Black and White, Gray and in Between: What Color Is the Media?

Key Takeaways

• ETH denied tenure after bullying complaints.
• Crowther spent lab funds on crisis communications.
• Swiss libel laws can suppress early reporting.
• Volunteer internships perpetuate inequity in academia.
• Excessive lab media can mask misconduct.

Summary

The article examines the limited media coverage of ETH Zurich professor Tom Crowther’s tenure denial after bullying and harassment complaints, highlighting his use of lab funds for crisis‑communication services. It draws parallels to the reopened Noma restaurant under chef René Redzepi, noting how both cases illustrate the tension between high‑profile media outreach and underlying misconduct. The piece also critiques academia’s reliance on unpaid internships, which entrenches inequity. Finally, it questions how Swiss libel laws and aggressive lab PR can silence or reshape narratives about abuse in research institutions.

Pulse Analysis

Academic labs are increasingly adopting professional media teams to amplify research impact, but Tom Crowther’s case shows how that strategy can backfire. After publishing high‑profile climate‑change papers, Crowther’s ETH tenure was blocked following multiple harassment complaints. The university’s investigation revealed that he diverted research funds to crisis‑communication and legal services, blurring the line between legitimate outreach and reputation management. This misuse of public money raises questions about accountability and the potential for media‑savvy scientists to control narratives around misconduct.

The situation mirrors the revival of Copenhagen’s Noma under René Redzepi, where a celebrated brand returned after a toxic workplace scandal. Both examples expose a broader academic culture that relies on unpaid internships and volunteer labor, reinforcing inequity and limiting diversity. When institutions prioritize publicity over equitable hiring practices, they risk fostering environments where power imbalances go unchecked, and where victims lack the resources to be heard.

Swiss libel protections further complicate transparency, allowing subjects to pre‑emptively block stories and limiting early reporting. Combined with aggressive lab PR, these legal tools can suppress critical information, eroding public trust. Policymakers and university leaders must therefore balance the benefits of research communication with robust oversight, clear funding guidelines, and protections for whistle‑blowers to ensure that scientific credibility is not sacrificed for media control.