Concern about bullying has been growing in the world of academia. PhD students are considered to be particularly vulnerable because they depend on their supervisors for publications and references, according to the Guardian. The newspaper published a call for testimonies encouraging academic staff to share their experiences. 

Another article published by Nature notes that nobody knows how much bullying goes on in science because few people have investigated the issue. 

The same article defines bullying as repeated and malicious mistreatment of someone that results in harm. However, it can take other forms of actions, and most of them can fit into a grey zone.

“I consider bullying at the workplace to be threats to co-workers or students, due to their personal beliefs or simply because the abuse of power is just so attractive for a bully,” says Celia Arroyo- López. She is a scientist who was bullied by her PhD supervisor. 

 

TYPES OF BULLIES

According to the findings of one study, titled Workplace bullying: aggressive behaviour and its effect on job satisfaction and productivity, people arrive at bully-hood by at least three different paths: through personality development, by reading cues in a competitive, political workplace, and by accident. Τhe research describes the typical workplace bullies as “constant critic”, “two-headed snake” (passiveaggressive), “backstabber snake”, “Jekyll-and-Hyde snake”, “no problem, don’t bother snake”, “screaming Mimi, controller”, “gatekeeper” (control freak), “accidental bully”, “chronic bully”, “opportunistic bully”, “serial bully”, “narcissist”, “cyber-bully” and “substance-abusing bully”. 

Celia describes her PhD supervisor as a passive-aggressive bully. “He systematically ignored my emails,” she explains. “He only replied to higher ranks in the academia, and always justified the lack of his feedbacks to me as: I received nothing.”

“As long as we need recommendation letters, we should either end with the recommendation letters or add complementary letters about the working conditions of our previous employer,” notes Celia.

She has also sent a proposal to the European Parliament asking for the creation of a specific organ dedicated to control bullying in research.

“There are many victims, we just need to become visible”, she concludes.

 

 

DIRECTING OMICS-BASED CHRONIC DISEASE PREVENTION FOR THOSE WHO NEED IT MOST

 

 

 

The advent of advanced ageing in society is unfortunately accompanied by symptoms of chronic disease. Whittling away at life quality, resulting disabilities can be improved by disease prevention when applied throughout life, not just when disease manifests itself.

In an interview, Professor Stefania Boccia, PRECeDI project coordinator, explains the importance of the work which has received positive attention from the EU and end users. There is also very encouraging feedback through social media and a corresponding increase in personalised medicine.

Specifically, the PRECeDI project is cited as an example of the most recent Success Stories from EU Research and Innovation as recognition of how PRECeDi has managed to involve healthcare professionals, authorities and researchers. It has also been featured on the European Commission’s CORDIS website.

“On a very positive note, I received an award from the International Consortium Awards for Personalised Medicine ICPerMed for the outstanding results of the PRECeDi project and I am going to present the results during the 2nd ICPerMed workshop in November 2019 in Madrid,” she says. “A total of 38 proposals were submitted and I am one of the eight to be selected to give a poster presentation.”

The following is the full interview with Stefania Boccia.

 

What problem does PRECeDi tackle? What need does it serve?

Chronic diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases and Alzheimer’s disease impose a burden on society as a whole, from patient to healthcare authorities. There are a large number of patients worldwide and we would endeavour to engage them in pursuing a healthy lifestyle, moderate alcohol, take in a healthy diet and increase exercise. To date, preventive care currently uses a one size fits all approach, so that more innovation is needed in this context.

The PRECeDi project has focused on genetic and genomic applications for the prevention of chronic diseases, aiming to define a framework for their introduction in healthcare systems. There are available today genetic tests that detect inherited germline sequencing that predispose individuals to inherited forms of chronic disease such as cancer or cardiovascular diseases. Although for most of them, clinical utility has been demonstrated, their implementation in healthcare practice is lagging behind (e.g., BRCA testing for hereditary breast cancer, or mismatch gene repair mutations for Lynch Syndrome).

On the other hand, genomic testing that uses millions of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to produce a so called “Polygenic Risk Score” has recently captured an enormous attention from the scientific community and the media, without robust demonstration that their use can produce a clinical benefit, the so-called “clinical utility”.

Although I feel very optimistic about the future, the PRECeDI project has focused on how genetic and genomic testing could be incorporated in current healthcare practice, based on the available evidence, and who should pay for these programmes.

We reported this example to our PRECeDI partners as a best practice example of capacity building. These include how to conduct and interpret genomic tests and how to use them in the field. Another relevant pillar for capacity building is to reach citizens in the lower economic brackets who are potential victims of inequality when it comes to omics science and its incorporation into healthcare. These people may not have the resources and fall outside the insurance net so may not be able to avail of the latest advances in genomic testing for preventive and personalised medicine.

 

What are some notable results that have been achieved so far?

The PRECeDI project focused on the five fundamental aspects that must be addressed for the implementation of the omics sciences in prevention: the identification of biomarkers and their use based on the best evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, ethical legal and policy aspects in personalised medicine, sociotechnical analyses and identification of appropriate organisational models, as well as the training of all health professionals, policymakers and citizens. From the scientific domains of the project, five recommendations have emerged that describe the operational framework within which all the new technologies based on the omics sciences can be introduced in health prevention.

Implementation of the recommendations will benefit citizens, patients, healthcare professionals, healthcare authorities and industry and ultimately seek to contribute to better state of health for Europe’s citizens.

 

What are the overall benefits of PRECeDi?

The fellows have benefited enormously from both a personal and professional point of view. They received a chance to work outside their normal environment and make collaborations that will stand them in good stead throughout their future careers. In particular, researchers who were seconded into industry benefited from experience in a non-academic environment. When they came back, the consensus of opinion was that they had no idea previously what went on outside the academic environment.

 

What is the expected impact of PRECeDi?

Personalised medicine has become a reality through the use of biomarkers and increasingly sophisticated technologies in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases. However, this is not the case in the field of chronic disease prevention where instead the impact in terms of health gain and sustainability of health systems has enormous potential. Chronic diseases are the main cause of morbidity and mortality in Europe, and between 40 % to 80 % are preventable as they are attributable to four main risk factors, namely smoking, alcohol, inappropriate diet and physical inactivity.

Recently the European Commission organised a seminar entitled ‘Incorporating innovation in healthcare systems: digital innovation and the value of prevention’. This underlines the high level of expectation on the innovative potential that the omics sciences together with the digital ones can have in the field of health prevention, making it more effective and cost-effective.

 

What is the latest news about the project?

On the basis of the achievements of PRECeDi, we, with 17 partners, have applied and secured further Marie Curie funding to take us through the next 4 years with the ExACT (European network staff eXchange for integrAting precision health in the health Care sysTems) project. ExACT will consolidate the partnership among collaborating institutions in the form of joint research and innovation activities across the following five domains of precision health.