Article 2
The Casting Couch of Research Groups
Profiling Abusers and Victims in an Enabling Environment

When the Weinstein allegations broke in 2017 and #MeToo went global, most people received the news as the result of an accumulated misconduct in the entertainment industry: powerful men, vulnerable young female actors, and a culture that protected the former at the expense of the latter. Even though it rapidly spread to other sectors concerning the public sphere like media and politics, fewer people connected the same dynamic to a place that looks nothing like a film set, the research group. 

Research institutions run on a remarkably similar machine to the one that fostered the abuse in Hollywood, albeit minus the glamour. A small number of individuals sit at the top of the hierarchy, controlling who gets a career based on who is in their good graces. Just like Hollywood, German academia consists of directors/producers and the cast. On the level of research groups, professors consolidate the equivalents of both an artistic and a casting director. Also known as “principal investigators”, they hold the vision of contributing to scientific knowledge while simultaneously striving for a personal legacy. Both endeavors are tightly intertwined with the achievements of their research group, including peer-reviewed publications, intellectual property and patents, science communication and public impact. In service to the principle of free thought, scientists enjoy complete freedom in choosing their research topics. However, this fundamental right known as academic freedom, is mistakenly assumed to extend to supervising strategies and mentoring behaviors. And much in line with artistic freedom, it is often misinterpreted as a limitless authority over the young supervisees. 

The early career researchers correspond to a film’s cast. They are the undergraduate, graduate, doctoral and postdoctoral researchers that drive scientific progress through field work. They are hired heavily based on merit, and ideally on their critical thinking. Part of their contract is to establish a supervising relationship with the professor-employer. And while our tenured supervisors are usually older, established in their field, and hold a permanent, publicly funded position, the supervisees are typically young researchers, with a temporary position funded by money tied to a specific project, lasting no longer than one to two years at a time. 

A monumental difference between Hollywood and German academia is the director’s contract. Tenured professors enjoy a permanent and publicly funded civil servant status. Thus, their employer is the state, and their work is evaluated once every five to seven years by committees of peers, legal experts and business strategists. This contrasts clearly with the tangible revenue measured at the box office which, along with the judgment of the public and specialized critics, make an artistic director and their work a triumph or a tragedy. In academia, neither the public nor the researchers at the base of the pyramid control who reaches the top and builds a career on taxpayer money. And while the public is sidelined by the complex bureaucratic evaluation procedures, the early career researchers remain silent largely out of fear of retaliation.

But even though the enabling academic environment offering absolute protection to the powerful directors severely contrasts the art industry, the striking resemblance of the field workers in both industries emerges clearly and undoubtedly. Generations of actors have fallen victims of the unethical demands of an “eccentric” but profitable director/producer in exchange for a stellar professional career. Similarly, the early career researchers must cope with the extreme demands of a “quirky” supervisor to dare even dream of a future career in academia. Thus, the academic equivalent of the “casting couch” is rarely named so plainly, yet it persists in the same currency of coerced exchange traded, implicitly or explicitly, for compliance, silence, or a supervisor’s personal demands. And while the analogy between the film-making and the science industry might seem far-fetched to some, it is the most obvious similarity that explains the unsettling resemblance between the victims in both industries: the unchecked concentrated power in one brilliant leader, which in permissive environments leads to its abuse. And even though the echoing silence spanning decades of “isolated incidents” was shattered by the deafening roar of the #MeToo movement, researchers are still waiting for their own “scientific” breakthrough. 

The misconception that power abuse is more severe in Hollywood than academia stands indisputably debunked. In Germany, quite a few stories have already caught the public’s attention. Two women reported sexual harassment by their male supervising professor at the University of Goettingen. The act took place between 2019 and 2021, and when brought to justice, he was convicted of coercion and assault. The sentence was eleven months in prison on probation, but his civil servant status remained untouched – he remained a professor. At the University of Leipzig, pregnant researchers faced discrimination by their female supervising professor. Reporting the abuse to HR and the Equal Opportunity Officer resulted in lengthy negotiations. Yet, despite a hiring freeze on new early career researchers for her department, her civil servant status was not revoked – she, too, remained a professor. Over the years, multiple scandals concerning Max Planck Institutes have gained publicity. A director and professor of empathy (!) terrorized her supervisees for years. Another one (of astrophysics) bullied, insulted and sabotaged the careers of her supervisees. The latest story broke in 2025 when a director was exposed to verbally harass his supervisees and create a toxic environment of terror in his lab. To this day he is still a director. 

