Or maybe people can have a second chance, or maybe there are more details that they know about and we don’t. Maybe a talented scientist shouldn’t have the rest of their life thrown away even if they did make a mistake.

I'd think a second chance would start with him admitting a mistake rather than suing the victims. It's unlikely to go better if he doesn't want to learn from the past.

He denies any wrongdoing. He was never convicted of anything. How can you be so certain that he has anything to apologize for at all?

Three separate organizations (HHMI, Whitehead, MIT) investigated and concluded he did. He also resigned from MIT rather than having tenure revoked, which also seems like he knew there was at least some merit to the claims.

Now, it's possible that one of the lawsuits will reveal some information which discredits those investigations but that's a pretty relatively low probability. Occam's razor suggests that the successful guy in a position of authority took advantage of that stature like so many before him.

All of these institutions have a vested interest in making a PR disaster go away. Resigning says nothing about the truth of the claims as it can be really hard to defend yourself against institutions with bottomless lawyers who are out for your blood. And, if all the testimony is just internal people, they can be pressured quite effectively.

To contrast, billionaires assume that they are going to get a return. If they believe that the money is going to all be wasted because the principal is a skirt chasing horndog, they are not going to invest.

None of any of this says anything about truth or justice.

Things get especially messy when consensual relationships are involved. He was apparently married to a fellow staffer (not a subordinate) and it looks like the breakup is at the center of this. Ever seen what people will do in the middle of a divorce?

Too many harassers get away with stuff, but we have also seen people pulled apart by the mob who were innocent. And the innocent need far more protection than they are given right now.

And, if the institutions suddenly decide to settle out of court, will we declare that as evidence that they went after the innocent and then send the mob after the institutions, instead? I have yet to see this.

Since things seem to be plowing through a court of law, I'll withold becoming part of the mob, thanks.

> All of these institutions have a vested interest in making a PR disaster go away.

This is true, but they do have counter pressure from the risk of lawsuits, and conservative donors. No university is lightly getting rid of a high-profile researcher who has brought in a ton of money. They may conclude that it’s worth it but I’m certain a lot of people debated what to do internally first.

> To contrast, billionaires assume that they are going to get a return. If they believe that the money is going to all be wasted because the principal is a skirt chasing horndog, they are not going to invest.

Perhaps, but consider that the return might be something hard to quantify. For someone at Bill Ackman‘a net worth this kind of money is like someone here giving someone an iPad. If you had a personal or philosophical interest, that’s a gamble but not a big one and I’m sure he’s going to find a tax advantageous way for his foundation even if it’s otherwise a bust.

Now, I don’t know the guy so I can’t say whether he’s guilty and that’s what the legal process is for in any case but I will note that so far there seems to be a much greater number of guys who actually did the things they were accused of than who were falsely accused. The career risk and difficulty of reporting harassment has a strong disincentive.

> I will note that so far there seems to be a much greater number of guys who actually did the things they were accused of than who were falsely accused.

So we now dispense "stochastic justice"? You're probably guilty because you are in a specific group so we'll just proclaim it by fiat?

Sadly, a lot of people think just like you do. And they get very upset when they are on the wrong side of the pointy stick because someone with authority claims they are in the wrong group.

You will always be in the wrong group for somebody. The only difference is that there is no defense if your beliefs are in charge and those people get power over you.

No, just that I’m going to assume that three separate investigations were not rigged in perfect secrecy until there’s some evidence. I don’t have any impact on him or his career so I don’t have a motivation or ability to do an independent investigation, but my default assumption is that this case is inline with the past evidence showing that credible false accusations are quite rare.

He has not been convicted of any criminal wrongdoing, so I see no reason for him to be barred from his career.

What is the rational for preventing him from working in a lab anyway? Because women might work in that lab and he might try to have a sexual relationship with them? If so, then what sort of job do you think he should be allowed to have? Burger flipper? Sorry, women often work in McDonalds kitchens too, he might try to have a sexual relationship with them. Construction worker? Women work in construction. Destitute bum dying under a bridge? I suppose that's the only line of work you think suitable for him. Wanting him damned to such a fate without so much as a criminal conviction is simply abhorrent.

You don't need to break the law to have something for which to apologize for, do you?

He apparently broke the rules of his org. He hid his relationship with a student, who now says she was coerced into the relationship.

Is that not something that might deserve apology?

When does the "second chance" clock start, the first time you do something heinous or when you get caught? How many "mistakes" (Really? "Mistake"?) does that first chance cover?

I kinda missed, did this biologist served some time or was he convicted?

Don't you know that accusations are just as good as convictions^? According to some other comments in this discussion, he has been so thoroughly accused that he is now "disgraced" and funding him is "evil".

^ Except of course when they aren't. When they are or aren't depends entirely on the politics of the beholder, and woe unto you if you ever get it wrong.

> Or maybe people can have a second chance

Second chances for people are great. And the way to get a second chance is to to follow a simple three-step process:

1. Admit guilt.

2. Express remorse.

3. Make amends.

So far, he's not reached step 1, he's still in step 0, which is deny everything and threaten everyone around you with lawsuits. That's not quite asking for a second chance.

Fine. But who came up with these rules? And why does Ackman have to comply?

> But who came up with these rules?

Who came up with second chances? You have a receipt for it?

> And why does Ackman have to comply?

He doesn't have to do anything, but nobody has to extend him an olive branch, either.

This view honestly lacks perspective. Based on his history of scientific achievement Sabatini is likely to make further meaningful breakthroughs that will benefit us all. The difference is that those people with the same or better research output are already employed somewhere outputting research. Of the unemployed pool of labor this guy is likely the cream of the crop and getting him setup and doing research again will likely have a much higher return than incrementing the research budget of any of those already working Biologists.

Further, what the hell happened to America? America used to understand how high the benefit of scientific advancement was. Hell, America naturalized actual nazis and shielded them from prosecution in the name of pushing scientific progress not that many decades ago. Now everyone is on board with permanently and utterly derailing a productive academic over some he said she said BS that has not resulted in any actual charges, only civil suits and counter-suits??? Must be nice being so privileged that one can afford to spit in scientific advancement's face.

Yeah, it’s spending a lot of money to start a lab that:

- will probably be stonewalled out of any collaboration with reputable universities (because his reputation is so toxic),

- will have trouble attracting talent (because his reputation is so toxic),

- people will be ready to believe any sort of accusation of impropriety coming out of that lab from sexual harassment to more general academic fraud (because his reputation is so toxic).