Update on NIH’s Efforts to Address Sexual Harassment in Science


Today we released a very important statement outlining actions NIH is taking to become part of the solution to address sexual harassment in science. I am including the full text of the statement below, as it speaks for itself. For additional information please visit our NIH Anti-Sexual Harassment: for NIH Awardee Organizations and Those Who Work There webpage.

As the NIH Director stated in September, sexual harassment is about power. The goal of the perpetrator, most commonly but not exclusively a man, is to objectify, exclude, demoralize, diminish, and coerce the victim, most commonly a woman, to exert power over her.  It’s morally indefensible, it’s unacceptable, and it presents a major obstacle that is keeping women from achieving their rightful place in science.

Victims of harassment know this all too well. Sexual harassment does not just damage the careers of those who have encountered it, it can leave deep scars and psychological effects that reverberate for a lifetime. The reports of scientists and students shared through the #MeTooSTEM movement portray a heartbreaking story of opportunities lost, pain suffered, and a systemic failure to protect and defend. To all those who have endured these experiences, we are sorry that it has taken so long to acknowledge and address the climate and culture that has caused such harm. The National Academies report on sexual harassment of women in science found that “federal agencies may be perpetuating the problem of sexual harassment.” We are concerned that NIH has been part of the problem.  We are determined to become part of the solution.

This month, the Working Group of the Advisory Council to the Director (ACD) on Changing the Culture to End Sexual Harassment met for the first time and heard from a wide-range of experts and perspectives, including Dr. BethAnn McLaughlin, whose leadership of the #MeTooSTEM movement has provided a voice for victims of harassment. We have heard similar, harrowing accounts from scientists in the NIH intramural program during meetings of the NIH Anti-Harassment Committee. These conversations have made it abundantly clear that NIH needs to do better in tackling the underlying culture that enables sexual harassment to take place, admit our contributions to perpetuating this culture, and elevate the seriousness with which the agency takes this issue through our actions.

The discussions of the ACD Working Group, who will report interim recommendations in June and provide a final report and recommendations to the ACD in December, centered around a number of themes that were similar to those identified by our internal Anti-Harassment Committee. As the senior leadership of NIH, we are taking  actions including those listed below, and we look forward to receiving the ACD recommendations and other input to strengthen our efforts:

Demonstrating accountability and transparency: We want to send a clear message to the institutions we fund and researchers who lead the research that sexual harassment is unacceptable. Discussions from both the NIH Anti-Harassment Committee and the ACD Working Group strongly endorsed an ethos of transparency and accountability to demonstrate the agency’s serious commitment to addressing harassment and deterring future inappropriate behavior. To bolster that transparency and accountability, we want to be clear that NIH has not and will not just look the other way when accusations come to our attention. In 2018, NIH followed up on sexual harassment-related concerns at more than two dozen institutions resulting in the replacement of 14 principal investigators named on NIH grant awards, disciplinary actions taken by awardee institutions against 21 principal investigators including termination of employment, and removal of 14 individuals from peer review. Over that same time period, NIH conducted administrative inquiries into 35 allegations of a sexual nature by NIH staff (both federal employees and government contractors). While some of these incidents remain under review, formal disciplinary actions ranging from reprimand to termination of employment were taken against 10 staff members, and informal disciplinary actions, including counseling/training and cease and desist warnings, were taken against another 10 staff members.

We recognize these numbers seem small compared to the disheartening incidence of sexual harassment described in the recent National Academies report, but we are continuing to expand our outreach to the extramural community to bring these concerns to our attention, and have enhanced our internal systems to act on all allegations of sexual harassment.

Clarifying expectations for institutions and investigators to ensure a safe workplace and inform the agency: If a principal investigator or other key personnel named on an NIH grant award is no longer able to fulfill their obligations to conduct research because they are under investigation or have been removed from the workplace because of sexual harassment concerns, NIH requires institutions to notify the agency of this change. The ACD Working Group discussions revealed that the requirement and appropriate timeline to notify NIH of changes in the status of key personnel named on an NIH grant award is unclear in the current guidance.

Those discussions, and ultimately the ACD’s recommendations, will help inform further actions, including clarifications in our guidance. In the meantime, NIH will provide written communication to the leaders of all NIH-funded and applicant institutions outlining NIH’s expectations relating to preventing and addressing sexual harassment, including the expectation that awarded institutions have implemented policies and practices that foster a harassment-free environment; maintain clear, unambiguous professional codes of conduct; ensure employees are fully aware and regularly reminded of applicable laws, regulations, policies, and codes of conduct; provide an accessible, effective, and easy process to report sexual harassment, and protection from retaliation; and respond promptly to allegations to ensure the immediate safety for all involved, investigate the allegations, and take appropriate sanctions.