Unfortunately – but not unexpectedly – the parallel with #MeToo fits like a glove for the most severe form of power abuse: sexual harassment. A 2018 report by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine highlighted that 20-60% of women across different academic disciplines had experienced sexual harassment at some point in their careers. A 2022 survey addressing 46 universities across 15 European countries approximated the US report, with almost one in three respondents reporting experiencing sexual harassment. Alongside sexual abuse, participants reported verbal abuse, humiliation, and sustained bullying from supervisors. Both women and researchers from minority national or ethnic backgrounds reported markedly higher rates of discrimination in hiring, authorship credit, and promotion — without this implying that men or majority-background researchers are somehow immune to abusive behaviors. The Leibniz PhD Network decided to launch their own independent survey in 2025 and ask doctoral researchers to share their stories: 

“During the supervision of my thesis, this individual sexually abused me and exploited our professional relationship also for emotional support. Additionally, [they] exerted undue pressure on me to manipulate […] results […], despite my clear ethical objections. […] When I confronted [them] regarding the sexual abuse, [they] denied all accusations and pleaded for me to accept [their] version of events. Ending this professional relationship was emotionally exhausting and deeply destabilizing. I required psychological support and it took over a year to rebuild my trust in academic environments. […]” – author’s note: unlike the doctoral researcher, the supervisor was not associated with a Leibniz Institute. 

“Sexism and Gaslighting: When I addressed a sexist comment made in a public setting, I tried to handle it privately to avoid escalation. However, instead of reflection, he became defensive, excused his behavior, and shifted the blame to me, suggesting that feeling harassed is a personal choice. He manipulated the situation by framing my complaint as an attempt to control him and threatened to make the issue public to discredit me. He openly admitted he might repeat such behavior, claiming he “cannot promise it won’t happen again,” which left me feeling powerless and disrespected. […]” 

“[The two mentors] repeatedly mocked me, my family, and my home country. They even made offensive jokes about my spouse. […] When I eventually spoke up about the situation, the department secretary warned me that the two mentors had already gone to the supervisor before me and said negative things behind my back. After that, my supervisor’s behavior changed drastically. He told me I didn’t respect hierarchy, and that I could only continue my PhD if I followed the mentors’ instructions and kept them happy. I was threatened with non-renewal of my contract and constantly ridiculed. Even though they couldn’t point to any flaws in my scientific work, they targeted me with personal and cultural insults. They told me I had communication problems, that I was “not normal,” and began to mock me verbally. This situation caused me serious anxiety and dizziness, and I had to take medical leave. […]” 

“The head of the research group exerts continuous pressure on staff by repeatedly emphasizing that the team is underperforming compared to other groups. In addition, there are frequent verbal outbursts directed at employees who, in the supervisor’s view, fail to meet expectations. The communication style is often aggressive and disparaging. In nearly every team meeting, it is stressed that there will be no contract extensions, as the performance is deemed insufficient.” 

“Environment is often so tense I feel like I cannot ask questions if I am unclear about instructions or the topic. Supervisor reacts to questions by talking themselves into a rage, sometimes storming out of the room in a frenzy, coming back to shout some more and so on” 

“Receiving sexual comments from post-doc (non-supervising) regarding the shown data (“Does this [data] make you wet?”). […] same post-doc was abusive and would shout at people, later saying they were only “temperamentful” and that was normal (although personally insulting)” – author’s note: postdocs are higher than doctoral researchers in the academic hierarchy in Germany, and even though they are frequently victims of power abuse themselves, they are prone to misuse some of their recently granted power, if only by mirroring the behavior of their mentors. 

Even though the highest levels of directors and presidents of our academic institutions perceive power abuse exclusively as sexual harassment – and indisputably the severity of physical abuse outshines verbal harassment, threats, insults and blackmailing – data from the Survey on Power Abuse by the Leibniz PhD Network argue that the frequency of the latter should place them among the top priorities of concern and action. 

Out of 173 respondent 28 received verbal threats at work and 34 were reminded that their contract might not be renewed. For 64, the perpetrator did not fulfill his/her part of written or verbal agreements. 73 doctoral researchers received inappropriate comments of sexual or personal nature during meetings, while 74 received passive-aggressive remarks on their performance or abilities. More than half (90) were contacted outside working hours to immediately finish an urgent task. 

Figure 1: Traceable manifestations of power abuse among 173 Leibniz PhD candidates. The perpetrator is actively abusing the victims. This direct form of power abuse leaves traces in the form of written proof (emails, the minutes of a meeting, contracts) and witnesses (coworkers, bystanders) which are crucial for all official investigations. PA, Power Abuse 

Similarly, a previous survey by the Network held in 2021 and completed by 823 doctoral researchers, revealed that 22% had experienced bullying from a superior, and three out of four some form of discrimination, mostly tied to nationality or gender. 

