One of America’s most prestigious cancer hospitals has been embroiled in a bullying scandal that has left staff in need of emergency mental health treatment, DailyMail.com can reveal.
Insiders have described the culture at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas as “toxic” and “abusive,” and senior doctors believe there is a “mafia” that is “tampering with” potentially life-saving research. ”.
The situation is so serious that the center’s top scientists are currently filing a lawsuit. Regarding allegations that she plagiarized research done at the facility.
The Daily Mail has learned of an alarming incidence of staff abuse, including verbal abuse that included threatening remarks to people having panic attacks and being taken to hospital emergency rooms.
At the center of the scandal is Dr. Padmani Sharma, the facility’s “queen bee” and tumor immunologist who is a leading figure in the world of immunotherapy research. But behind the scenes, she was said to be enjoying a reign of terror.
Dr. Padmani Sharma is a prominent figure in the field of cancer immunotherapy, but colleagues and former staff allege that she fostered a toxic work environment that publicly shamed and intimidated people. .
Dr. Sharma, 53, who is married to her namesake, the high-handed Dr. James Allison of the James P. Allison Research Institute at MD Anderson Cancer Center, is verbally abusive to those around her and harasses fellow scientists. He is accused of actively trying to derail his career.
MD Anderson is consistently ranked No. 1 in cancer treatment in the United States and produces the most groundbreaking research across oncology specialties to treat the rarest and most intractable cancers. is being carried out.
The hospital is funded by the federal government, which subsidizes research by millions of dollars each year, with donations from patients, insurance companies, and wealthy philanthropists contributing about $10 billion a year. income is obtained.
Dr Sharma, a former assistant who worked with Dr Sharma from 2019 to 2023 and requested anonymity, told DailyMail.com that the abuse started within the first month of working there.
The cruel comment was first conveyed to him by Dr. Sharma’s deputy, oncologist and immunologist Dr. Sumit Subudhi, said the assistant, who asked to be known as “G.”
MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas is well known for its pioneering work in the world of immunotherapy, which harnesses the body’s own immune system to seek out and destroy cancer.
Her concerns about his harsh words were dispelled. Higher-ups said he was from New York and just had a “sassy style.”
However, Ms. G says this was not brazen, but rather a hostile and aggressive verbal abuse that belittled her intelligence and threatened to cause her immediate job loss.
Within a few months, Ms. G moved to work directly under Dr. Sharma, but her colleagues warned her about the distinguished researcher’s temperament and the work environment she cultivated.
Ms. G claims that she heard that one of Dr. Sharma’s employees had a heart attack related to work stress, while another nurse working for Dr. Sharma and Dr. Subudhi began to have suicidal thoughts. are doing.
In late 2019, shortly before the pandemic forced most support staff to work remotely, Ms. G suffered a panic attack herself and once went to the hospital, mistaking it for a full-blown heart attack.
Ms. G narrates another occasion when Dr. Sharma asked her to update her resume before receiving a prestigious award. G considered this document to be up-to-date, reflecting his Dr. Sharma’s latest work, and submitted it with some changes.
However, the changes she made were against Dr. Sharma’s standards, so the doctor Have a seizure.
Ms. G alleges that she pulled a chair up to his desk and held her “hostage”, preventing her from leaving her desk for hours, including even bathroom and meal breaks.
She is said to have made condescending comments about G’s work behavior, including that if he were her husband’s assistant, he would have been fired by now.
Ms. G alleges that Dr. Sharma’s chosen favorite, Dr. Sumit Subudhi, also abused and abused her and others.
G’s colleagues in the bullpen, all in their own cubicles, became aware of this, and they themselves could not help but fall victim to the condescending comments and abuse.
But when they raised concerns about Dr. Sharma’s behavior, higher-ups ignored them because he was “basically untouchable,” Mr. G claims.
Dr. Sharma did not respond to DailyMail.com’s request for comment.
The hospital is also currently the target of a legal dispute brought by Dr. Jamie Lin, a young scientist who specializes in cancers related to the kidneys.
She had been friends with Dr. Sharma and her husband for years until their controversial legal battle began earlier this year.
Dr. Lin alleges that even though Dr. Sharma was not actually working on the paper, he pushed her into the byline of a consequential study led by Dr. Lin and blocked the publication of the paper.
Dr. Lin will publish a paper in the journal tertiary lymphoid structures, or clumps of immune cells that clump together within kidney tissue, in the summer of 2021 that can be a negative side effect of undergoing immunotherapy for cancer treatment. I was preparing to submit it to “Cancer Immunology Research.”
