL's administration. Indeed, it is so, though it sounds surprisingly and strangely. This little difference will be settled soon within UCL itself. What is a subject of the dispute? Lab space. Room. Simply administration and Professor can't find sufficiently room for their needs. But who said that there is no sufficient space in UCL? There is the space! This space is enough both for Professor and for interested UCL's administrative structures. For example, recently some UCL's retired academic stated that he wants to give up science. Certainly, he will leave some space, which he occupies now. It space could be passed to Professor van der Lely, if she wants. While administration could save the space, which it intends to occupy now. I can explain the details to the interested sides.

@Rosa and others Today is 8 March, eh?.. :) Settle down, please, colleagues. Don't worry. The question will be solved soon.

as a faceless academic bureaucrat I'd like to comment on this thread despite the attempts that Gary and Julian have made to put my share of the case. I became a manager because I wasn't really excellent in my field academically. if i were, that's what i would have pursued. And i also didn't have the commitment to my subject that an academic like Professor van der Lely clearly shows and inspires. What I could do was go to meetings. I had an enormously high boredom threshhold. I could sit through these meetings and spot the key point on the agenda. I could be excited about departmental politics and feel triumphant when I had sabotaged someone else's plans. I hoped this would replace my disappointment that I was mediocre. I tried putting my efforts into Quality Assurance and Teaching and Learning Strategies. But it didn't help. I was jealous of those who have real commitment. I earn more than they do, I have more power, keys to the stationery cupboard and an institutional credit card. But it still rankles that these other academics are happier than I am. they are passionate, believe in their subject and the difference their work makes. So I try and thwart them. The harder their life is, the better I feel. See you around!

It seems to me two quite distinct issues are being discussed and it is best to keep them separate. What are the professor's rights? What are her options? I certainly as an American cannot pretend to know what her rights in the UK are nor what are her options. However, in the USA I would stand with her in defending her rights. She deserves her day in court on the insubordination charge. She deserves not to be trashed in anyway prior to that time by being moved to a lesser laboratory, suspended, gagged ietc. without due process. Was she given due process? I know nothing about her qualifications but even an incompetent is entitled to due process. Anything less diminishes the institution and ultimately leaves everyone worse off because the university gets a reputation for high-handedness. If it can happen to someone who enjoys a world class reputation, whether her current work is her best or not, it can happen to anyone. The unviersity would be best off in my opinion being as fair as possible and letting the judicial process run without any appearance of punishing the professor prior to her having had all the rights to which she is entitled.

We see the same kind of outburst from Rosa accusing me and Gary of some hidden agenda. Any one who dares to disagree with the dozens of those expressing a point of view is scorned and vilified. That is typical of UCU-driven UK academic. I have been an academic for decades and it is the academic community who refuse to change with times, while the world around them moves on. This is "Old Europe", " Old Britain" and it is not surprising that we move backwards every time the new world ( America for example ) moves forward. Gary said he has no links with UCL and I am saying I live and work far away from UCL. As long as this world lasts there will always be an alternative view ( the academics should know because they expect their students not to resort to " regimented" thinking and here the very same academics behave differently!) If the professor concerned is badly treated then she has the right to seek legal remedy. If she is just doing this, why so many of her "supporters" blame the university and rubbish it before the due legal proceedings in the court and judgement is delivered? If she is moved or asked to move to smaller lab space then she can move to the court and bring an injunction. That is her legal right. We gave an alternative views responding to them. While I appreciate what Robert the American colleague says, he should know that the top universities are in perpetual competition with each other and those academics who do not deliver to the expected standards in recent years are not encouraged and some kind of sanction is applied to them - the usual sanction is reducing the research facilities. Only better mortals like the Nobel Prize winners can escape these sanctions. It has happened in America, I know a few cases and in one extreme case, the academic moved to Singapore. As far as I know UCL from colleagues there, it has been a good employer and emeritus academics are working happily there. I get students studied in UCL and they have no bad opinion about UCL. Lastly, there are people losing jobs for no fault of their own. I know a few excellent engineers who have recently lost their jobs because of the combination of economic downturn and mistakes of their management, the latter is the main reason. They are still in their 40s, plenty of productive lives ahead. Given this,the tantrums of these "supporters" in the midst of this is infantile to say the least. We can't have jobs for life any more and that goes for facilities too. Get real academics. You are not a special bunch. I know that those engineers would have loved to work even if no office space was given to them.

I don't think that those writing here think they are a "special bunch" as Julian claims. I think that most here are commenting on a university cultures which are run by groups which seem to have nearly unchecked power, and in this context, increasingly adopt unethical, and even illegal practices. (many examples of this in THES and elsewhere). It is very sad, that the idea of "fair play"---and that means being considered innocent until proven guilty (not really the case when during a suspension you get the treatment described here) is an issue many find irrelevant. This indicates that things will only get worse.

