More on toxic academia: does investing time in outreach, mentoring and community activities matter?
Outreach, mentoring, and community support are crucial for fostering a positive academic environment. Yet some established academics dismiss their importance, focusing solely on publishing papers and securing grants. So, who’s right? Do broader community activities really matter?
After the popular post, ‘What’s a toxic environment for a PhD student?’, many established academics responded with a common refrain: ‘I just don’t see it.’ Some even expressed skepticism about the importance of outreach, mentoring, and other community activities, suggesting that these were secondary to what truly matters: publishing papers and securing grants.
Narrow-minded academics
Such a narrow view of academia is disheartening. The whole point of research is to advance knowledge and share findings with the broader community, isn’t it? When academic work is publicly funded, shouldn’t the goal be to share the research as broadly as possible? By limiting the scope of academic responsibilities to publications and grants, the broader mission of academia — to educate, inspire, collaborate with colleagues and serve society — gets lost.
Mentoring is a vital component of academic life. Can anyone truly work with students and postdocs and conclude that mentoring isn’t crucial? Mentoring plays a pivotal role in shaping the careers of young researchers, providing guidance, support, and a pathway for growth. It also amplifies the impact of the supervisor: you’re training the future trainers, creating a legacy that far outstrips any single research paper. Ignoring this aspect contributes to a toxic environment and, ultimately, hinders reputations and the very progress academics are striving for.
Investing in outreach, mentoring and community isn’t just a “nice-to-have.” It is integral to a healthy academic ecosystem. By fostering open communication, collaborative relationships, and a supportive atmosphere, academia can thrive in ways that benefit everyone, from researchers to the wider community. Academic success shouldn’t be measured solely by papers and grants; it should also be gauged by the positive impact on students, colleagues, and society at large.
Run, student, run
I almost feel foolish writing this, because it seems so obvious. Yet I keep hearing the same question, whether in casual dinner conversations or during formal Q&A sessions: “Why should I care? My goal is to publish papers and get grants (and maybe become famous). Everything else is secondary.”
This narrow, single-minded perspective on academia is one basis of a toxic environment for PhD students and postdocs. If you find yourself stuck in this mindset, get out while you can. Trust me, there are better places. The culture is shifting, with genuine efforts in some countries to create healthier academic environments. Unfortunately, these changes are uneven, and some academic systems lag significantly behind. But the trend is promising, and we must continue to push for a more inclusive and supportive academic culture.
Funders, where are you?
I could write about why outreach and mentoring are crucial. I could discuss the importance of open science and preprinting. How refusing to share biomaterial with colleagues — or worse, sending them the wrong materials — constitutes professional misconduct. I could talk about our professional responsibility to stakeholders and colleagues, or how empathy makes us better humans and professionals. I could even mention that a reputation as a toxic boss isn’t exactly ideal for attracting top talent. And I could go on.
But I won’t. Because in these times, with the resurgence of fascism and the normalization of toxic right-wing views, I’m feeling a bit pessimistic about humanity. There’s just too much selfishness, racism, and dehumanization, even within academic circles.
Instead, I want to focus on those who actually have the power to make a difference: the science funders. Beyond the empty rhetoric about culture change, these are the people who can actually drive change. So, funders, what are you going to do about it?
The European Research Council (ERC) to the rescue
For a while now, the European Research Council (ERC) has been leading the charge for positive change. When evaluating proposals, the ERC considers not just the research project itself, but also heavily weighs the Principal Investigator’s (PI’s) track record. In fact, both the CV and the project proposal are graded on a scale of one to five in the first step of the evaluation, and the two are combined for the final score.
The criteria for evaluating the PI focus on conducting groundbreaking research, creative thinking, and scientific expertise — fair enough. But here’s the best part: for Advanced Grant applicants, the ERC also asks this incredibly relevant question: “To what extent has the PI demonstrated sound leadership in the training and advancement of young scientists?” How cool is that?
