Title: Spotlight on Sexual Misconduct at the Aquatic Sciences Meeting
Abstract: Opening plenary highlights the threat of sexual harassment to scientific progress, and what can be done to eliminate it In her plenary talk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sOBn2XQMT0) on Monday kicking off the 2017 Aquatic Sciences Meeting in Honolulu, Marcia McNutt posed the question, “Are we selecting for the best and brightest, or the toughest and most determined?” Her words reflected the data she had just presented on the persistent dearth of women in senior positions in scientific fields—despite significant progress toward gender parity at early career stages—and the recent high-profile incidents of sexual harassment and assault in science which revealed widespread institutional failures (http://wapo.st/2nrHUHJ) to hold perpetrators accountable. Bringing such stories and data out for public dialogue has inspired many institutions, including ASLO, to grapple with the issue of gender equity in the sciences. McNutt's presentation highlighted many ways that institutions and individuals can work to move the needle on preventing gender bias, harassment, and assault in science. McNutt, who recently became the first woman president of the National Academy of Sciences, added her personal perspective from her career as a scientific leader that many of her female peers had exceptional experiences early in their careers which fostered a sense of grit and of belonging to the scientific community, such as attending a women's college or her own experience going through Navy SEAL training. McNutt suggested that such experiences may equip and motivate women to persist in scientific careers in spite of obstacles such as professional double standards or harassment from colleagues and mentors. Persistence in the face of harmful behavior, which may embolden some, while alienating and discouraging others, should not be a unique requirement of women scientists, and it cannot insulate women from all instances of sexual misconduct (used hereafter to refer to harassment or assault). For some in the audience, statistics such as the proportion of scientists in senior roles who are women (15%) or the stories of serial sexual harassers who were protected by their institutions were familiar. For others, they painted a disturbing picture of a professional culture which fails to live up to its own values of equal opportunity and meritocracy. As past ASLO president Jim Elser commented in his introductory remarks, his initial reaction to becoming more aware of this issue was frustration: How can I do anything about this? But Elser came to realize that, as a leader in his field, he wielded the power to institute policies and move his colleagues to shift the aquatic science community toward a culture of zero tolerance for sexual misconduct. For those ASLO members asking themselves how they can contribute to this shift, McNutt and Elser offered many concrete suggestions. First, for scientists in leadership positions such as department chairs, society presidents, and project leaders, ensuring members of your organization agree to specific standards of professional behavior provides clear policies that help prevent and respond to sexual misconduct. Elser described how, as director of the Flathead Lake Biological Station, he led the implementation of a new code of conduct for users of the field station. McNutt likewise referred to new policies on sexual violence and sexual harassment implemented by her institutions, the University of California at San Diego and Scripps Institution of Oceanography. [Correction made here after initial online publication.] To make such policies effective, they should include mandatory training about how to recognize, respond to, and prevent sexual misconduct. They should be transparent and explicit in laying out the process for evaluating allegations of misconduct and what consequences or sanctions will be taken against individuals found to have violated the policy (such as restriction from future use of a field station). They should also outline clear, confidential reporting mechanisms for whistleblowers so that the responsibility for preventing sexual misconduct rests not only with the victim, but with all community members. In parallel with such policies, scientific leaders should advocate for policies in recruitment, hiring, and promotion that eliminate bias. By using your position of leadership and authority to spearhead such policies, a senior scientist communicates to the entire organization that sexual misconduct is a serious issue and will not be tolerated. McNutt highlighted certain issues that particularly face scientists working in the field, where institutional resources are less readily available, local laws may be different from those at home, and scientists may be working with colleagues from many different institutions. In this setting, allegations of sexual misconduct raise questions of how to involve the accused person's institution or law enforcement, and what authority the host institution or research vessel has to sanction a perpetrator. These are some of the questions being considered by the University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) as it works to develop its “Improving the Gender Climate at Sea” program. Another way senior scientists can promote an atmosphere of zero tolerance for sexual misconduct is by withdrawing professional support for colleagues who have been found guilty of sexual misconduct. McNutt told the story of Bernard Wood, a prominent anthropologist who was disturbed to learn of a pattern of sexual harassment of young women scientists (http://bit.ly/1op1FQb) by his colleague Brian Richmond. Wood, who had provided numerous