I read these postings with interest. I work in an university where we share office space (unlike UCL-1 academic per office), and many groups share a lab facility. These are typical of post-92 universities, a few of them have produced excellent RAE outcome better than in Russell Group universities in the subject areas concerned , albeit academics carrying heavy teaching loads. It will no longer be the monopoly of so called top 10 universities to bid for research as they face much competition from emerging post-92 universities. That is 2009+ reality. I do not agree that there was a period when small groups were not controlling the institutions. It has been always and it will always be so. People can resort to legal remedies if suspended to challenge the suspension. Suspension happens in every sector pending enquiry and why it should it be different in universities?. We in post-92 university sector have been subject to much stricter control. We are aware that people in other sector are losing jobs not merely lab spaces. These are days of competition and already Imperial Rector is floating the idea of privatisation and forming a British Ivy league. Even if this does not happen, universities will hire best professors anywhere they can find, and it is already happening in places like Oxbridge and Imperial and spreading to other universities down. It is for the researchers to deliver continuous quality output and not sit on past glory. We in post-92 universities are aware of realities of 2009+ There was never a golden era.

Norman, I do not know whether you are implying that Prof van der Lely is "sitting on past glory", but it strikes me as unlikely that the signatories of Prof Pinker's letter (which can be read in full here on David Colquhoun's log, http://www.dcscience.net/pinker-letter.pdf) would want to be seen to support a colleague who is no longer doing valuable work - to do so would undermine their academic judgement and integrity. Universities have two, and only two, primary purposes: to add to the sum of human knowledge, and to disseminate that knowledge through teaching, writing etc. Management's role should be to support these two purposes, not to block them.

Once again, Chloe Marshall has succindctly summarised the issue along with Felix Holt and Lily. By the way, Gary, I'm only too aware of what the 'real world' is as - bar 18 months - I've been self-employed since 1974. I believe there are strong parallels between this issue and the on-going furore over MPs' expenses - abuse of power and an attempt to hide the truth behind a rather shabby veil of secrecy.

The prerogative of universities to manage the allocation of their resources is certainly necessary to their proper functioning. think the judicial system of UK as well as of USA where I reside will be cognizant of this in reviewing the facts in the Profsssor's appeal. However, it is not an absolute right any more than is the right of free speech either in USA or UK. The university must be accountable for its decisions on allocation. Certain facts make Professor van Lely's situation different from my own, for example, as a sociologist. For one, she runs a laboratory in which work with children is being done. It appears from the comments of her supporters that this work will suffer from the interruption she is experiencing. I would imagine (given her case has not been adjudicated) the court will take into account evidence adduced by her solicitor showing harm to the children etc. from the various administrative steps the university allegedly has taken pending the outcome of the judicial process over the rightness of the university's suspending her. I cannot believe the court will permit steps injurious to their welfare until it has reviewed and ruled on the entire case. . All the other comments of my distinguished UK colleagues about competition for scholars, for academics to wake up to the realities of a world in which none of us can get adequate resources are untimely, even if correct. These comments need to be aired in a different forum, one about how to rationally allocate scarce resources in the UK and elsewhere. Narrower issues of due process, of the rights of children in a special program to assist them while also contributing to disciplinary knowledge, are foremost in this case based on the facts presented thus far.

Poor Gary and Julian are up against the dyslexic brigade I suppose who are building themselves in every educational establishment with excuses and platitudes . I wonder if a nuclear scientist is side-lined like this professor, has he/she will besupported by a brigade such as this. The excuses of this professor not being able to go anywhere outside UCL sound so hollow as unbelievable. Well that is what this brigade can do to you if you are caught on their crosswires. Reading thorugh the news, UCL must have very strong reasons for the kind of action they have taken and they must have taken this action after much thought and legal consultation. If this professor has challenged the suspension legally it will be heard in the court. Suspension happens all the time. If as Macdonald says thisperson is gagged, why she can't move to court to "ungag" herself? If she had done this awaiting hearing he and others should shut up. If she had not done this, then we know that there is substance in what UCL has done. Why can't her supporters collectively initiate legal remedy instead of ranting in this blog and hurling abuses againsyt any one who puts an alternative point of view. This brigade beginning with Macdonald through the name of Felix Holt indulge in abuses and mocks and vilify a respectable institution. That is the kind of group Gary and Julian are dealing with. But what else can you expect from this group.

Robert L. Fisher Do you know this professor or reacting to the submissions by her colleagues? "Narrower issues of due process, of the rights of children in a special program to assist them while also contributing to disciplinary knowledge, are foremost in this case based on the facts presented thus far" You are contradicting yourself. If you had said to wait until the due judicial process (if it has been initiated) is completed, your articulation may have some value. It is not believable that this professor is the only person in the entire UK capable of administering a children program and you are falling into this trap set by her supporters. If this indeed the case, the court would have made a ruling by this time and the judicial process if underway would have been completed by this time. The institution concerned must have good reasons to take such strong measures as we read in this case. Even my university I can imagine would do this only after deliberation and legal advice. Why no one saying anything about whether or not a judicial process is underway?

