Dotting the "i"s on the Question That Became a Pretext for Slander

Why Professor Klimenko No Longer Leads Stem Cell Research at the Faculty of Biology
In the work of any organization, various decisions have to be made: opening structural divisions and closing them, hiring people and letting them go. It is very important that all such actions be carried out in accordance with the law, that decisions affecting employees' interests be made after thorough discussion, openly and impartially.
The history of biology at Kharkiv University, like the history of the university itself, spans more than two centuries. The university's most important asset is its reputation, which places serious obligations both on how its staff act and on the nature of the information they spread about the university in society.
At present a version of events is being spread in many media outlets by Professor V.V. Klimenko, according to which he and his Laboratory of Stem and Germ Cells have become victims of persecution and intrigue at the Faculty of Biology (links to the publications are given below). I want to counter this propaganda with a calm statement of the facts. This is not the official position of the university or the faculty, but my own position, set out on my own initiative. What I am about to write is known to me with complete certainty, and any statement I make can be confirmed. I would like those who express opinions about the conflict that has flared up to rely on facts, not on guesswork and deception.
For convenience, I will divide the history of the work of the Laboratory of Germ and Stem Cells and of Professor Klimenko as its head into several stages.
Stage 1. Establishment of the laboratory. In 2005, the dean of the Faculty of Biology, L.I. Vorobyova, agreed to V.V. Klimenko's idea of opening a laboratory to study stem cells. Professor Klimenko had a rich scientific background, including work with B.L. Astaurov, in France and Japan; unfortunately, he had left many of the institutions where he worked as a result of conflicts with management. Professor Klimenko insisted that it would be enough for the university to grant the laboratory appropriate status and allocate suitable premises, claiming that he had sponsors who would help set up the work at a modern level. He argued that such a laboratory would give the university the opportunity to participate in the development of a promising research area and would secure priority in developing technologies with a serious future.
Dean L.I. Vorobyova secured the opening of the laboratory, the allocation of premises, renovation work, and a degree of financial support for the laboratory. The Laboratory of Germ and Stem Cells began carrying out a state-budget-funded research project. Unfortunately, sponsor support was not received in the planned volume. One reason for this was that shortly after the laboratory was created, Professor Klimenko went to Italy for a long period. After his return, the work continued.
Stage 2. Normal operation of the laboratory. The specifics of Professor Klimenko's approach to the problem of stem cells lay in studying it in close connection with the problem of germ cells. Rather interesting results were obtained in experiments on the silkworm. In my opinion, the development of new silkworm cloning technologies and the description of oogenetic variability of clones were also of interest.
Professor Klimenko proposed applying an original method of karyoanalysis in crushed animal matrix cells to solve a number of problems. In some cases this method has advantages over the now widely used study of isolated metaphase plates. Karyoanalysis according to V.V. Klimenko also helped in the study of gametogenesis in green frogs (it is no accident that we thank him in this article) and in describing the diversity of tardigrades and springtails.
The 2007-2009 state-budget project was completed, and research continued under a new topic planned for 2010-2012.
I know well that the laboratory's activity was regarded by the faculty and university leadership as promising. Whenever possible, it received financial and organizational support. It was clear that external funding could not be attracted in full, but the "young" laboratory was given time to get on its feet.
Stage 3. Conflict over the composition of the Faculty Academic Council. In the autumn of 2010, an unpleasant conflict arose concerning the formation of the Faculty Academic Council. I will describe it in detail, because Professor Klimenko links the closure of the laboratory to it.
The faculty is run by its Academic Council, which is appointed for a set term. In 2010 the term of the previous Council's composition expired, and the Council had to be re-formed. By that time the Law of Ukraine "On Higher Education" had changed. Now at least 10% of Council members must be representatives of students and graduate students.
The previous Council had 27 members (including Professor Klimenko). Problems sometimes arose in its work because a quorum needed for personnel decisions could not always be gathered. Many Council members (including Professor Klimenko himself) could miss its meetings, believing that the absence of one person would change nothing. A sad consequence of such absences was that staff were not always hired on time. If the number of staff members on the Academic Council had not changed, another 3 students or graduate students would have had to be added to its composition, and gathering a quorum would have become even harder.
At the last meeting of the old Council, a decision was made to reduce the number of elected representatives from departments. This decision was additionally discussed at a meeting of department heads. A decision was made to reduce the Council's composition to 20 people. This number was based on an agreed norm - one representative (besides the head) from seven departments (from the eighth, small one - only the head), plus three people who are members of the Council ex officio (two deputy deans and the director of the biological station). From the Department of Genetics and Cytology, the Council included the head of department (and simultaneously dean) L.I. Vorobyova and associate professor O.V. Taglina. Professor V.V. Klimenko also voted for this decision at the department meeting. After that, a meeting of the labor collective voted for the representatives nominated to the Council.
