Transparency is something wonderful when, for example, there is an atmosphere in professional life in which nobody has to be afraid of harming themselves by criticizing existing grievances.
But what if that could mean the end of your career?
Shouldn't those affected be better protected if a "fact-finding" commission listens to them in order to get an idea of a difficult situation that the other side is then confronted with anonymously?
In an open letter to the Federal Minister of Education and Research Bettina Stark-Watzinger, the archaeologist Nicole Boivin complains about a lack of transparency in her case - and calls for supervision of the Max Planck Society (MPG), which she is director of the Max Planck Institute for the History of Humanity in Jena.
At the end of March, the MPG Senate voted 32 votes in favor of withdrawing her management authority - not the research center - as proposed by a commission after months of examination, with three abstentions and one dissenting vote.
The accusation: scientific and non-scientific misconduct, Boivin is said to have put subordinates under strong pressure and appropriated ideas and projects from others;
she had not fulfilled her task as supervisor.
As a woman who is supposedly disadvantaged in her leadership role, Boivin now finds a lot of support, and so she also seeks the hearing of the minister, who incidentally has a seat in the MPG Senate.
This will meet in Berlin this week and will probably decide on the new orientation of the Jena Institute;
For example, there is a concept for “geo-anthropology”.
The remaining junior research groups there can only be wished for a fresh start, and it seems that the MPG lacks less transparency - there is now an ombudsman's office, and corresponding surveys among employees are common - than the will to change at director level.