Can I ask question irrelevant to discussing problem, however relevant to subject of investigations, which some participants of the discussion carry out ? What is dyslexia? Is it disease or not? Chloe Marshall, you are a good specialist in it, - what do you think? What do other participants think?

Risking the wrath of the dyslexic brigade, I stick my neck out and say that it is not in my experiece a disease and all kinds of people " declare" themselves to be dyslexic thanks to a bunch of academics who do so called tests. Until education ists started talking about education, education was doing well. But it gives a good excuse for this bunch of people to milk govt money and brandish excuses on behalf of a bunch of under performers. It is a powerful pressure group with as much reasoning behind it as CND does. In this discussion forum where some hurl abuses to those who do not agree with them the term "science" is loosly bandied about. Psychology is not a science. Neither is sociology. But these are the most vocal mob who join with historians and the like to bray for the blood of any university management who do not want to spend millions on those who bask in the glory of yore. The real scientists-chemists, biologists, biochemists and those in clinical medicine do not protest as much as this bunch does here. Have you heard of any UCL real scientist protesting against another and braying for the blood of the VC and the management? If they do not like it in UCL they leave quietly. These are the really world class people. But then why would UCL mess about with them? These real scientists always behave as they are preoccupied with their work and not poltics.

Chloe Why would UCL mess about with a researcher who is doing world class research NOW? It makes no sense unless there is something depper besides the research output. I have professor friends in UCL, some were my teachers, they were excellent and still are and do not get the treatment reported here. I assume that the professor concerned is talking legal action, but it is over 7 months now since the episode and legal process would have reached a final stage. If there is no legal action pending, then that is strange. I do not think for a moment that UCL management acted without legal advice and deliberation. They know fully well that law will punish them. I do not buy that Prof X who is an American would not support Prof Y whose research once was world class. and not now. In Pinker's own Harvard scientists left, despite the support from their colleagues ( I do not loosely use the term "science" as many do it here), many who were good once. Famous research labs in the US dispensed with scientists whose research was not world class however distinguished they once were .

No, 'dyslexic brigade' is not a disease, but rather a low slur on people with disabilities. I will be curious to see if the powers that be who censored my post of last night in support of Professor van der Lely will remove these overtly discriminatory (and, btw, unlawful) comments from the blog.

I was listening to Radio 4 a few months ago when an academic did dispute whether dyslexia is real and is scientifically proven. He was pounced upon by a dyslexia proponent hurling verbose comments. If dyslexia is not pushed so forward -it is a growth industry for psychologists, what would psychologists do for jobs? There is nothing unlawful in questioning whether a scientifically unproven ( the way we understand in hard science) condition exists. The govt has not accepted many scientifically proven biochemically demonstrable life-threatening metabolic conditions needing life-long medication as worthy of support which cost a fraction of what the dyslexia support costs. The adults with these conditions do not even get free prescription although they have to take a cocktail of medications every day. Sounds implausible? Ask the medical specialists.

Prof van der Lely works on SLI (Specific Language Impairment), not dyslexia.

"Prof van der Lely works on SLI (Specific Language Impairment), not dyslexia" But the foillowing link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6286507.stm

Oh, I see, her research is good enough to attract serious BBC media attention, but, to read some of the disparaging comments on here, presumed to be somehow up to snuff? This is classic mobbing scenario, straight out of Westhues' *The Envy of Excellence: The Mobbing of High-Achieving Professors*.

Correction to the above: make that 'presumed to be somehow NOT up to snuff?'

Can't believe the dyslexia brigade's persistence. But then the dyslexia gravy train awaits. BBC's attention is attracted by all sorts of events, even mugging, bank robbery and scientology .. But then this attention has not convinced the UCL where it matters. A sanction is in place. (There was also criticism which is conveniently overlooked)

1. Norman, I do not know Professor van der Lely. I think my comments thus far make that perfectly clear. 2. I have read over my comments and see no contradiction. Perhaps Norman you can enlighten me on the contradiction in what I say. 3. My point remains that (a) other scholars are being hindered in their work because of the supension and appeals process. Professor Pinker feels the problem sufficiently he is moved to write a letter (cosigned by 24 colleagues around the world) on her behalf. 4. If Professor van der Lely's work with children depends on the size and layout of her laboratory, and the children's best interests are damaged by the actions of the university changing those dimensions that is also a sound reason in my opinion for standing and fighting the university. That issue must be addressed by the courts. 5. It does appear that the dispute has lasted since November 2008. If I were not so familiar with American justice which moves at a pace that makes the progress of snails look like the progress of cheetahs on the hunt by comparison, I might agree with you Norman that "the court would have made a ruling by this time and the judicial process if underway wuld have been completed by this time." However, unfortunately it is possible that the judicial process can drag on for years (Iif this were the United States of America) before a ruling on all the issues is made in a case. I simply confess my ignorance of the situation in UK so perhaps Norman you have a point. I say, perhaps, because I doubt you actually are familiar with the UK situation in these cases. If my hunch is correct, I have a good answer to your supposition "The institution concerned must have good reasons to take such strong measures as we read in this case. Even my university I can imagine would do this only after deliberation and legal advice." I am betting that the university lawyers know better than any of us the time this case can drag on, perhaps years before all the legal maneuverings are done, and have informed the university administrators they should not worry about trampling the rights of the Professor if they saw some reason to act as they have. And as for having good reason, no, they merely need to have what they see as a useful short term advantage since by the time they are chided by the court for their arbitrary and mean spirited actions they may have long since departed the scene. I am all too familiar with how the system works in my country, you see, because I have been an observer of civil and criminal courts for going on forty years. 6. Simon, I am eager to hear what contributions to this discussion you can make as a "real scientist." We sociologists have learned much from the mature sciences in regard to methods of analysis and I am sure we have still more to learn. However, Simon, you have now entered into discussions on matters of law, on matters of educational administration, on matters of academic freedom, etc. based on your being a "real scientist." What are you bringing to this discussion other than your contempt for those who have spent their lives addressing these issues (for the record I was a shop steward for a union representing teachers etc. and had to defend employees disciplined as has Prof. van der Lely)? I cordially await your clarification.

