Part ofsexual harassment →

FEDERALhearing transcript

High Impact

Congressional Hearing on Sexual Harassment in Science

Original title: COMBATING SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN SCIENCE

January 1, 2019

sexual harassment STEM education academic research workplace safety gender equality institutional accountability

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

The Frame

What this does

This hearing addresses syic barriers in scientific research that impact the retention of women in STEM careers and the effective use of public research funding.

Who is mentioned in the record

Potentially affected actors named in the source documents. Mention is not a position.

Women in STEM

They are the primary group experiencing the reported hostile work environments and professional sabotage.

Academic and Research Institutions

These institutions face scrutiny regarding their internal investigation processes and the management of grant-funded researchers.

What changed

Last recorded activity January 1, 2019.

What's next

Next step not available in the current record.

Summary

The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a hearing to examine the prevalence of sexual harassment in scientific research environments. The committee discussed how institutional culture and funding structures often prioritize reputation over accountability, potentially driving talented researchers out of fields.

Key Facts

The hearing was held on June 12, 2019, in the Rayburn House Office Building.
The committee identified that sexual harassment in science is often enabled by institutional cultures that prioritize reputation and grant funding over transparency.
The committee noted that 'bad actors' in research are often allowed to resign quietly and move to other institutions rather than facing full investigations.
The hearing included testimony from representatives of the GAO, Wellesley College, Boston University, and the University of California, Davis.
The committee emphasized that sexual harassment is a barrier to national economic and security goals by limiting the talent pool in STEM fields.

Why It Matters

This hearing addresses syic barriers in scientific research that impact the retention of women in STEM careers and the effective use of public research funding.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the purpose of this hearing?

To examine the impact of sexual harassment and gender hostility on the scientific community and to discuss institutional barriers to accountability.

Who testified at the hearing?

Witnesses included John Neumann (), Dr. Paula A. Johnson (Wellesley College), Dr. Jean Morrison (Boston University), and Dr. Philip Kass (UC Davis).

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Discoveries

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.

policy shift90% confidence

Institutional Accountability Gap

The hearing highlights a systemic pattern where academic institutions prioritize grant funding and reputation over investigating sexual harassment claims.

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

Connected Entities

organizationCommittee on Science, Space, and Technology“House of Representatives committee”Map →

personPhilip Kass“Vice Provost, UC Davis”Map →

personPaula A. Johnson“President, Wellesley College”Map →

personEddie Bernice Johnson“Chairwoman of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology”Map →

personFrank Lucas“Ranking Member of the Committee”Map →

personJean Morrison“University Provost, Boston University”Map →

personJohn Neumann“Managing Director, Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics, GAO”Map →

Sources

Open source document

www.govinfo.gov

Analysis Score

0–100

Significance75
How much this matters to a regular citizen
Controversy40
Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
Entertainment10
Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
Buzz20
Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools