Making of a science guru …
Eric Lander was a Brooklyn-born math whiz kid. At 17, he won a science talent search contest. He graduated from Princeton with a BA in Mathematics. Earning a Rhodes scholarship, his PhD from Oxford was in mathematics. While teaching economics at Harvard Business School, he studied neurobiology, microbiology and genetics on the way toward a much different career. That supplementary training drove him to genomic research in 1986 at the origins. He taught at MIT and became one of the leaders of its Broad Institute.
At age 30, he won a MacArthur fellowship, dubbed the “genius award.” Besides early work on the Human Genome Project and CRISPR gene editing techniques, he launched at least two for-profit companies translating genome research findings (for which he holds patents) to patient care, one through cancer-treating drug development. His reported wealth is in excess of $45 million. To his credit, he serves on the Board of the Innocence Project after providing expert testimony on the group’s behalf in a legal case.
Lander is firmly established in the academic pantheon, showered with numerous awards and ratings placing him at #1 or #2 in the world in the genomic reserch field. The accolades led him to remorselessly treat rivals with disdain and rancor. His critics, recipients of his wrath called him “Eric Slander.”
The point of understanding his background is to recognize the source of his confidence in his narcissistic entitlement. In his mind, who could compare? One can wonder if he was a cocky, arrogant teen. But by the time Joe Biden met him, he was most certainly considered “brilliant,” with the caveat that he could be “difficult.” As with all high-profile, politically connected bullies, all that endorsers and supporters choose to hear or see is “brilliance.” The reputation for toxic interpersonal relationships with peers and subordinates is all too easy to disregard.
Road to the White House …
While Lander was at the MIT Broad Institute, Bruce Reed, the once president of the overarching Broad Foundation, shared an orbit with him. Reed is currently serving as deputy chief of staff in the White House. VP Joe Biden in the Obama administration launched a pet project, the Biden Cancer Initiative. Lander was invited to serve on its Board. So, when President Biden took office, he nominated his close friend Lander to direct the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and to serve as his personal science advisor.
The OSTP is a small bureaucracy of 140 staff within the Executive Office of the President (EOP). Remarkably, Biden elevated OSTP directorship the President’s Cabinet, perhaps because of his closeness to Lander. Lander required Senate confirmation. He was confirmed by voice vote but not until he was challenged (by Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth) to apologize for previously discounting the work of two women researchers (who won the Nobel prize for their contributions to CRISPR advances and who engaged in patent disputes with Lander). There was also some questionable contact with Jeffrey Epstein, but most everyone rich and famous intersected with the pedophile.
Please understand that Lander enjoys what we call at WBI “Executive Sponsorship.” That is, if or when bullying is reported, the higher-ups — Reed and Biden — in Lander’s case will find a way to defend or deflect the accusations. Sponsors need not be actual executives. In Lander’s case, a POTUS had his back.
In normal times, complainants about harassment or mistreatment face institutional gaslighting and demeaning. Jennifer Freyd called the process — DARVO. First employers deny the charges. Then, complainants are vilified and demonized. Their characters are assassinated. Then, the most remarkable thing happens — roles are reversed by the accused back by employers. The actual, true victim is portrayed as the offender, making the accused bully the fake victim. This sounds shocking, but the process is followed for all government whistleblowers. DARVO describes the retaliation all complainants suffer. This strange series of predictable events results in the exit of complainants, not people accused of bullying.
DARVO used to be outrageous and shocking. I fear societally, we are normalizing the reversed world where truth and science are treated as opinions, denied by so many of our fellow Americans.
Positive steps taken to block DARVO in the EOP
When Biden swore-in individuals (on a zoom screen) joining his administration on day one, he pledged to “fire on the spot, no ifs, ands, or buts” anyone who treats another person with disrespect. I was certainly excited to hear such a bold proclamation. Here’s the video of his promise. (https://youtu.be/y-PN1WWVo4g)
Shortly after taking office, the EOP promulgated a “Safe and Respectful Workplace Policy” for the OSTP. It prohibits “repeated behavior that a reasonable individual would find disrespectful, intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive.” It covers bullying and degrading conduct that does not involve discriminatory conduct (e.g., status-based harassment). There is also a provision prohibiting exclusion from “meetings, conversations and assignments,” an anti-ostracism clause. The text of the policy is hiding from google’s tenacles. However, other agencies have policy extensions to include mistreatment above and beyond harassment.
In other words, the EOP, as employer, declared bullying unacceptable behavior. That step alone goes further than nearly every U.S. employer. All that’s left to effect the desired change is to faithfully enforce the policy when violations are confirmed. That second step is also rare.
Landers’ lifelong bullying manifests at OSTP, Surprised?
Into the OSTP with career, non-appointed staff came the wunderkind, Eric Lander, science god. He began work at the start of May 2021. His tenure lasted a mere nine months.
The inside view of Lander as leader comes from the reports of 14 employees who shared illustrations of his cruelty with the author of a Politico article that ran on the morning of February 7, 2022. The accounts of abusive conduct included:
– being positive and ebullient with outsiders, changing moods when behind closed doors (Jekyll and Hyde)
– laughed or taunted subordinates in front of other colleagues
– asked questions that are obviously not in the person’s area of expertise until they admit they don’t know the answer
– bullies both men and women, but takes delight in trying to embarrass female colleagues in front of others
– retaliated against staff for speaking out
– asked questions by calling people names, disparaging them, embarrassing them in front of their peers
– asks the same question over and over, getting louder and louder each time
– yells, screams, everyone is afraid of him
– shunning staff
– taking away a person’s duties, replacing them or driving them out of the agency
– women have been left in tears, traumatized, and feeling vulnerable and isolated
Lander sometimes feigned contrition: said one staffer, “After repeatedly insulting and humiliating me in front of colleagues, Lander acknowledged his inability to control himself, telling me ‘I hate that I do it’.” But not so much that he stopped.
No one had ever made him stop. He was open and brazen, knowing he had support from the top.
This was his lifelong pattern. Why would anyone be surprised?
Rachel Wallace, successful complainant
Ms. Wallace worked at the OSTP during both Obama and Trump administrations. She was an EOP veteran since the Clinton administration. She served as both general counsel and chief operating officer at OSTP. Bullies tend to identify the go-to expert on-site and launch a focused campaign to destroy and undermine that person. It makes no sense, but bullying is an illogical, unreasonable phenomenon. This might have been what Lander did to Wallace. He demoted her to deputy counsel.
Wallace filed a complaint against Lander and “other OSTP leadership” in September, claiming violations of the “Safe and Respectful Workplace Policy.” The investigation took two months. An investigation followed. I assume it was conducted by internal White House staff because the person who reported the findings was Christian Peele, White House deputy director of management and administration for personnel (a long title for HR).
The finding was not the typical brush-off conclusion of “personality style differences.” To the EOP’s credit, Peele reported in a January briefing that the investigation found “credible evidence of disrespectful interactions with staff by Dr. Lander and OSTP leadership.” His misconduct was not “gender-based discrimination.” Lander was an equal opportunity offender. Several staff provided testimony, often granted anonymity for their safety. There was convergence of perceptions. The picture of Lander as abuser was clear.
“Corrective action” was warranted and ostensibly taken, according to the White House.
The failed institutional response
The White House said “leadership” (whoever that is, did it include President Biden?) met with Lander. The “corrective action” seems to have been left up to Lander to implement. In other words, he was told correct himself because the President expects it. This is a 65 year old man with a long track record of narcissistic behavior. How was he supposed to change? More important, why would he change with no pressure from POTUS to do so?
Delays are part of this story. The two-month investigation was completed in December. That meant it did not begin until one month after the complaint was filed. The holidays passed allowing another month to pass before a January briefing about the investigation’s findings.
Despite a confirmed violation of the policy with “Respectful Workplace” in its title AND despite Biden’s very public pronouncement that disrespectful actors would be fired “on the spot,” Lander remained OSTP director until his self-designated resignation date of Feb. 18. When Biden said termination with no if’s, and’s or but’s would result, he meant but for his revered confidante and buddy Dr. Lander.
Word reached Lander that Politico reporter Alex Thompson was preparing a damning article about the fiasco. We know this because on Friday Feb. 4 before release of the article on Monday Feb. 7, Lander wrote an “apologetic” email to staff regarding his “disrespectful or demeaning way” of speaking to staff.
Rachel Wallace blasted the half-hearted email as “disingenuous. It compounded the deep hurt and damage he has caused by ignoring these other acts of aggression, harassment and retaliation.” To her, this was no apology.
According to the transcript of the White House press briefing on Feb. 7, press secretary Jen Psaki actually said that Lander’s compliance with the unspecified “corrective actions” would be monitored moving forward. She confirmed that Lander had been allowed to outline his personal plan to build a respectful work environment at OSTP. Why was he still working despite the POTUS pledge to terminate? Because he was vetted by the Senate confirmation process. Huh?
Later that day, Lander crafted his letter of resignation, not to take effect until 11 days later. He characterized his actions as pushing colleagues to reach goals, sometimes “challenging and criticizing.” That’s “org speak” for justifying what “leaders” must do. He admitted guilt about the way he said things to people. But, as all bullies profess when caught, “that was never my intention.” His one genuine admission was that “it was my fault and my responsibility.” Yes. That’s true.
[Don’t cry for Lander. He is no victim. He can return to his two positions: professor of biology at MIT and professor of systems biology at Harvard Medical School. Wondering if either of those institutions have policies to shield staff from Lander’s wrath certain to play out there. They better prepare themselves.]
The first step to accountability is when offenders take personal responsibility.
However, the institution of the EOP did not fulfill its leader’s promise in a responsible manner.
Yes, a good policy that extended protections against mistreatment beyond the narrow guidelines for discriminatory misconduct was written — Safe and Respectful Workplace. Yes, an investigation of complaints was done. The EOP did not DARVO Rachel Wallace like Eric Lander did. And finally, the findings reflected the reality of the toxic work environment Lander created for OSTP staff.
However, the EOP gets failing grades for delaying the start of the investigation. Why did it take two months to speak with between nine and 14 staff? Then, why were the findings held for another month after the fact finding ended?
EOP deserves no credit for pushing the complaint out of public view without press scrutiny, treating it as an HR-level concern. Lander’s political experience has been shaped by Reed and Biden. His misdeeds should be their concern and their responsibility to fix. OSTP is probably too small an agency to have its own HR office. That’s why Peele from the White House got involved. But Peele is HR. HR in no organization has the authority to hold an agency director accountable. Lander outranked Peele.
It was up to Reed or Biden to terminate Lander. Oops. They were the bully’s sponsors and enablers. Therein lies the explanation for allowing Lander to self-correct without any adverse consequences, despite being guilty of violating the policy.
Ironically, Lander attended a public presentation after the investigation and after the confirmed violations in which Biden put Lander in charge of his “cancer moonshot” project. I hope Biden was not aware of Lander’s transgressions. HR feels obligated to “protect” executives from negative news. Biden needs to tell Peele and White House counsel he needs to be notified in the future of similar cases. If Biden was aware, did he think the meek self-correction decision was adequate?
My reading between the lines of news accounts is that complaints were made about others in OSTP leadership. Were these colleagues of Landers who followed him into government service? If so, they certainly would be loyal sycophants of his, accustomed to, and approving of, his management “style” that had been deemed unacceptable. If they are not removed also, the toxic work environment at OSTP will likely continue. Stay tuned. Lopping off the leader’s head is rarely sufficient to restore safety and health to a workplace.
In conclusion, EOP’s most tragic failure was to expose 140 people to a tyrannical boss who inflicted stress-related health damage with impunity. As the months passed when EOP dithered over the investigation, reporting the findings and waiting for Lander to self-correct, people suffered. Rachel Wallace knew this. Bullying is not simply about the litany of tactics and shenanigans, it’s about the health-harming destructive consequences of abusive conduct. Before OSTP can move on, healing has to take place.