You conflate mine and Simon views. If you argue that we should wait until the due process of law takes place, the nwe should wait-full stop. No caveats about other scholars, children programs etc.. You seem to infer that if this situation of this professor continues other scholars and programs will be frozen in space. This is indeed taking it too far. The situation occurred months ago and things will move on and I guess has moved on. Your language is that of a union apparatchik. Hence I am not surprised the way you are interpreting considering the university as an adversary. Union mind set is to attribute malicious intention as if that is norm with the employers. I do not know which university you belong to but UCL is a world reknowned university and the management will not act the way you suggest as they know that their reputation will be dented and they will be hit with a large bill later on. All the cases I know here in universities have been resolved quickly where there is an important public issue. Believing a few supporters who cry foul and point at frozen children program as if this is the only person in the whole of UK who could deliver it is silliness in its extreme. Although I do not work at UCL, I have friends there and professors I know who taught me, who are reputed scholars and I do not recognise their employer these supporters paint. If I were you I would familiarise myself with the way this institution functions rather applying the experience you have in your country. I did study and work in America for a time and despite the talk of social mobility, it does not occur frequently in academia there and very few professors move out of their comfort zone of their university. I know quite a few who stayed on for decades and know very little above the administration of other universities in their own country.

Norman says: 'I know here in universities have been resolved quickly where there is an important public issue'. UCL has indeed reacted quickly: the blogsite in support of Professor van der Lely has been closed. At that time there were already 70 signatures. It is no longer possible to sign the petition.

I was puzzled about an American academic coming to the support of an UK academic in trouble believing everything this academic supporters say quite readily blaming the university concerned. Now he reveals that he was a teacher union shop steward and no wonder he does not like one bit the employer and sees villainy there. Besides he seems to have read the minds of the senior management team of the university which suspended the professor. We know that even in the land of free enterprise, there are teacher union leaders who think like our RMT Bob Crow seeing villainy in every employer. We were told that in the land of opportunity, enterprises are unshackled by the traditions of the Old Europe ( as Donald Rumsfeld used to say). We were lectured by the great and good that our universities should emulate those in America, but we discover that good Old Europe has retreated from the land of opportunity, and the union mind set is universal whether it is in Old Europe and the brave New World!

People are looking for conspiracy every where. This saga has been around for 7 months. Despite the supporters tantrums to raise the noise level no public issue at stake. I wonder any member of public is interested. This academic wants to stay put and wants to get the original lab space which presumably for good reason is taken away. The university does not want to relent. Well months more will pass.

Felix Holt (sounds like someone from George Eliot) wrote, on 20 June, 2009, that, “Julian and Gary (sounds like something from Round the Horn) must live in a fairy-tale world where universities can just invent jobs out of thin air and lure eminent scholars from wherever they want.” Felix, otherwise known as Bjarnam Lilt (sounds like something from IKEA) or Irwin Gilmore (hyffordda cariad). What Felix goes on to say is spot on – scroll up and read it again. SIMON SAYS (we all know what that sounds like) “This brigade beginning with Macdonald through the name of Felix Holt indulge in abuses and mocks and vilify a respectable institution.” Say what?