Dr. Jamie Lin, a kidney cancer expert at MD Anderson, claimed that Dr. Sharma used his influential position to derail her medical research career.
Dr. Sharma had pressured Dr. Lin to add his name as a senior corresponding author to the paper’s abstract. This designation means she will oversee experiments and receive all inquiries regarding the research.
She allegedly confronted Dr. Lin about it in the middle of Santa Barbara Airport and threatened to withdraw Dr. Lin’s research funds.
Dr. Lin said, “There’s definitely a mafia-like feeling to this situation, a feeling that if she tells you to do something, you have to do it. If you don’t, you know, there will be repercussions.” .”
Dr. Lin initially agreed. But when she became increasingly uncomfortable about acknowledging Dr. Sharma’s name in a big way, she told him so and said she would not mention Dr. Sharma’s name in the end.
Dr. Lin and his co-authors then submitted paperwork to become inventors of the technology outlined in the paper. This technology, if used in practice, was guaranteed to generate some revenue and recognition. Dr. Sharma also tried to be a part of it.
Dr. Lin said, “But when I say that the idea wasn’t what you came up with, it seems like it’s against her.” And the fact that someone on my level said this. I think that may have caused a lot of what happened afterwards.
“I’m basically like a new junior faculty member saying you didn’t come up with the idea.”
Dr. Sharma used his influence to claim in the journal that MD Anderson was in the midst of an authorship dispute, but Dr. Lin denied this, and the paper was put on hold and has not yet been published.
In his legal response, Dr. Sharma claims that he worked closely with Dr. Lin and fellow researchers, frequently attended Zoom meetings, and helped analyze kidney samples, and that he previously worked with Dr. Lin and his research colleagues to help analyze kidney samples. He added that it was part of the
Dr. Sharma said that despite his busy schedule, he took the time to help Dr. Lin with her research because he “wanted to help Dr. Lin succeed at MDACC and assist her in her professional growth.” Yes,” he added.
Dr. Lin’s paper, again focused on TLS, was then submitted to the Journal of Clinical Investigation Insight and accepted for peer review (a process in which fellow scientists scrutinize research and identify errors and faulty inferences). .
However, on the same day of publication, Dr. Sharma allegedly sent an email to the journal’s editor claiming that Dr. Lin had committed plagiarism by not listing him as lead author.
Dr. Lin said, “For someone like me who is involved in research, this is a fatal blow to my career as a researcher.” So all we have is the integrity that people know that we’re doing good research that they can trust and that the data is sound. So when you accuse someone of plagiarism, they get off their feet.
“And if it comes from someone so influential, I can’t say it’s not true and I can’t get my reputation back.”
Dr. Lin said he suffered from the fallout, was unable to eat and lost 10 pounds. She couldn’t sleep, had extreme anxiety, and was constantly plagued by paranoia, thinking, “Oh my god, people think I’m a fraud or a liar?”
“So I was hiding physically and mentally. I didn’t interact with my co-workers. And even when I was at home, I mean physically, literally in the corner of the house, specifically. I found a place to work and just stayed in the corner because I felt safe there.”
Dr. Lin is using up her remaining grant funding from the National Institutes of Health, but two papers that could have strengthened her research portfolio have been canceled, meaning that once the funding runs out, she will be unable to pursue that research. I’m worried that I won’t have anything to show for it.
She is suing Dr. Sharma for defamation and libel, and is seeking $5 million in damages. However, Dr. Sharma is an employee of a government-funded agency and has the power of the state behind her.
Although the lawsuit was filed against Dr. Sharma as a private citizen, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is representing her. He argued that Dr. Lin’s lawsuit should be against MD Anderson, not Dr. Sharma, and that Dr. Sharma is immune from any legal challenge.
“Individuals who were sued as civilians now claim immunity. That’s just the way it is…” Dr. Lin left, laughing.
“This means a lot to me because this is not just my career at stake, but what it means for the future of research. What will people say and think when they see this?
MD Anderson issued a statement to DailyMail.com saying, “We do not comment on internal employee matters or pending litigation.”
“I can share that our agency has established processes to address concerns raised by MD Anderson employees.
“Upon receipt of a concern, the institution immediately begins a review process. In some cases, an external review may be required. Upon completion of each review, the institution will address the findings and close the matter. .”
