Scientist and professor. Follow for science, health, and academic reform • dr.jason.locasale@gmail
Raleigh, NC
Joined March 2015
- Tweets4.7K
- Following637
- Followers17.1K
- Likes10.1K
Pinned Tweet
I recently accepted a position as Senior Advisor for Science and Innovation at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Soon, I’ll be taking a break from social media.
Science has been the central pursuit of my life. I became interested in the natural world at a young age and followed that curiosity into studying chemistry and physics. I completed my Ph.D. at MIT and later trained at Harvard in biomedical research because I wanted my work to have an impact on human health. Over the years at Harvard, and later as a professor at Cornell and Duke, I built one of the leading research programs in the country focused on nutrition, metabolism, and technology development, with applications to cancer and aging.
My laboratory produced foundational work in one-carbon metabolism, dietary amino acids, sugar metabolism in cancer, the relationship between metabolism and epigenetics, and metabolomics technology. We helped define how amino acid metabolism influences health and disease, how nutrition can shape cancer and aging, and how metabolism can influence the immune system, development, chromatin, and cell state. We also developed technologies and AI algorithms that helped make modern metabolomics a more rigorous and broadly useful field.
I published more than 200 scientific papers. My work received over 50,000 citations, and my h-index is about 100. For seven consecutive years, I was recognized as one of the world’s most highly cited scientists. I received invitations to speak around the world, advised government and industry, and trained students and fellows who went on to build successful careers of their own.
My academic career also gave me firsthand experience with some of the serious problems facing American science. I had come to recognize many of these problems while working within the system. At one point, a university audit was ordered to assess whether my values aligned with my university’s values. The investigation found no misconduct, but it dismantled a highly productive laboratory and provided cover for destroying years of work I had built up in the name of university values.
That experience strengthened my conviction that American science needs reform. Research funding should advance science, support talented scientists, and train the next generation. It should not sustain bloated and extractive administrative systems or entrenched interests that use funding to preserve their own power through processes lacking meaningful outside oversight.
I understand how ambitious research programs are built, how technologies move from an idea into widespread use, and how talented students develop into independent scientists. I have also seen how unnecessary bureaucracy and poorly designed incentives can obstruct progress and drive capable people out of research.
For more than a year, I have used social media to discuss scientific reform, academic freedom, the decline of merit, administrative bloat, and the need for greater accountability in scientific research. I am now honored to have an opportunity to contribute to that reform directly.
I am deeply grateful to those who gave me the opportunity to serve. I am honored to help advance science and innovation for the country.
I remain a scientist, and my eventual goal is to return to doing science. I still have ideas I want to pursue, technologies I want to build, and discoveries I believe can be made. For now, I have an opportunity to serve the country and help strengthen the system that makes scientific progress possible.
I will do my best to promote rigor, merit, openness, and accountability in American science.
Tax the rich? Start with the billionaires that call themselves universities.
They have tax-free multibillion-dollar hedge-fund operations and sprawling portfolios of prime real estate.
MIT will ignore criticism for as long as the money continues flowing.
Prominent donors give hundreds of millions of dollars because they want their names associated with serious science and institutions worthy of public trust.
Knouse works inside the Koch Institute and is supported by Koch philanthropy. She falsely accused David Sabatini of sexual harassment and sued him alleging rape. MIT concealed her central accusations behind the pretext of a “workplace culture” investigation and DEI survey. A jury found her liable for nearly $10 million so far.
The Koch family’s name and money now support a professor who made false sexual-assault allegations to destroy another scientist’s career.
Ragon is also a major donor. I am sure he wants scientific excellence to be the foundation of what he supports at MIT. I am not sure he wants his name associated with a thoroughly discredited institution that prioritizes virtue signaling and protecting its administrative class far more than advancing science.
📢
I honestly believe the only thing that will help David Sabatini get justice from @MIT is if the two main funders of their science programs—the Koch Brothers and Phillip Ragon and his company Intersystems—realize what’s going on and what their money has been going toward: woke witch hunts of brilliant scientists.
Neither the Kochs nor the Ragon family are woke. I have a strong feeling they would yank their funds over this kind of stuff.
@kochinstitute @ragoninstitute @InterSystems @KochFoundations you cool with what you are funding at MIT???
It’s time for MIT donors to stop looking the other way.
Sabatini is lucky to at least have a @BillAckman in his corner, but it’s not enough when woke activists are entrenched at MIT.
A jury examined the evidence. MIT’s student newspaper responded by injecting the ambiguity MIT needs to protect itself.
This is not serious reporting. It is mostly after-the-fact public relations for a discredited institution. The Tech’s article is riddled with misleading framing and evasive language designed to preserve MIT’s narrative after a jury rejected Knouse’s claims and found her liable for defamation and tortious interference.
The most dishonest line may be its assertion that “no judgment was made as to the nature of her and Sabatini’s relationship.” That is profoundly misleading in context. The jury rejected Knouse’s sexual-harassment counterclaims after years of discovery and weeks of testimony. The court record also documents that she later texted Sabatini seeking to rekindle the relationship, while trial evidence showed her repeatedly pursuing him.
The article devotes extensive space to an anonymous student and Knouse’s losing trial lawyer, who now attacks the jury after choosing to put this case before it. It gives far less scrutiny to the damaging messages, contradictions, and other evidence those jurors actually saw.
MIT’s role is similarly sanitized. The article treats dismissed claims as though they erase MIT’s involvement, even though the verdict found interference with Sabatini’s MIT employment.
thetech.com/2026/11/06/sabat…
MIT may not have known about Knouse’s BPD-like qualities and the full extent of the Fatal Attraction-like behavior revealed in her private messages and therapy records.
But it knew that dozens of people were happy working with David, that he had trained many outstanding scientists, including many women, and that his lab worked hard and produced exceptional science.
MIT decided that none of this mattered as much as projecting its DEI values. Sabatini’s record, talent, mentorship, and individual achievement became obstacles to the narrative the administration wanted to promote.
Their project required eliminating individual achievement, discrediting his talent, and reducing an exceptional scientist to a symbol the administrative class could destroy.
Knouse apparently meets the only standard MIT still enforces. Protect the administrative class and serve the approved narrative.
There is a reason public confidence in our universities is so low. Even when the written evidence speaks for itself, MIT lies through its teeth and expects the public to ignore what is directly in front of them.
Everyone who works inside places like this understands the real bottom line. Protect the administrators, protect the money, and protect the institution’s image at any cost.
The arrogance is beyond measure. MIT acts as though it can deceive people, destroy careers, and face no consequences whatsoever.
Some are claiming that this verdict will discourage women from speaking up. What it should do is encourage everyone to demand fair processes for both accusers and the accused.
Defamation is not easy to prove. This verdict was not simply a jury disliking an accusation. It followed years of discovery, weeks of testimony, and the presentation of overhwhelming evidence.
No one should tolerate a university process that ignores facts, prejudges the outcome, and protects administrators instead of pursuing the truth.
The lesson is not that women should remain silent. The lesson is that allegations must be handled honestly and evidence must matter. MIT continues to defend a deeply compromised process rather than confront what the trial exposed.
The explosive court battle between a former star scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a younger colleague continues to roil the campus community. trib.al/7r5ZjVl
I was informed Kristin Knouse is scheduled to speak at the Medical University of South Carolina on December 2.
At universities, the smallest complaint about feeling “unsafe” can get a lecture canceled. Often, “unsafe” simply means disliking someone or finding one of the speaker’s views contrary to your own.
Yet when messages describing violence by a woman against a man become public and raise obvious safety concerns, the concern for safety suddenly disappears. She keeps the university platform, the public lecture, and the spotlight.
medicine.musc.edu/digestive-…
Interestingly, many of David’s strongest supporters were raised in Soviet-bloc countries and witnessed the full consequences of Marxist theories put into practice. They recognize the fear, enforced conformity, and institutional dishonesty because they have seen where it leads.
The final outcome is as grotesque as it is revealing.
The false accuser received a tenure-track faculty position at MIT, supposedly one of the most prestigious jobs in the country, while the falsely accused scientist remains unemployable at any American institution.
Meanwhile, the administrators who probably spent more than $10 million supporting the false accuser and sticking to their story received renewed terms, heaped praise, and zero accountability.
She demanded 'hard' sex, joked about being gang-raped... then drove her MIT scientist lover to attempt suicide with #MeToo lie. Now read the disgraceful texts that landed her $10m in debt trib.al/g1kfduf
MIT is insane to continue to call its metoo investigation of Sabatini independent and expect blind faith in return.
The court record contains smoking-gun evidence confirming bias surrounding the investigation, yet MIT continues to stand by Ruth Lehmann—the director who removed Sabatini in the name of metoo and workplace culture.
MIT’s response accuses social-media coverage of being inaccurate without identifying a single specific inaccurate statement. Thousands of people have commented on this nationally reported story, so the accusation could refer to anything or anyone.
If MIT means Bill Ackman, it should address him directly. If it means the Colonel, it should say so to her face. I certainly have not heard anything from MIT. If something I have posted is untrue, MIT should identify it specifically. Instead, it issued a statement deliberately designed to project confidence in the administration while admitting, explaining, and answering nothing.