Why is it that whenever a case of bullying is discussed in the THES or elsewhere that there are always a number of comments, usually from men, claiming that the academic concerned must really be a whinger, substandard or in some way responsible for the bullying? In other words she (and it is often a she) must have 'asked for it?' (Sounds familiar doesn't it). The literature on academic bullying and other forms of workplace bullying suggests that those bullied are more often than not the bright and conscientious ones, the ones that have strong senses of justice and integrity. The bullies on the other hand tend to be threatened individuals who fear their own incompetence being revealed. In the case of the Professor mentioned above neoliberal management practices seem also to have been brought to bear. In the 'old days' (when academics ran universities rather than managers) similar may well have happened, especially to a woman in a vulnerable field. But my interpretation of the evidence is that bullying is becoming more common and also more vicious, and also that it is being supported by university managers who are aware of the toothlessness of anti-bullying legislation. The bullied is frequently charged with insubordination and it becomes an industrial issue where the victim is blamed for a different crime. My main point here, however, before I saw that the conversation had once again becomes side-tracked by a a few random individuals, was that I hope that all will learn from this. It is vital that we support our colleagues. In addition it is vital that we support colleagues junior to us and not just those at the relative top of the pecking order. Some of the nastiest and most vicious instances of bullying that I have witnessed have involved very junior staff as victims, and those senior have closed doors, watched, or said 'we can't help you'. It is great that the professors support their mates (I genuinely mean this) but I hope that they also all watch out for their PhD students, postdocs and those staff on the very bottom of ladders.

I see above the statement that list of supporters of Prof. van der Lely includes 70 signatures. However I notice there only 16 signatures. Generally, if you want to know what is "signatures", I can show you. For example, here is "SIGNATURES": http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/333/ 12000 signatures! And what is your list, I don't know......

I intentionally asked the question about dyslexia. Dyslexia isn't considered as a disease in most countries. It is wire-drawn diagnosis. Dyslexia is a mistake of teacher, but not disability/disease of child. Child is not to blame if the teacher is incompetent. The radical changes of the system of education of teachers in universities are necessary, but NOT the labeling of unhappy children by disability stamp. I guess it is not only my opinion. I guess that the silense of UCL's academics and sternness of UCL's administration (and as we can see - a bit the double THES' attitude to the case) can be explained partly by this cause. Certainly, I have a compassion on Prof. van der Lely and her colleagues, but my opinion about the final outcome of this case is pessimistic. Sorry.... As for Professor Colquhoun, you hope for his help in vain. His situation is not better, he is retired scientist and he doesn't believe in a happy-end of his own story. By the way, it is a essense of my current quarrel with him (I would not mention it, but you will see it anyway, coming in his blog). I want he to continue to work, but he doesn't believe in himself. However, my opinion about his fate is much more optimistic than in your case - he did/does (and I hope - will do!) real science. No compare!

The astonishing part of this story is that UCL, if the report is correct, are preventing access to data and equipment before due process has been completed and a decision reached. It seems very strange that this should happen, and it cannot be right. It could under no circumstances be right to prevent access to one's research. Incredible. And if true, heads should roll.

I'd reiterate what Jon had said. It's quite frankly unbelievable that the Prof. has been excluded from her work for seven months while the bureaucratic machine that's supposed to be deciding on the charge of insubordination gets whirring (evidently it needed a recharge). To those (bizarrely) suggesting that she should go elsewhere, in addition to the points detailed above, she's DIRECTOR of the department. Just how often do you think that equivalent posts 'come up'?!

To answer the question, I was referring (as is clear from my use of the word 'petition'), to the following: http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/HVDLUCL According to the site, the petition was started on Saturday 19 June 09, 11:42:36 am. By the time of my post yesterday afternoon (above) the petition had been closed. At the time of its closure the petition had 70 supporters. When one tries to sign it (as I tried to do yesterday and just now) one gets an error message saying: 'That petition is closed and is not accepting signatures'. I don't know anything about the list with 16 names mentioned above.

Director? Then they want to close the Dept... One dept is being closed, other dept is being opened...

The Survey Monkey petition is still available and at this moment has 17 "signatures" https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=FxBIxh6ANRwAZ00J_2bzZEbQ_3d_3d The (closed) Petition Spot petition has 70 "signatures, http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/HVDLUCL

The survey monkey petition mentioned by Brian Atwood in his post above is still working, https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=FxBIxh6ANRwAZ00J_2bzZEbQ_3d_3d. Rosa is correct in saying that the petitionspot petition has been stopped.

@Kathy 22 June, 2009 This is the internet and I suppose they must be trolls. Looking at the comments on YouTube etc. one could be forgiven for thinking that there exists some hidden species of miscreants that have spawned among us revealing their true nature in the comfort of anonymity.

