The aftermath of sexual misconduct at premier medical institutions rarely leaves visible traces: HR is brought in, confidentiality invoked, deals made. The case of Axel Grothey’s exit from Mayo Clinic is a notable exception.
Ending Sexual Misconduct in Academic Medicine
This series led to a reconfiguration of policies on sexual harassment, misconduct, and gender bias across biomedical research and academic medicine—and directly resulted in an August 2021 congressional letter that demands answers from NIH on policies to address sexual misconduct.
The investigation builds off The Cancer Letter‘s 2020 survey on gender bias and sexual harassment in academic oncology (The Cancer Letter, Oct. 2, 2020). The study found that the majority of women in academic oncology who encountered these incidents chose not to report to their institutions. All the women who did lodge complaints rated their institutions’ response as inadequate or retaliatory (failure rate = 100%).
A follow-up story focused on Axel Grothey, a prominent GI oncologist who had been given the option to resign from Mayo Clinic due to unethical sexual relationships with women he mentored. The investigation unearthed reprimands against Grothey in three states for sexual misconduct—Tennessee, Minnesota, and Arizona—and revealed inaction by NIH leaders, who had been informed of Grothey’s misconduct through whistleblower reports.
Three reprimands notwithstanding, Grothey had kept his appointment as co-chair of the NCI National Clinical Trials Network’s Gastrointestinal Steering Committee, an influential group that reviews ideas for clinical trials and helps determine the priorities in federally funded clinical research in GI oncology.
After The Cancer Letter informed NCI officials about Grothey’s track record and requested comment, then-NCI Director Ned Sharpless removed him from the steering committee effective May 27, 2021. The investigation sparked a movement on social media, prompting a cascade of responses from leading healthcare organizations and institutions.
In August 2021, a House subcommittee demanded answers from NIH on policies to address sexual misconduct, based on The Cancer Letter‘s coverage.
NIH responded, stating that the agency may be “constrained” from investigating sexual misconduct at NIH-funded institutions once alleged perpetrators are no longer affiliated with grantee institutions. NIH officials, including then-NIH Director Francis Collins, have said that NIH is unable to require reporting of sexual misconduct by outside entities.
A bill to address under-reporting of misconduct has been passed in Congress. It contains a disclosure provision that gives NIH the authority to issue regulations that delineate reporting requirements for institutions receiving NIH funds through grants or cooperative agreements.
Inappropriate sexual relationships of the sort Axel Grothey engaged in at Mayo Clinic may be all too common.
In the days leading up to the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, The Cancer Letter published a piece focused on Axel Grothey’s unethical sexual relationships with women he mentored while at Mayo Clinic. While this news was met by some as shocking, science tells us it is anything but.
We’ve all heard this story before, just with a different set of names and places. Man harasses woman after woman, eventually someone (usually a woman) is brave enough to report him, a quiet investigation confirms the reports, and he quietly and seamlessly gets hired elsewhere with no one the wiser.
Institutions receiving NIH funds through grants or cooperative agreements would be required—by federal law—to notify the NIH director when a principal investigator or other key personnel are removed or disciplined for “harassment, bullying, retaliation, or hostile working conditions.”
A Congressional letter is asking NIH to describe the procedures employed for rooting out sexual misconduct committed by advisors.
The prevalence of workplace harassment, discrimination, and retaliation experienced by women physicians, especially women of color, is alarmingly high.
NIH may be “constrained” in investigating sexual misconduct at NIH-funded institutions once alleged perpetrators are no longer affiliated with these institutions, NIH officials implied in their response to a congressional inquiry on sexual misconduct (The Cancer Letter, Sept. 24, 2021).
Women who report sexual misconduct to NIH may find that their complaints have a limited shelf life—these complaints may become null, or at least ineligible for “even a cursory review” once perpetrators cut ties with NIH.
While I’m glad that in a recent response to questions from a congressional committee NIH recognizes that sexual harassment is a major obstacle in the advancement of science and has put new processes in place to address this issue, the letter does not adequately address the lack of response in the case of Dr. Grothey.
After consulting with women in oncology, The Cancer Letter has created a guide to help whistleblowers think strategically as they report gender bias and confront institutional resistance.
Effective July 9, NIH-funded institutions that do not report relevant cases of misconduct—including sexual harassment, bullying, and retaliation—within one month would be considered to be in violation of NIH regulations and of federal law.
NIH is now required by law to direct grantee institutions to report senior personnel who are disciplined for misconduct, sexual or otherwise.
A House committee is requesting that NIH provide answers to 30 questions about the “pervasive culture of sexual harassment” in biomedical research.
Undeterred by NIH’s failure to address a set of questions submitted seven months ago, a House oversight committee is persisting with its investigation into handling of sexual harassment complaints at institutions that receive federal funding.
Last month, the NIH finally responded to a request by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to obtain information about NIH’s handling of sexual harassment complaints.
After taking eight months to respond to a House committee’s questions about policies on handling of sexual misconduct cases, a letter from NIH has provided answers that critics describe as vague and inadequate.
Last year, the NIH announced that at the direction of Congress, the organization would tighten rules for reporting sexual and workplace harassment by investigators funded by the NIH.
A House oversight committee said it intends to exercise the power of subpoena to compel the NIH Office of the Director to turn over documents related to allegations of sexual harassment and workplace misconduct.