professional references for Richmond over the course of his career, publicly stated that he would no longer support his colleague's professional advancement and he had barred Richmond from using a major field site in Africa, where Richmond had assaulted multiple female students. Such strong public statements send a powerful message to the entire field, and promote a safe environment for women who participate in field research. On an individual level, regardless of your status or career stage, all scientists can help promote a more inclusive scientific culture. First, you can educate yourself about the evidence of gender bias in the sciences and the specific situations of exclusion and harassment many women experience that lead some to conclude that they are not welcome in the scientific community. A starting point for building your own awareness and understanding of these issues is reviewing McNutt's plenary talk and diving into the resources available online (for example, information and tools compiled by ASLO and AGU). Second, you can be vocal to your peers in supporting policies like those described above. Does your institution, department, or field station have a code of conduct and policies that address preventing, recognizing, and responding to sexual misconduct? If so, familiarize yourself with the policies and resources and talk to your colleagues and students to make sure they are aware of them. If not, notify your colleagues and institution leadership that United States federal law (Title IX and the Violence Against Women Act) mandates that colleges and universities have sexual harassment and sexual assault policies, reporting structures, resources, and prevention strategies. Third, you can get in touch with your institution's Title IX or Equal Employment Opportunity office (the exact name will vary between institutions and countries) to ask what recommendations they have for learning more about these issues. Establishing a contact in these offices is also an important step in maintaining open channels of communication between your department or research group and the people responsible for handling allegations of workplace discrimination and misconduct. Finally, you can make it known to your colleagues that you do not tolerate sexual misconduct and stand ready to help anyone who is experiencing harassment or assault however you can. Eliminating sexual misconduct and gender bias in the sciences will require ongoing effort from all members of the scientific community at every level, from individual actions to institutional policies (Box 1). ASLO is working to contribute to these efforts by engaging members in the issues through events such as McNutt's plenary and by implementing stronger policies for its own activities. We believe we can have the strongest impact by focusing on issues that are specifically relevant to aquatic scientists, which is why we have emphasized the unique challenges of field research to addressing sexual misconduct. ASLO has just released a Code of Conduct for ASLO events and an official statement on sexual misconduct at sea and in the field. Read the article “Aquatic Sciences for All” by ASLO leaders James Elser (Past-President), Linda Duguay (President), and Michael Pace (President-Elect) in this issue for more information. Workshop on bystander intervention addresses how individual scientists can contribute to a culture of zero tolerance for sexual misconduct Struck by McNutt's message in the opening plenary, many ASLO members wondered how they could personally contribute to eliminating gender bias and sexual misconduct in their own professional spheres. Later the same day, ASLO hosted a workshop focused on the bystander intervention approach led by sociologist and professional trainer for sexual harassment prevention and response, Jane Stapleton. Titled “Bystander intervention for combating sexual misconduct in science: Everyone can be part of the solution,” (http://bit.ly/2iXq3WI) the workshop was aimed at providing the knowledge and skills scientists need to identify and address misconduct among their colleagues and institutions, and thus charting a course to a culture in science of zero tolerance for sexual bias and misconduct. Stapleton, who directs the University of New Hampshire Prevention Innovations Research Center (http://bit.ly/1NO25Fh), has worked and studied in the field of ending sexual and relationship violence for over thirty years. Her work includes evidence-based bystander intervention strategies, Bringing in the Bystander® and Know Your Power®, to prevent sexual and relationship violence and stalking. During an afternoon workshop, she discussed the specific challenges and concerns facing the aquatic science community. Due to the field research-based nature of aquatic sciences, the unique challenges of field settings to addressing sexual misconduct were a primary focus of the workshop. The philosophy underlying sexual misconduct prevention programs asserts that sexual and relationship violence and stalking are not inevitable features of human social behavior. Therefore, such behaviors are not “normal,” they do not need to be tolerated, and they are preventable. Traditionally, incidents of sexual misconduct have been viewed as an issue between a perpetrator and a victim, and thus prevention and response methods were targeted at changing the behavior only of potential victims and perpetrators, who were somehow distinct from the general population. However, decades of research has demonstrated that the primary subjects of an incident do not act in isolation from their social environment; numerous individuals interact with the victim and perpetrator before, during, and after an incident, and therefore, community members possess the power and responsibility to influence the outcome of the incident. Essentially, just because you yourself are not the victim or perpetrator of sexual misconduct, you do have the capacity and obligation to intervene when such an act takes place around you. This is a familiar concept, enshrined in law in some circumstances as the expectation to act as a “Good Samaritan.” But what does this mean in practice? Stapleton presented well-known cases of sexual assault, such as the Steubenville and Brock Turner rape cases. The first major case that propelled research on bystanders was the murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964, in which 30-some neighbors and passers-by witnessed the attack but failed to intercede. Discussing the case of a gang rape incident at the University of New Hampshire in 1987, workshop participants identified numerous people—from the liquor store employee who sold underage students alcohol to the dorm residents who witnessed the attack to the university administrators who determined the perpetrators' punishment—who had an opportunity to prevent or decrease the harm to the victim. These cases point to an uncomfortable reality that has become known as the “bystander effect”: people assume that someone else will act, or that because no one else is acting, action is not warranted. Choosing to act requires preparation and forethought. First, it is critical to recognize that sexual misconduct exists on a spectrum of both recognition (which is subjective and based on social perceptions) and frequency (which is based on data; Fig. 1). “Low-recognition” incidents are behaviors and actions that the majority of community members see as harmless or having little negative impact (e.g., sexually charged jokes or innuendo) compared to “high-recognition” incidents, that are generally considered inappropriate or criminal (e.g., groping or rape). The spectrum of recognition is the inverse of the spectrum of frequency: low-recognition incidents are vastly more common than high-recognition incidents. Low-recognition incidents may seem to be individually less damaging; however, they form the foundation of cultural tolerance of high-recognition incidents, both in our accepted norms of behavior and our policies for addressing sexual misconduct (Box 2; Fig. 2). Without recognizing and working to end the common, less egregious incidents, we will never successfully eliminate the heinous but rare incidents that make the news headlines. In cases of sexual misconduct, the spectrum of incident recognition is inverted relative to the spectrum of frequency (Prevention Innovations Research Center 2013). A foundation of high-frequency, low-recognition incidents of sexual misconduct support smaller numbers of apathetic bystanders, facilitators, and core offenders (Prevention Innovations Research Center 2013). Image adapted from D. Lisak's Rape Culture slide. Workshop participants discussed many practical ways that individual scientists can improve their capacity to prevent and respond to sexual misconduct. These suggestions included calling attention to casual sexist remarks to demonstrate to colleagues that such comments are not tolerable, forming men's groups to discuss questions and strategies for addressing bias and misconduct, communicating to your colleagues that you stand ready to support them if they experience sexual misconduct, and meeting with your institution's Title IX or Equal Employment Opportunity office to inquire about policies and support mechanisms. The discussion acknowledged that not every scientist bears the same capacity to respond. Power dynamics (professional hierarchy, seniority, supervisory status, and other factors) influence the level of risk a person takes in pursuing particular bystander actions. As discussed in the morning plenary, the burden for leading institutional changes lies with senior scientists who carry authority and power within scientific organizations. Suppose you are approached by a student or colleague or you witness something questionable and recognize that you are a bystander to a situation of sexual misconduct. What is the best course of action you should pursue? You may worry that your help is not needed or you will do the wrong thing and perhaps even make the situation worse. But the most important thing is that you do not become paralyzed by uncertainty. There is no perfect action, but the more you mentally condition yourself to recognize misconduct and build your confidence by addressing “minor” incidents, the better prepared you will be to accept the uncertainty and act nonetheless. To that end, Stapleton left workshop participants with handouts of four example situations that they might encounter in their work. We invite ASLO members to reflect on their own experiences and engage their colleagues in discussing situations where intervention could minimize the negative impacts of misconduct. Stapleton's presentation slides are also available online at http://aslo.org/news/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Jane-Stapleton-workshop-slides.pdf. We hope that this workshop will inspire many ASLO members to engage their colleagues and institutions in discussing how to not only respond to incidents of egregious sexual misconduct, but to address the full spectrum of misconduct in order to move the scientific community towards an attitude of zero tolerance where all individuals take responsibility to create learning, teaching, and research environments that are free of sexual misconduct. We look forward to hearing from members about their own ideas for realizing this goal and continuing to engage in this issue at future ASLO meetings. Britta Voss, ASLO Science Communication Intern; [email protected]