Providing clear channels of communication to NIH: We can and will take action if there are concerns that sexual harassment is affecting NIH-funded research. For concerns related to NIH-funded research, an email can be sent to GranteeHarassment@od.nih.gov. We are working to create additional channels intended for confidential sharing of such information and hope to make those available in the next several weeks. While this communication does not constitute or substitute for a report of sexual harassment for legal action or investigation, NIH  will follow up with the relevant applicant/grantee institution on all concerns related to NIH-funded research. NIH also strongly encourages people to report allegations of sexual harassment or assault to the appropriate authorities, which may include your local police department or your organization/institution equal employment opportunity (EEO) or human resources offices.  Individuals may contact the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to obtain additional information and file a complaint. Please see NIH’s Anti-Sexual Harassment website for other information and resources.

Listening to victims and survivors of sexual harassment and incorporating their perspectives into future actions: Just as patients remind us every day why medical research is about real people, we cannot forget the intensely personal impact of sexual harassment. Those people whose careers or lives have been derailed by sexual harassment provide a critical voice in shaping the agency’s next steps in helping them re-enter the research workforce and reminding the entire research enterprise of the urgent need for culture change. NIH leadership, the NIH Anti-Harassment Committee, and the ACD Working Group are committed to working with scientists affected by sexual harassment and gender discrimination and will be planning listening sessions to provide a forum for input on proposed recommendations to the ACD.

These steps are only the beginning and are not meant to usurp the charge of the ACD Working Group, which will result in concrete recommendations to the ACD, or the continuing efforts of the internal NIH Anti-Harassment Committee. There is still a tremendous amount of work to be done, and we are confident that these two groups, with the input of all affected communities, will provide a roadmap for meaningful and sustainable culture change.  

We can do better. We must do better.

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., Director

Lawrence A. Tabak, D.D.S., Ph.D., Principal Deputy Director and Chair, NIH Anti-Harassment Committee

Carrie D. Wolinetz, Ph.D., Acting Chief of Staff, Associate Director for Science Policy, and Co-Chair ACD WG on Changing the Culture to End Sexual Harassment

Michael S. Lauer, M.D., Deputy Director for Extramural Research

Michael M. Gottesman, M.D., Deputy Director for Intramural Research

Hannah A. Valantine, M.D., Chief Officer for Scientific Workforce Diversity

Alfred C. Johnson, Ph.D., Deputy Director for Management

National Institutes of Health


  1. Thank you Mike! Is there information available about the disciplinary actions? We are particularly interested in the amount of career funding individuals who were found guilty of sexual misconduct had from NIH as well as their current funding. Letting our colleagues know that we are potentially increasing money available to those who are behaving well is an powerful way to incentivize them to do the right thing.

  2. I witnessed these incidents throughout my long career and am sure that sexual harassment and gender discrimination played a major role in the lack of advancement to equity in science for women in many instances. Please make sure that women are well represented in all of these committee deliberations, but be aware that so much damage has been done that many of them will not want to reveal their painful personal stories.

  3. Will NIH allow perpetrators of sexual harrassment to take their funding to a new institution if they are sanctioned or dismissed from their current institution? Or will the PI loss the funding altogether?

    1. NIH grants are awarded to organizations, not to individual investigators (see our post, Wait, its Not My Grant). Typically, in an instance where the principal investigator or co-principal investigator named on the notice of award is placed on administrative leave because of the need to investigate an allegation of sexual harassment, the awardee organization would request a change of senior/key personnel supporting the NIH grant. If NIH learns that an awardee organization is not complying with the terms and conditions of award, NIH may take enforcement action within our oversight authorities, which may include suspending or even terminating the grant. NIH generally seeks to work with the awardee organization as appropriate, to help bring them back into compliance with the terms and conditions of the award. Depending on the circumstances, NIH can also consider enforcement action such as suspension of funding, or we can coordinate with other offices including law enforcement or the HHS Office of Inspector General, to consider a referral for debarment or suspension.

  4. Gender harassment is also broadly experienced in science. It may lead to major professional and personal, sometimes permanent, consequences for the person who is being targeted and who is left alone dealing with the damages, from long-term unemployment to trauma.

    The victims do not seem to be targeted randomly across ethnic groups, citizenship, social and marital status.

    Besides taking disciplinary sanctions against the perpetrators, which remedies are being offered to the recent and past targets in the short term, other than conveniently relegating these persons to invisibility, assuming they can just leave for another continent or that their life is just a lost cause?

  5. What happens to the junior and middle-level researcher when her/his predator lead PI is dismissed as PI of the grant? Sometimes the victim is silent because her predator’s punishment is hers too and could well spell the end or a major upheaval in the careers of her colleagues depending on the supervision of a grant on which is this predator is a PI

    1. NIH works with the grantee institution to find a replacement PI. The goal is for the research project to continue.

  6. Sexual harrasment is a growing issue that needs special attention. Specifically, there’s a need to put in place specific measures to identify such incidences and give support to the affected. My sister, though in a different field, was sexually harrased by her boss and I saw how that affected her marriage/ personal life and discharge of professional duties. Although she later found help, the incident caused a serious damage in her life.

Before submitting your comment, please review our blog comment policies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *