“It is inappropriate for you to have any further activity in any UW laboratory.”
This phrase is from a letter Andrew Aprikyan just received.
Andrew had been seen sitting in on a course offered by the UW’s Institute for Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine (ISCRM). These courses are not formal UW courses and are open to the scientific community of Seattle. Dr. Ware, who ran the course, knew of and approved Dr. Aprikyan’s presence.
The letter, depending how you read it, seems to me to be in violation of state laws about pubic access to UW activities. Beyond that, it seems to me that for the SOM to restrict contact between any faculty member and any other scientists is a serious violation of the faculty code. The complete letter, redacted to protect the identity of the UW representative who signed the letter, is available to read in THE-Ave public library.
Someone, reportedly the individual who initiated the complaint against Dr. Aprikyan, saw Andrew sitting at the ISCRM course and complained to the Vice Dean for Scientific Affairs. The basis for the complaint is not clear. One rumor is that the complainant stated that he feared physical violence. If so, the appropriate letter might have been from the police however, as far as I know the police were not consulted.
The issues here are complex. The letter states that Andrew has been found guilty of scientific misconduct. That”finding” however was not by any scientific group set up by the faculty. Instead, an investigation was begun, at the request of the same complainant, by the administration. That investigation, against NIH rules, was run by an attorney and not by a scientist. Moreover , the areas of Dr. Aprikyan’s expertise … hematology, flow sorting, and molecular genetics were not represented and the process, again against NIH requirements for prompt resolution of these issues, took several years. The complete letter, redacted to protect the identity of the UW representative who signed the letter, is available to read in THE-Ave public library.
The process, and therefore the findings were repudiated by the reps0nsible body of the faculty, The Faculty Adjudication Panel. The Dean and President, neither of whom has trained as a scientist, over rode the Panel, charging its members with being “arbitrary and capricious.”
For more details on this story you can search THE-Ave for the tag “Aprikyan” or go to THE-Ave Public Library for the original documents.
When I returned from directing a study abroad program in England last summer, an administrator immediately dismissed me from chairing of a committee reportedly because, “someone on the committee is afraid of you.” That was it, no further explanation, no clarifications, no name of the committee member, no verifications of the charge. “Thank you for your service” (of more than 8 years on the committee, I might add). My point: apparently added to everything else that has happened to Andrew Aprikan (never mind me, at least I still have a job… at least so far I do), it is far too easy to hang a negative label on any faculty member without due process.
Clarence’s point is one I had not thought of.
For an academic like Andrew, this sort of label .. going so far as to ban a scientist from being present at UW activities, amounts to professional death.
No matter what he does, no matter how good Andrew may be, the reputation of having been banned from the campus of a major university, would make him unemployable .. not only in Seattle, but likely anywhere in the US.
Even leaving the ban aside, the letter asserts there was a “finding of scientific misconduct.” That is a misleading statement since the responsible authority, found that the administration had no run a proper procedure.
Does this comprise slander?
I wonder if his attorney has considered a slander suit?