Part 2: How SLU covers unprofessional behavior of its professors. Part 2

The Faculty of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences, SLU was informed about inability of my supervisor to do his job. One meeting was held. I was asked to send the updated information on my research, which I did. At this point everything stopped again.

I waited for two months more and then sent a complaint to Swedish National Agency for Higher Education (Högskoleverket).

Surprisingly, shortly after this I again got attention from my University:

From: Jan S

Sent: 16 August 2012 11:36

To: Elena K

Cc: Christer B; Pär F; Karin B

Subject: RE: Ang Elena K

Dear Elena,

Hope that you can find access to the building now. Until there is a decision on your supervision, at the moment I will head the process of bringing things forward.

In order to get further along with your PhD work we need to formulate a detailed plan for future activities. This will make a part of a updated study plan. This is a necessary document. I would appreciate if you could list the activities you find necessary to finalise the studies.

With the updated study plan we will then have a meeting to discuss the future studies.

Best regards,

Jan S

From: Elena K

Sent: 17 August 2012 06:33

To: Jan S;

Cc: Christer B; Pär F; Karin B

Subject: RE: Ang Elena K

Dear Prof. S,

I appreciate that situation with my PhD studies attract your attention. I also entirely understand difficulties you faced with finding an expert in wheat genetics at the agricultural university, who can became my new supervisor.

The file with the description of the current status of my projects is enclosed to this message.

From my side I shall appreciate if you can inform me about the exact date from which you consider my PhD studies have started.

Regards,

Elena K

From: Jan S
Sent: 24 August 2012 14:00To: Elena KCc: Marianne C; Christer B; Pär FSubject: study plan

Dear Elena,

Thank you for your description of what is left to do. You started your post graduate  studies 2007 06 21. The period of licentiate studies is part of the doctorial studies.

I have now gone through the documents again and cannot help noticing the following:

When looking through what you and Roger agreed on in January 2010 01 15 in your signed study plan which is a legally valid  document, I notice:

Project 1. This experiment was described as “almost complete and manuscript is in the process of being completed for submission during February”. Where is the data and the manuscript?

Project 2. Experiment  2.1 Status in 2010: “Sampling is completed. Molecular profiling will be carried out in February-May 201. Data analysis June 2010. Manuscript  July- August 2010.”   Experiment 2.2 status in 2010: “Plant growth and sampling phases are completed. Molecular profiling  of microbial communities (DNA extraction, nested PCR, DGGE) will be carried out February- May 2010. Data analysis June –July 2010. Manuscript preparation August-September 2010.” Status in your recent letter (where it is called project 3): “…altogether there are 134 samples including control. This study is in the stage of PCR-DGGE. Approx. 2 months will be needed to complete the lab work…”

In the study plan from 2010 there are two supplementary projects S1 and S2. S1 is corresponding to project 1 in your recent letter. My question there is has it been submitted yet?

S2 was recommended during your half time follow up not to be priotised, and if it was performed the suggestion was to sequence the bands. In the study plan 2010: “All primers were tested on one complex community. … The PCR and DGGE analysis was completed. The selected primers will be tested for possible preferential amplification of particular templates. The experiment will be finished in February 2010. Manuscript preparation in March-April 2010.” Status in the recent report:  The study is completed. However, an extra check on mitochondria and chloroplast could be done as suggested by Dr. T Okoyama University, Japan. 3 extra weeks of lab work. Question from my side: Is there any manuscript in preparation?

 What are your comments on the lack of progress compared to the status in 2010 during 2 years and 7 months?

Best regards,

Jan

From: Elena K

Sent: 27 August 2012 08:18

To: Jan S;

Cc: Marianne C; Christer B; Pär F

Subject: RE: study plan

Dear Prof. S,

I value that you have started to go through my study plans. I shall appreciate if you would pay more careful attention to the content of these plans. The experiments, which were finally settled in the study plan you have been mentioned (20100115) have started at autumn 2008. So, I consider the fall 2008 as a beginning of my PhD studies. Before this time, I was engaged by my former supervisor in the meaningless activities.

During my PhD the results of several projects were summarized and sent to Prof. F for feedback. Particularly, on 12.08.09 and 13.09.09 the results and the first draft of manuscript on the effect of domestication and long-term breeding on Avena species were sent to my former supervisor (the copy of the files enclosed).

The results and parts of draft of the manuscript on developing the subtractive microcosm were sent to Prof. F started from January 2010. The complete manuscript of this article has been sent for revision to Prof. Finlay on July 2010.

I have got no help on data analysis or writing from Prof. F on nether of these two manuscripts. Nevertheless, I managed to complete at least one article . The file with final version of the article on subtractive microcosm is enclosed.

I am ready to present all my notebooks and the results of the rest of the experiments to any unbiased committee. I consider that my part of the work has been done in an appropriate time and with a good quality. Nevertheless, the PhD project is a result of the joined efforts of both a student and a supervisor. It is impossible to succeed and make any considerable progress in the absence of any interest to the project from the supervisor’s side. That is why, I have been expecting that the questions about the “lack of the progress” might be addressed to my former supervisor at least at the same degree as it have been addressed to me. However, I understand that it demands much more bravery fighting with influential and mighty PhD student then to press the defenseless professor and the Head of the BioCenter.

Sincerely,

Elena K

From: Jan S

Sent: 27 August 2012 09:21

To: Elena Kalle;

Cc: Marianne C; Christer B; Pär F

Subject: SV: study plan

Elena,

The starting date is when you were accepte to the Lic/PhD programme irrespectively of what the final project description looks like. Many (if not most) students undertake drastic changes in their research plans. This is normal.

Thank you for sending the domistication manuscript draft. This was apparantly gone relatively far before the half time. It still needs a lot of putting together results and discussion, though.

I have sent also the questions you got about lack of progress to Roger. It is critical that there is an answer.

Best regards,

Jan

From: Elena K

Sent: 27 August 2012 09:44

To: Jan S;

Cc: Marianne C; Christer B; Pär F

Subject: RE: study plan

Dear Prof. S,

I completely agree with you that for the most of the Prof. F’s student it has been a normal practice to undertake drastic changes in their research plans. However, the good practice is when a new PhD student joins the ongoing research project, does his part of work under the supervision of more skilful researcher and gets his degree. Starting one project from a scratch, then the second one, then the third and doing it alone can not be called a norm. Or could it?

Sincerely,

Elena

At this point SLU broke communication again until October.