Findings from all surveys paint a clear picture of impunity among professors, mirroring the long-held belief that Hollywood directors were untouchable. But they also point to a much more prevalent phenomenon which nearly every researcher in Germany has experienced: the toxic working environment. The indirect forms of power abuse, the ones where the doctoral researcher feels a behavior is expected by them, the ones accompanied by a purposeful untraceability. 

Among the 173 respondents four felt pressure to engage in sexual activity, 35 felt discriminated due to their origin and 70 due to their gender. 59 felt scared to complain about bullying due to plausible retaliation Regarding workload, 60 felt guilty for taking vacations and 126 felt pressure to work more hours than their contract states. 

Figure 2: The most prominent manifestations of an indirect or passive form of power abuse among 173 Leibniz PhD candidates. By cultivating a toxic environment, the supervisor forces the early career researchers to adapt merely to survive and keep pace with their peers. Internalizing this pressure, researchers mistakenly view their compliance as a personal choice, leaving them unable to point the finger at the root cause.  PA, Power Abuse 

And while the pattern of pressure–guilt–fear–discrimination is irrefutably linked to the unchecked power fostering the notion of an invincible boss-professor, the testimonials of the latest survey revealed one more scenario explaining this widespread toxicity: 

“The workload I feel I have is so overwhelming that it hinders me personally to work. The more pressure I feel, the less motivation I have. According to our head of department it is normal to work every day more than the normal 8 hours and also on the weekends, and if you don’t do so, you should think if a PhD is really something for you or not, because you will never be able to get your PhD if it doesn’t consume your life. […]” 

“[…] My supervisor pressured all of us, especially the PhD students, to work more hours than our contract says ([they] thinks 10-12 hours per day is an appropriate work load), justifying [their] opinion with the statement that a PhD as the highest academic degree is not done within a 9-to-5 job and if we don’t agree with that, we wouldn’t deserve a PhD. […]” 

Yet another common behavior between directors in Hollywood and academia has now surfaced: both industries sell the work itself as a “calling” rather than a job. “You do what you love” quietly reframes any complaint about pay, hours, or treatment as an act of disloyalty to the vocation, rather than a legitimate grievance. Just as an actor pushing back on a director can be questioned about their commitment to the craft, a researcher raising a labor issue can feel – or forced to feel – like they’re not really cut out for science.  

Surely Hollywood and academia share remarkable similarities, and surely there are more differences than the protected status of the professor as a civil servant. Science carries a form of abuse that has no equivalent in the film-industry – at least not to the author’s knowledge: the abuse of scientific authority itself. It typically manifests as data fabrication and falsification, plagiarism and misplaced credit and it is not only harmful to the person subjected to it. This kind of abuse also corrupts the knowledge that the public eventually relies on and benefits from. As a result, the most prominent support structure in German academia – the ombuds system – deals exclusively with this one form of power abuse: scientific misconduct. And even though a dedicated structure to ensure research integrity is welcomed and highly appreciated, we need to be cautious about the premises under which this system operates. But more on this long-promised topic in the third and final article of this series. 

Power abuse in academia takes many forms, including sexual, verbal, physical, discriminatory, and, uniquely to science, an abuse of the truth-seeking process itself. The latter is a matter for scientific integrity bodies, but all the others fall flatly under civil, labor, or criminal law. It is high time we start treating these actions as the legal offenses they truly are, without compromise and in full transparency, until long-overdue justice is served. 

by Stavroula Litsiou with the support of the WG Contract Situation & Prevention of Power Abuse

---

Disclaimer: This piece was inspired by the author(s), drafted with the assistance of an AI language model (Claude, Anthropic) and then edited, fact-checked, and revised by the author(s). Specifically, the author(s) provided the arguments, the framing, and the specifics, the AI drafted them into a structured text in English language, and finally the author(s) edited the text, verified claims, added and removed sections. The final judgment on every sentence and responsibility for all claims rests entirely with the author(s). The entirety of the data analysis and interpretation was performed exclusively by the author(s). 

More on Tarana Bruke, the creator of #MeToo, and her views after it went viral: https://www.jezebel.com/tarana-burke-on-me-too-12-years-and-1-year-later-keep-1829587201 

The 2022 European survey available here: https://unisafe-gbv.eu/project-news/results-from-the-largest-european-survey-on-gender-based-violence-in-academia/ 

The 2018 US report available here: https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/24994/chapter/2 

The Dataset of the Power Abuse Survey conducted by the Leibniz PhD Network in 2025: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20670451 

The results of the general PhD Survey conducted by the Leibniz PhD Network in 2021 and published in 2023: https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/89848  

© 2026 by Leibniz PhD Network Working Group Contract Situation & Prevention of Power Abuse is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.