Norman, if an issue of great public interest is so quickly resolved perhaps you can explain why in UK and USA women find a glass ceiling in the fields of science and engineering. My own calculations suggest that it will take fifty years to achieve something resembling gender equality of full professors in physics and engineering. It is likely to happen a lot sooner in France, Italy, Hungary, Russia among countries in Europe simply because in UK 4% of physics faculty are women. In those other countries anywhere from a quarter of the faculty to half (Hungary) already are women. Seriously, Norman even issues of great public interest do not get resolved so quickly. I can provide other examples both historical as well as contemporary. 2. You urge me to familiarize myself with how the University works. However, I am becoming quite familiar with the essential facts of this case by reading the record. I cannot judge whether Professor van der Lely is guilty of insubordination. More facts need to be put on the public record for that determination. I can tell you the record in this blog is quite fullsome on why Professor van der Lely has good reason to stay and fight. I respectfully direct your attention to comments entered in the record by Dr. Chloe Marshall on 19 and 20 June 2009 and also by K. Froud on 20 June 2009. Despite all the rhetoric no one has refuted any of these statements and I am confident the parties who gave their full names would testify under oath as to the same facts. They show clearly the problems UCL caused to Prof. van der Lelly's research. Furthermore, they show why moving would compromise the quality of the work she has done since she would lose access to a time series data base going back twenty years and now enhanced by brain imaging work. I do not know if this work is Nobel Science calibre but it is a unique resource and she should not willingly allow some one else (perhaps more to the UCL' aministration's liking?) to reap the rewards for work based on what she has done for many decades. 3. I take exception to your calling me a "union apparatchik. I plead guilty to many things and my FBI file includes such merrriment as sitting in Mayor Dailey's Chicago office in 1969 with the Welfare Rights Organization, the Columbia University insurrection of 1968 in which I played a minor and peripheral role, etc. I am a Democrat--which as Will Rogers once observed means "I am a member of no organized party." Calling me an apparatchik confuses the FBI and it is not nice to confuse the FBI. 4. This comment is directed to both you and Gary Smith. Gentlemen, I do not see villainy or evil anywhere and certainly not in the record I have read on this case. If I did I should say Hallelejah! The second (or first) coming of the Messiah is at hand because all three of us I am sure believe that when there is evil everywhere Salvation must be near at hand. No, gentlemen, this is a case of banality. My hypothesis is that the university administration includes person or persons who went forward with a project to improve one thing--the social area outside Professor van der Lelly's laboratory-- without considering the consequences for her work. She cried foul and they reacted as scared little bureaucrats often do by coming down hard on her. Maybe they are not used to women criying foul as they think women should know their place. Maybe they would have reacted to even a man aggressively challenging their reducing his workspace. That will no doubt eventually come out. But she is bravely arguing for the value of a priceless data set, for her right to advise others interested in working in her specialty, and for the right to continue her work without undue interference. We who believe in academic freedom, in the work of scholars making a contribution in a unique area, will stand by her. You can fling all the names you want.

Robert Yourargument is what is to be expected from a union ex-shop steward. Some of it is naive to the extent that I wiill let it linger on without any comment. What any of the supporters is not saying is whether or not any legal action is taken by this professor against the university. You did not ascertain this before launching your long accusatory notes against the univerity. One thing stands out clearly. If this professors' work is so important and is in the world class league, why would an university like UCL which has attracted scientists of world class from around the globe, deliberately cut the lab facility and put the kind of restrictions that are reported. It simply does not add up. Cutting lab facility is a sanction by an institution if some one's work is no longer considered excellent/world class or not considered important to the institution. When confronted with serious issues I could cry racism ( being non-white ) or some one else could cry gender descrimination, glass ceiling etc.. But in reality things are not that black and white ( not the pun) and often we think that it is a good weapon to have in our armoury. You are shooting before asking questions. One such question is: has the person taken legal action against the university? This should be asked. Again, I am asking

This Bob ( Robert) sounds exactly like the Bob we the hapless tube commuters know- Bob Crow of RMT Union! Bob Crow would get cardiac arrest if some one tells him that his message is echoed from the other side of the pond, from the unlikeliest place -the Land of Opportunity!

Regarding Norman's question as to whether Prof van der Lely is taking legal action against the university - Zoe Corbyn's article quite clearly states that she has "issued proceedings at the central London employment tribunal". Also in the article, Prof van der Lely's solicitor states that Prof van der Lely is going to tribunal because she believes UCL are taking disciplinary action against her after she raised concerns about her reduced lab facilties, including concerns for the health and safety of children, and potential breach of patient confidentiality. In addition, the solictitor mentions UCL's failure to provide the adequate working space and safe working temperature required for her lymphodoema (which is a chronic and very painful condition, and which if not properly managed can lead to hospitalisation). At least, that's my interpetation of what's contained in Zoe Corbyn's report - I have no legal experience. These are very serious issues. Once again, idle speculation doesn't help either side in this dispute. Let's just hope this case gets resolved quickly and fairly so that all parties concerned can get on with the work that they should be doing.

There are many similar stories, even at UCL, although a gagging order stops me saying more about my "early retirement" from UCL.

Thank you, Kalvis, for your courage in speaking out. I have made similar disclosures, though anonymously, on here in the past 3 days about similar scenarios going on elsewhere in the UK, but both comments have been removed by the editorial powers that be. It is my view that the biggest scandal currently in the UK is not the one currently surrounding MP expenses but rather the as yet to be exposed bombshell of the staggering amounts of taxpayers' money that is being invested throughout the British academy in the silencing of undesirables, usually the ones who have dared to speak out on issues of discrimination and public interest disclosure. If people on here wonder why we never hear about other cases like Prof van der Lely's it is because too many people like yourself have been forced into silence. I have myself rejected more than one such 'offer' to be silenced, and I will not be at all surprised if I am the next senior woman of international reputation to be gagged in the way that Prof van der Lely has.