Addendum: here is the university's Charter. Here is an important excerpt:
4.7.1. The Academic Council is headed by its chairperson - the dean of the faculty. The Faculty Academic Council includes, by virtue of office, the deputy deans, department heads, heads of faculty self-governance bodies, as well as elected representatives representing the academic-teaching staff, elected from among professors and doctors of science, and elected representatives representing other faculty staff for whom the university is their main place of work, according to quotas determined by the Faculty Academic Council. At the same time, no less than 75 percent of the total number of its members must be academic-teaching staff of the faculty. Elected representatives are elected by the general meeting of the faculty's labor collective on the recommendation of the structural units in which they work.
The personal composition of the Academic Council is approved by order of the rector for a term of 3 years.
From the students, the Council includes the head of student self-governance (she was not elected to the Council directly; she was elected as the student dean) and, similarly, the head of graduate-student self-governance - exactly 10% of the Council's 20 members.
As a result of reducing the Council's composition, more than a third of the previous Council's members did not make it into the new one. However, in the new composition the Council never once had quorum problems, which benefited the entire faculty. Clarification: I was reminded that the first meeting of the Council in its new composition (which people still gathered for in the old way) did not take place; this clearly shows that after that the Council convenes reliably.
Some time after the Faculty Academic Council was approved, Professor Klimenko officially appealed to the university rector demanding the dissolution of the new Council and public apologies from the dean. The relevant university bodies reviewed the procedure for forming the Faculty Academic Council and confirmed its full compliance with the adopted procedure.
I want to emphasize that there is no continuity between this stage and the next one. The unpleasant conflict was, it seemed, resolved, and the work continued as usual.
Stage 4. Review of the laboratory's work. In 2011, as part of its regular planned work, the Academic Council heard reports from individual units in turn: the herbarium, the Laboratory of Germ and Stem Cells, the Laboratory of Modeling of Adaptive Mechanisms. The procedure for such hearings is as follows: a commission is appointed to review the unit's documentation and work, and then the head of the unit and the head of the commission speak at the Council. The Council then discusses and makes the necessary decisions related to the work of these units.
The Laboratory of Germ and Stem Cells was second in line. The commission set up to review its work consisted of three doctors of science, professors, who had significant experience in carrying out state-budget-funded research topics. Professor Klimenko claims that since the commission was not composed of geneticists, it could not evaluate his work. This is, of course, not true. If the viability of the laboratory's scientific subject matter were being considered, geneticists and cytologists would need to be involved and a scientific seminar organized. Since the work of a structural unit was being reviewed, specialists in the organization of scientific work at a university were needed. One of the commission members was a professor of the Department of Biochemistry and a staff member of an academic institute working with stem cells (in a different paradigm than Professor Klimenko's).
According to the commission chair, she immediately encountered an attitude of "here they come to take revenge and shut us down." Professor Klimenko did not provide the commission with the necessary documents, and because of this the hearing on the Laboratory's work had to be postponed. In the end, the commission pointed to two significant shortcomings in the work of the Laboratory and its head.
First. In fact, not a single publication on stem cells during the entire period of the Laboratory's work was submitted by its authors indicating that they worked at the university. There was only one exception, where the university was listed as the workplace of part of the team of authors, but that article specifically emphasized that the work itself had been carried out elsewhere. This circumstance was probably not accidental. Publications, for example, on the karyotypes of springtails or on silkworm parthenogenesis, were submitted from the university, while those on stem cells were arranged so that the university was not implicated.
To understand the importance of this issue, one must consider what the university gains by funding research. The results of the work are publications, patents, growth in reputation. University staff indicate the university as their place of work in the heading of an article (see, for example, here: in all cases it is stated that the authors work or study at the university). If, in the course of paid work, some technologies are developed, part of the rights to them belongs to the organization where they were carried out. By "taking" the stem cell publications outside the university's jurisdiction, Professor Klimenko deprived the university of the very thing for which the laboratory was created.
Second. In preparing the governing documents under which the work was carried out, Professor Klimenko made serious errors. These errors had to be corrected no later than the end of 2011, otherwise continuing research on the topic would become impossible.
Decision of the Faculty Academic Council. Taking into account the shortcomings described, as well as the fact that the Laboratory had failed to attract additional funding, beyond state funding, on a permanent basis, the Council (at the end of spring 2011) found the work of the Laboratory's head, Professor Klimenko, unsatisfactory. Professor Klimenko was instructed to correct the identified shortcomings, and it was decided to hear the matter of the Laboratory's work again. Professor Klimenko refused to acknowledge that there were any shortcomings in his work, and interpreted all the claims against him as revenge for his complaint about the formation of the Academic Council.
