When Mentors Lie, Cheat and Steal and Institutions Cover Up

Open letter to Phil Murphy (Governor, NJ), Brian Bridges (Secretary of Higher Education, NJ), Francis Collins (Director, National Institutes of Health) and Jonathan Holloway (President, Rutgers)

By Nadia Rachdaoui, Ph.D.

April 22, 2021

Re: Professor Dipak Kumar Sarkar’s research misconduct and inability to provide mentorship

Dear Mr. Murphy and Drs. Bridges, Collins and Holloway,

To secure a faculty position, scientists (in biomedical fields) are expected to develop independent research programs that are funded by federal agencies such as the National Institute of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF) or other organizations, i.e. the American Diabetes Association and the American Heart Association. Funding agencies look for novel ideas, supporting data and peer-reviewed publications, continuity of performance helps one accumulate experience and therein become a competitive candidate. However, unique circumstances add extra challenges towards reaching one’s goal of obtaining a position in academia. I faced this head on. Herein, I outline my experiences to shed light on the roles that mentors and institutions play in developing the next generation of scientists.

In 2009, I was confronted with an important decision as my spouse relocated to New Jersey. During the transition we had a 2 year old and I was 5 months pregnant, I paused my career (in the biomedical field) while we were getting settled. It was bitter-sweet. Since productivity in science is associated with publications, I knew that fulfilling my motherly responsibilities would affect my credentials and that the scientific community would likely be unforgiving of my circumstances. I did what I did but I maintained hope that one day I could make a comeback.

Indeed, in 2012, I discovered a one of a kind program from the NIH geared towards helping scientists in my position to re-enter the field where they left off (ref 1). The re-entry grant expects that a senior investigator will advise and guide a junior investigator as (s)he restarts their career, mentoring should give the junior investigator a reasonable chance to secure their own funding and therein make them competitive for an independent position.

I inquired with potential faculty in New Jersey who’s expertise aligned with my research background. Dr. Dipak Kumar Sarkar (Rutgers, Board of Governor and Distinguished Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, SEBS) showed interest. After we met and discussed my application for the NIH re-entry supplement he sought and obtained approval from his department and the Dean of SEBS, I received a faculty title (a first-step towards the goal of applying for the re-entry grant). Unfortunately, the NIH budget was sequestered at that time and my application could not be supported. Seeing this roadblock, early in 2013, I proposed to write an NIH R21 grant, another type of award that is not limited to leftover NIH budget (where the re-entry grant is paid). Dr. Sarkar was very interested. I conceived new ideas for my research which capitalized on work I had done before my hiatus and which could be applied to models used in Dr. Sarkar’s lab, I knew this represented another viable path for me to re-enter the biomedical field. By July 2013 I wrote the R21 and Dr. Sarkar submitted it to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). Although the experiments were my ideas, the proposal was submitted jointly (I was co-investigator), I placed trust in my mentor since my return to academia was largely in his hands.

While the R21 was under review, we learned that the NIAAA funded the re-entry award and I would officially start with Dr. Sarkar (in September of 2014). While working in the lab, and knowing that the re-entry award was just a first-step (with a limited timeline), I revised the R21 proposal which was eventually funded in July 2016. After pausing my career in 2009 I was finally back, I had proven that I could develop new ideas, perform experiments and contribute to the field. The R21 grant would provide funding for the next 2 years; although this was a truly exciting time it was a precarious situation, I would need to work fast and collect more data for what would be yet another round of funding requests which could help secure an independent position in academia. Unfortunately, this is where the nightmare began.

The R21 funding started in August of 2016 but Dr. Sarkar immediately dissuaded me from performing certain experiments/analyses that were outlined in the proposal. This hindered my progress and was counter-intuitive to the path we had set forward to reestablish my career. He also designated himself as the sole financial manager and contact for the R21 funds. His control of the money and his authority over my position interfered with my ability to do critical analyses and therein publish in a timely manner, this negatively impacted my ability to craft a strong application for subsequent funding and therefore blocked my chances of becoming an independent investigator. The picture became clear in 2017 when he submitted a progress report to the NIH where he stated that mentoring was not applicable. This was in stark contrast to the letters he wrote to the NIH when we applied for funding, where he explained the career plan that he crafted for me to secure the NIH re-entry award and the R21 funding.

Time was passing and my concerns grew, the R21 funding would end in July 2018 and my career was in serious jeopardy. In February of 2018, I spoke with Dr. Wendie Cohick (Chair, Animal Sciences, Rutgers), there was no oversight from her or the Dean of SEBS (Dr. Robert Goodman) regarding my career advancement. I raised my concerns regarding interactions with Dr. Sarkar and I informed her that as a multiple PI, I had the right and the responsibility to access and oversee expenses on the R21. Rutgers policies towards post-award management only allows the contact PI (in this case Dr. Sarkar) to access and manage the funds. Therefore, I was never notified, neither did I receive any reports from the financial managers about expenses on the R21. Again, I placed my trust in Dr. Sarkar when I started, as a mentor he should support my effort; unfortunately, this is where the situation really began to unravel.

Dr. Cohick reviewed the expense reports, although she would not give me access she made it clear that Dr. Sarkar misused the funds. I wanted to alert the Dean of SEBS (Dr. Robert Goodman) and the NIH but Dr. Cohick cautioned against such action. She insisted that this would have a devastating effect on my career and bring little consequence to Dr. Sarkar since he was already established. Dr. Cohick outlined several mechanisms that she could use to help reset my career (i.e. provide teaching opportunities, mentoring and connections with collaborators). Wanting to remediate this locally, without alerting higher officials at Rutgers, Dr. Cohick came up with a plan to recover the money from Dr. Sarkar.

Dr. Sarkar argued that there was no money left and that my position would be terminated in July 2018. Dr. Cohick then involved the financial manager of our department (Mr. Damien Carol-Debose) and I eventually learned the true extent of the funding fraud. Dr. Sarkar began stealing the funds almost immediately after we obtained the grant in 2016. I now understood why he was so insistent that I change the planned work – he took the money to support himself on unrelated research, including on extensive salary support for individuals not on the R21 project. Finally, in June of 2018, Dr. Sarkar was caught, he could no longer deny what happened and a portion of the misspent money was transferred back. Unfortunately, the delays that I incurred as a result of Dr. Sarkar’s interference with my career, as well as the attempts by Dr. Cohick to locally remediate the problem had now cost too much time and there was little I could do to get back on track.

As 2018-2019 evolved it became clear that I would likely not realize my career goal. Dr. Cohick did not keep her promises, I had not been given any teaching responsibilities, or provided the mentoring I needed to advance my career. I then filed a formal complaint with Rutgers’ Office of Research Integrity. In short, Rutgers concluded that this did not warrant an official investigation and nothing was done to remedy my situation. However, the inquiry panel noted the following:

“Given Dr. Rachdaoui’s fundamental role in project design and writing of this funded R21 and her official status as a PI on the grant, both collegial norms and NIH policy dictate better communication and attempts at mutual agreement that moves the science forward than appear to have transpired in this case. In addition, Dr. Sarkar lost the opportunity to productively mentor a junior member in laboratory management. The Inquiry Panel finds this detrimental research practice troubling. The Inquiry Panel recommends to the Senior Vice President for Research that this report be shared with Dr. Wendie Cohick who is department chair for this area, so that she is made fully aware of the detrimental research practices outlined in this Inquiry Report.”

Despite these statements, again, Dr. Cohick did nothing. I then filed a Title IX complaint with Rutgers’ Office of Employment Equity, I presented the evidence but had no success with justice. Effectively, I was done and my career as an academic was finished. Again, some clear statements by Rutgers’ Coordinator (Ms. Dellatore) were found in the summary report including:

“According to Dr. Cohick, Dr. Sarkar saw post-docs and graduate students as tools for his own research, and treated Dr. Rachdaoui accordingly. She explained that this mentality is very common in scientific research but “it’s not right.” Because Dr. Sarkar did not prioritize mentorship, there were three scientists in his lab with Dr. Rachdaoui and “none of them will ever be independent.” However, Dr. Cohick observed that only Dr. Rachdaoui had aspirations to do her own independent research”.

Ms Dellatore also added:

“In Dr. Cohick’s opinion, Dr. Sarkar’s deficiencies in mentoring should preclude him from training graduate students. Indeed, she has received so many complaints about Dr. Sarkar that she recently undertook to interview all of his post-doctoral students from the past three years. A common theme in her interviews was that Dr. Sarkar used students for his own research instead of promoting their own interests. Several students were not pleased with their experiences with him,”.

As I now try to pick up the pieces of my broken dreams, I have several questions. First, given the summary statements in my Title IX filing - How did Rutgers support Dr. Sarkar when he applied for a T32 NIH mentoring award? The Inquiry Panel and the Title IX reports clearly established that Dr. Sarkar is a self-serving, abusive faculty who is unfit to mentor. They unequivocally acknowledged his incompetence as a teacher. He interfered with my career and his actions destroyed what was likely my last chance to attain a faculty position. What is troubling here is that in order for Dr. Sarkar to receive this T32 funding (ref 2), his application would have been submitted towards the end of 2018 or early 2019 and would have required support letters from Rutgers. Officials within Rutgers knew the fraud committed by Dr. Sarkar and the impact on my career and yet somehow his application was supported. I suspect that Rutgers is putting other trainees’ careers in jeopardy and strong oversight is needed to limit further damage to the next generation of scientists.

Second, I would like a copy of the final accounting report surrounding my R21. When I filed my complaint with Rutgers’ Office of Research Integrity, an internal audit was conducted but I never received a summary statement. This is important since I outlined the money misappropriation when submitting the NIH final progress report regarding the R21. I know that Dr. Sarkar removed my statements from the report, he falsified the conclusions and Rutgers signed off when they closed the account with NIH.

Last, I would like a final decision surrounding my Title IX case.

This letter may be my final opportunity to seek justice. While other women’s re-entry into academia was celebrated (i.e. Anandi Krishnan, Stanford University, ref 3), Rutgers created unsurmountable obstacles as I aimed to re-establish my career. They intentionally disregarded Dr. Sarkar’s malicious actions and my precarious situation. I have tried to exhaust all options within Rutgers and have no choice but to publicly seek action surrounding my case. It is important that government officials and funding agencies hear my story so they might provide better oversight and accountability. It is also important for young and new investigators to become aware of the hidden challenges and roadblocks imposed by corrupt mentors and complacent educational institutions; the next generation of scientists needs to protect itself and seek help as soon as possible. Initiatives to promote “STEM” programs are wonderful, but there is an urgent need to establish mechanisms to prevent the derailment of scientific careers and ensure successful retention in academia. Ironically, I slowed my career to help my children get started. They like “STEM”. What do I tell them?

References

1. PA-18-592, Research Supplements to Promote Re-Entry into Biomedical and Behavioral Research Careers.

2. Molecular Neuroscience of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Research Training (MNADRT) program(https://mnadrt.rutgers.edu/mentors/),

https://reporter.nih.gov/search/Jngo0xs62EiJGsCBgeCvAg/project-details/9982731

3. https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2017/10/stanford-staffer-jumps-back-into-research-with-help-of-nih-grant.html