Chloe says that this professor has taken legal action. In that case why this thread by the THES should be created at all, and why the dyslexia brigade who are up in arms against the university. Fearing perhaps the stoppage of the gravy train?! So all the bloggers including me, Bob the Uncle( Robert) and et al. should shut up and not comment until this legal action is resolved. One thing I learned from this blog. Too many self-styled "internationally reputed speople" around, and saying so!

Actually, the fact that the Professor has taken legal action is reported in the THE article above. Chloe is simply quoting the details of the article. That Norman has already responded no fewer than eight times on this blog, but only now registers the understanding that this has become a legal matter, suggests, at the very least, that he is responding to posts here without having bothered to read the article itself.

Yes, Normal we should all calm down now. But as Dr. Marshall has also said, the review of this case by the judicial authorities should happen quickly. And I hope this discussion has encouraged that. Gary Smith, please come audition for a spot on a Comedy show. You have very funny lines. Much better than Archie Bunker!

It is an employment tribunal simply a quasi judicial out put ( like the other quangos) which is not the high court judicial review but an appeal against the employer. I read it but not surprised it is taking so much time. It is a admin procedure the first step and a long way to go with appeals and counter-appeals. The professor will retire by the time it reacher the high court!. Rosa claims that she is an internationall reputed scholar, the first scholar in the academic history to say so in self-publicity. I would have thought others would have to say that. Hawking wouldn't say about himself. Now we now that in our midst we have an "internationally reputed scholar" who takes time from her busy research to blog here! Let me guess, it is dyslexia research fame? Robert you should really do some background work about the grievance procedures in the UK. An employement tribunal sits as an admin output with a lawyer plus others on the bench and a lawyer can represent the person. It has a quasi judicial remit with powers very much less than a properly constituted court. They can pass a judgement but in 90+% cases, the appeal by the employer will be prepared. It is in the high court the battle will be fought in the months and years to come. Robert, what I said is not funny but we have a union leader called Bob Crow who like you looks at a problem at the surface and starts blaming the employer. What is more he called his minons on strike for 48 hours inconveniencing the London commuters. You must be a very rare specimen in the enterprise country. Archie Bunker- that was Byzantine period!

I too read it and was not surprised that it has taken so much time to schedule a hearing. Norman I guess was talking about a proper legal action not this tribunal business which is a quango, like the benefits appeal, acres of paper on tray slowly moving and is really the very first step. Most of the cases end in a high court appeal, the whole time span is anything from 2 to 4 years from the initial appeal lodging. Money for the lawyer and he/she has to do less work than in a proper court. Wonder why this professor did not approach Cherie Blair for representation who is considered to be an excellent employment lawyer ( even by her political opponents). Some think that tribunals are time-wasting exercise and simply accept the sanctions. Others go on spending years in litigation only to see an open and shut case failing in the high court and then in the court of appeal. the person loses if she/he wins after spending energy and time. The best advice I got from an employement lawyer who was a doyen amongst them was to forget the treatment and move to another job. Well, we will see.

"Internationally reputed scholars" should not be worked up I misundersood what Chloe said and assumed the action is in the court. Thanks Simon and Gary for the clarification. I meant a proper legal action in the court for ungagging. I agree that this tribunal is a qunago and it is not a legal action but an appeal. No employer will lose sleep when an appeal goes to a tribunal, months are wasted in waiting and the issue will pass and people will move on.

Some of us don't ever get to be internationally reputed scholars because of the way in which we are treated by the senior management in our universities - who are internationally reputed scholars.

Unlike many of you I have known the Professor for many many years and I am only surprised something like this had not happened to her before. As for her science, I found her essays and articles to mostly unadulterated drivel laced with technical jargon most of which she did not understand (this - a credit to her) but which she used with abandon to blind academia and herself. The emperor's clothes come to mind. Prof Laura Franca

Now some one like Prof Franca has provided further insight. It is slowly adding up to why this "Internationally reputed scholar" is shall we say moved to a lab space which has the domension to fit to her real reputation. Robert Fisher who sees conspiracy anywhere and everywhere perhaps should not shoot from the hip. Leaving aside our American cousins who have next to no idea why this lab space contraction has happened, it is getting clear from what Prof Franca says that the UCL has discovered the person behind the smoke screen.

After the reduction of lab space in recognition of her real research value the information about which is being slowly leaking out, best for her to settle with UCL in exchange for an agreed voluntary redundancy pay out. Her "can't move won't move" situation is getting clearer.

To Prof Laura Franca et al.: An appeal to having known Prof Van der Lely does not strengthen your unsupported qualification of her scientific contributions. When making such serious accusations one expects at least clear evidence, and lack thereof and your questionable choice of wording makes your writing rather a libel. Many publications by her and her co-authors have appeared in respected journals, all having rigorous peer review, and her research has contributed substantially and importantly to the understanding of specific language impairment (SLI). Regardless of UCL's motivation to contract the lab space (not known to us outsiders), the treatment of Prof Van der Lely by the university is questionable, and the barring of own faculty and students from communicating with her concerning research is far from respectful. Such actions seem premature as Prof Van der Lely has not received a fair hearing and as long as the University has not proven the allegations of insubordination. In the meanwhile, UCL's course of actions, just or not, has serious implications for the professional activity of all involved (Prof Van der Lely, collaborators, faculty, students under supervision, etc.), and does not seem to prioritise one of the most important activity of the university: research.

So many admirers of this professor. But what I hear from those who know her well is different. I can't see her reinstated and getting her acres of lab space.

If what you hear from "those who know her well" has the questionable level of the libelous posting by "Prof Laura Franca" on July 7, it is advisable not to take it too seriously: resentment and jealousy rarely result in objective judgment. In any case, an accusation of insubordination addressed to Prof Van der Lely by the university may well be clearly motivated and appropriate, and such an accusation does not come out of thin air, but regardless the outcome of the bureaucratic and juridical procedures, UCL's course of actions seem questionable and does certainly not prioritise research interests.

John Yates: You are the loser. If she was so good she would left the university as offers would have come to her. The fact is there are no offers and that proves what UCL thinks about her. This person will take early retirement and go. Best if you simply close the chapter.

As outsider you claim to know whether Prof Van der Lely has received offers from elsewhere or not (asides: this is not the main issue), and as outsider you also claim to know UCL's exact position in this matter, even though UCL has still not commented on this case. Moreover, you feel the need to resort to an ad hominem, for whatever reason. It seems at this stage best to wait for verifiable facts, and refrain from unfounded statements or libelous postings. In any case, it is to be hoped that UCL will stop unnecessary hindering of the researchers and students affected in this matter until fair bureaucratic and juridical procedures have yielded an outcome.

John Yates. It does not need the deductive powers of Sherlock Holmes to deduce the following: 1. If she is so distinguished as some of her supporters claim UCL which has brought in researchers from around the world would not have done what they have done to her 2. If her research is word class and invaluable she would have simply moved to another university, picking up offers which would have come to her. Elementary indeed! . By the way, I know many insiders and I know what they think of her. Only those who have no where else to go will hang around and argue. Hence close this chapter and move on.

My point, if you have read carefully my previous responses, is that UCL's course of action is questionable and does not prioritise research interests, regardless Prof Van der Lely being more or less distinguished, regardless Prof Van der Lely perhaps wanting and being able to go to another institute, regardless the reason to assign her smaller lab space than desired, regardless Prof Van der Lely being the person in question. The situation would be equally worrisome for any department director or senior researcher.

A seven month suspension while an ''insubordination'' case is being investigated seems, on the face of it, to be punishment before process. As for the trolls (Norman, Gary, ...) they seem to share linguistic characteristics as well as a perverse tendency to address the non-question of academic ''marketability''. This suggests that they are one and the same person. And ''Prof Laura Franca'' has done a remarkable job of concealing her publication record from Google; as has her sister Lingua!

Im not an academic, but married to one, and know that,except fpr a very very few cases, the grant follows the research, not the individual. I also know Heather slightly through the charity work she does locally, and, although she says very little about the present case (because it's sub judice), she has received some academic support from the US (like a new computerconnection) but no money. A lot of her savings have gone on legal fees. So while you all argue the philosophical points and the scientific relativity of it all, there's a respected scientist watching her work stalling and her money disappearing. Personally I found it bad enough in the commercial world when a change of management meant my face didn't fit quite so well as before, but that's nothing compared to the bitchiness and back-stabbing I've observed in those sacred groves of Academe.

The vicious backbiting here reveals the sorry state that the 'new world' market driven model of academia has been reduced to. The tactics used against Prof van der Lelly are all too familiar these days in Russel Group universities, sometimes used by competitors for grants, sometimes simply because the HOD or line manager dislikes the target. If the target has a really good research record, so no real reason to dispose of their services, then an underhand process of spreading denigratory rumours might be started, refusal to sign grant applications, relegation to a tiny, unsuitable and even dangerous lab might follow, 'marking down' in the RAE, and so-on. It happens in the 'hard' sciences as well as in other disciplines. This is regardless of the value of the researcher's work to society or the university. It should also be remembered that grants do not automatically follow the best or most useful research. The designation of major research 'themes' of importance leaves unfunded a considerable amount of less 'sexy' or 'of the moment' science, including important medical science. The heavy involvement of industry in scientific research funding has had a negative impact on what research is carried out, with a bias on what makes money for big business rather what improves human health without making profits for pharma. And this is not the only case where substantial funding has been granted, ostensibly to provide better labs for named research programmes or units, but somehow it gets reallocated and that research does not get the benefit. Researchers may find, for example, that the infrastructure part of their funding is somehow not there. Something is very wrong at the heart of the 'new' academia, and neither teaching nor research will ultimately benefit from the approach of top management at universities like UCL.