The 2023 Work Programme for the ERC directs panelists and reviewers to evaluate applicants based on their record in training and mentoring young scientists. Isn’t it fantastic that there is a clear incentive for scientists to cultivate a positive environment for the next generation? The ERC grants are some of the most prestigious and substantial in Europe, carrying a lot of weight in the academic community. This is how you get academic cats to herd: dangle some food in the form of grant funding, and they’ll come running.
Now, I know some of you skeptics out there are thinking, “Sure, they say training young scientists is important, but does it really matter?” You might have a point. But don’t take my word for it. Take a look at the reviewer comments from ERC proposals I’ve compiled below. A well-rounded profile does get noticed, and surely must influence the outcome in some ways.
The list is long and may seem repetitive, but I wanted to showcase just how common these comments are among reviewers. Take a read and see for yourself!
The European Research Council makes a u-turn
For years, I have used the ERC Work Programme instructions to encourage my colleagues to focus on broader activities and mentorship to build competitive profiles for funding by this prestigious agency. The ERC was seen as a progressive force in academia, with its focus on research excellence, creativity, and — most importantly — the leadership and mentoring of young scientists.
Other funding bodies, like Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) in the US, have embraced their power to shape academic culture and taken bold steps, like mandating preprints, to encourage more open science and transparency.
But what did the ERC do? It took a turn for the worse. In early 2024, the ERC announced a change in how it evaluates applicants. In the 2024 Work Programme, all references to mentoring, supporting young scientists, and broader community activities disappeared. The only evaluation criterion is now a narrow definition of scientific excellence.
Their argument is to avoid unconscious bias by focusing the evaluation solely on the quality of the proposal, independent of the PI’s track record. Scoring based on the CV is gone; now, only the project itself is scored.
My concern is that they have thrown the baby with the water. This shift means you can be a bully, a toxic PI, or even someone frequently featured on the troubling blog “For Better Science” — with a history of disputed articles on PubPeer — and there’s no longer a mechanism for reviewers to penalize you. As long as your proposal is technically excellent, you’re in the running for ERC funding.
It’s shocking to see the ERC abandon its role in fostering positive academic environments and instead focus solely on narrow measures of scientific merit. It’s a disheartening move, especially when other funders are doubling down on promoting open science, preprinting, community engagement, and mentoring. This lack of awareness of the power funders have to incentivize academics to act with integrity and responsibility is deeply disappointing.
Although I’m sure the ERC Scientific Council had good intentions, I must express my disappointment. By moving away from reinforcing progressive values and promoting a healthier academic culture, it feels like a step in the wrong direction. This change does not seem to serve the best interests of the academic community, which deserves a more supportive and forward-thinking approach than this narrow focus on excellence — whatever that means.
My pledge and yours: keep highlighting outreach, mentoring and positive academic culture in our reviews
Here’s the thing: the European Research Council (ERC) and other science funders stuck in the dinosaur era seem to miss a crucial point. Academics who care only about their own career trajectory, ignoring the broader academic community, create environments that suffocate creativity and collaboration. It’s toxic, it hinders scientific excellence and it doesn’t help anyone.
But we have an avenue to push back. In our reviews, whether the instructions ask for it or not, we can still comment on a PI’s broader community track record. This is my pledge to keep calling out these crucial elements in my reviews:
• To what extent has/have the PI(s) demonstrated a track record of supporting open science and preprinting?
• To what extent has/have the PI(s) shown a commitment to public engagement?
• To what extent has/have the PI(s) contributed to community building and shared biomaterial with their colleagues?
• To what extent has/have the PI(s) demonstrated effective leadership in mentoring and training young scientists?
These are questions we need to keep asking to ensure that academia transitions to a positive, collaborative, and supportive space. I hope you’ll pledge to do the same. Let’s hold ourselves and others accountable for fostering a healthier academic culture.
Acknowledgements
I’m grateful to colleagues and dinner companions for inspiring this post. The article was written with assistance from ChatGPT.
This article is available on a CC-BY license via Zenodo.
Cite as: Kamoun, S. (2024) More on toxic academic environments: does investing time in outreach, mentoring and community activities matter?. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11085895