Clarification. In addition to leading the laboratory's work, Professor Klimenko held a partial position funded from the biology faculty's special account. Positions funded from the university's special account differ from budget-funded ones, among other things, in that they are paid from funds earned by the university, and appointment to them is for a short term (no longer than from the moment of appointment to the end of the academic year). Professor Klimenko initially received a share of such a position, but later stopped receiving it. I do not know the details of this story and will not describe it. I do know that the reduction of the special account (caused by the general state of affairs at the university and, for example, the need to pay utility bills from the special account) affected many faculty members. Unfortunately, a certain impermanence is a property of special-account positions.
Stage 5. Involving the public. During the summer of 2011, the university received a number of letters, virtually identical in content, from geneticists in various countries. They spoke of the inadmissibility of closing the laboratory and of the importance of V.V. Klimenko's work. The letters did not mention that the faculty's claims against Professor Klimenko concerned exactly how he published the results of his work and how he prepared the documents governing his work. It becomes clear from this that the respected specialists from various countries were misled by V.V. Klimenko himself. They were not informed of the true nature of the claims against the Laboratory's head, but rather these claims were presented to them as the result of a conflict at the level of individual personalities.
University students signed a collective letter in support of Professor Klimenko. The text of the letter did not reflect an understanding of the causes of the conflict, and this is natural. I do not know for certain who initiated this letter, but it was either Professor Klimenko himself or someone who had been misinformed by him. The dean of the faculty and members of the Academic Council did not bring the problems related to the work of the Laboratory of Germ and Stem Cells up for discussion among students (except for one student, the student dean - a Council member). Bringing conflicts between faculty and staff up for discussion among students who do not have complete information only harms the work of the faculty, in my opinion. I am very sorry that I myself am doing this to a considerable extent in this post; the reason for this is the need to refute the slander that is already spreading among students.
Professor Klimenko sent official letters to the dean of the faculty and a number of other responsible persons, in which he accused the dean of persecution and refused to correct the shortcomings pointed out by the Academic Council's commission. The dean insisted that Professor Klimenko eliminate the shortcomings pointed out by the Academic Council.
Stage 6. Organizational measures. As I have already explained, in order to continue work on the state-budget-funded project it was necessary to correct the documents governing the work through the established procedure. Since Professor Klimenko refused to do this, the Faculty Academic Council in October 2011 (unanimously, with full attendance!) transferred leadership of the topic to another competent specialist, who subsequently put all the documents in order.
At the initiative of the rectorate, the Faculty Academic Council considered the question of the laboratory's status. Since neither the level of funding nor the number of staff met the norm adopted for individual laboratories (and the initial stage of its operation had, evidently, come to an end), the Faculty Council decided to recommend converting the laboratory into a group. This matter falls within the competence of the University Academic Council. The University Council decided in December 2011 to close the Laboratory as of January 1, 2012.
I want to explain that the status of the laboratory and the implementation of the state-budget-funded project are related but in fact different things. The topic is a source of funding that provides positions; the laboratory is a structural unit with separate subordination, which itself depends on the availability of funding. In this complicated situation, the faculty and university councils preserved what was more essential - the funding and the ability to continue the work (though no longer under Professor Klimenko's leadership). At the initial stage of the work, the laboratory's status was, in a sense, an advance. Since the tasks set before it could not be solved, the laboratory was closed. This does not mean that if funding increases, it, or a similar unit, could not be reopened.
The measures taken did not involve dismissing Professor Klimenko, who was offered another professorial position (in addition to allowing him to continue supervising his diploma students and graduate students).
Stage 7. Media campaign and slander. Professor Klimenko began to explain his removal from leadership of the topic and the closure of the laboratory not by his own refusal to correct the shortcomings in his work, but as revenge for last year's conflict. Professor Klimenko presented this version to the "Status Quo" news agency, and the same material subsequently appeared in other sources, for example in the newspaper "Segodnya". Professor Klimenko probably does not intend to stop at what has already been achieved. In all the publications he presents himself as a victim who was taken revenge on for his integrity. This fits the widespread archetype of the brilliant scientist opposed by schemers and the envious, but it has no relation whatsoever to the actual state of affairs.
Unfortunately, in these publications Vyacheslav Viktorovich stoops to slander.
"The laboratory head stated that the dean allows herself to behave rudely toward subordinates, insulting them in the presence of students. Because of her behavior, many faculty members are afraid to express their opinion; they are simply intimidated." I do not wish to refute this. Staff and students of the biology faculty know that the dean acts differently.
"L. Vorobyova, in order to keep her position and become the sole geneticist on the faculty Academic Council, removed three geneticists from the Council and brought in students, to whom she gave the right to vote."