MIT repeatedly invokes an “independent law firm” while omitting the most important fact: MIT hired and paid that firm. The public has not been told how much that law firm was paid, what information it received, what instructions it was given, and how the investigation was framed. Discovery may reveal fees well into six figures or even approaching seven. A law firm running a business has every incentive to satisfy the client paying its bills, which is precisely why genuine transparency about the arrangement is essential.
The report was leaked years ago, and its account ran counter to firsthand witness descriptions of Sabatini’s work environment. That conflict warranted scrutiny then and demands it now.
The consequences extend far beyond Sabatini. MIT disrupted NIH-supported research, squandered scientific work, and sent a warning to every serious scientist considering a career there: administrators can destroy your laboratory and reputation, and hide behind a law firm they selected and paid.
Changing course would cost MIT little and begin the process of restoring public trust. Refusing to do so risks the future of the Institute itself.
🤯🤯🤯🤯😡😡😡
Dear @MIT & @WhiteheadInst ,
You can falsely criticize me and other online commentators for “inaccurate reporting” all you want
But we have all seen the text evidence indicating that the only deceptions in this case were those by people like Kristin Knouse & Ruth Lehmann—who promised Sabatini an investigation free of “pre-judgement” while at the same time she was apparently backchanneling with Sabatini’s accusers and reassuring them that he was finished at MIT and Whitehead.
The Boston Globe is right to describe the jury verdict as vindicating Sabatini—a sharp contrast with MIT’s denial and misleading statement about what the court verdict means.
Any scientist who has managed a serious laboratory should recognize that Sabatini was railroaded by an administrative class obsessed with projecting its DEI values and eager to use his destruction as proof of its virtue. Yet many scientists are afraid of this administrative apparatus, while others are too feckless to challenge it because their status inside the academic system depends on remaining in its good graces.
That is why there has been so little discussion on social media, despite what the jury found. Most remain silent or kowtow to the administrators. Only a handful of voices—Colonel Kurtz among them—are willing to say openly what happened.
It is refreshing to see some scientists finally begin to stand up, but it should not have taken five years and a jury verdict. Much of the information was publicly available long ago, and these scientists should already understand how university investigations actually work.
👏👏👏🔥🔥🔥
On Wednesday, a group of 50 scientists — from 33 institutions, including three at MIT, and nine countries — sent a letter to MIT administrators that said Sabatini’s departure from the university “carried a level of unfairness that did not meet basic standards all institutions should afford their faculty.”
MIT responded to the jury verdict by showing, once again, why they are discredited.
As expected, MIT has dug in. Their response only underscores how little these places prioritize the truth when it conflicts with protecting their administrators.
They feel entitled to say whatever they want because they expect no meaningful outside accountability. They calculate that media backlash can simply be waited out until the scandal disappears.
They are run by lawyers who produce carefully obfuscating statements—never identifying exactly what is supposedly inaccurate—and invoke an “independent law firm” while omitting that Whitehead selected and paid that firm, whereas Sabatini did not. Any minor admission is treated as an existential threat, so the response is more evasion, lawyerly language, and more self-protection for their adminstrations.
Meanwhile, MIT rots from the inside.
🚨 BREAKING — EXPOSING A SHAMEFUL WHITEHEAD INSTITUTE BOARD COMMUNICATION FOLLOWING THE $6 MILLION SABATINI–KNOUSE JURY VERDICT
ScienceGuardians™ Legal and Investigative Team has obtained a formal communication dated October 19, 2026, from Sarah K. Williamson, Chair of the Whitehead Institute Board of Directors, to the Institute’s community.
🚨 THE BOMBSHELL: Just three days after the October 16, 2026 jury verdict finding Kristin Knouse liable for defamation and tortious interference with Professor David M. Sabatini’s contractual and prospective professional relationships, awarding him $6 million in damages, and rejecting all of Knouse’s counterclaims, Sarah Williamson reaffirmed the @WhiteheadInst Board’s “full confidence” in Director Ruth Lehmann, the Institute’s workplace policies, and the process behind its 2021 investigation.
⚖️ THE CRITICAL LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE VERDICT:
The jury did not merely find that Knouse defamed Sabatini. It also found her liable for tortious interference with his existing contractual and prospective professional relationships, awarding $5.5 million of the total $6 million specifically for those interference claims.
The tortious-interference findings involved a “but-for” causation standard, under which the relevant harm would not have occurred without Knouse’s wrongful conduct.
These findings raise serious questions about Whitehead’s continued defense of its 2021 investigative process, particularly given the jury’s determination that Knouse’s wrongful conduct caused substantial harm to Sabatini’s professional relationships. Whitehead must explain how its unequivocal institutional confidence can be reconciled with the jury’s verdict and the extensive court evidence documenting how its DEI survey and subsequent institutional processes were used to advance Knouse’s efforts against Sabatini.
Sarah Williamson (@SWilliamsonFCLT) must understand the potentially devastating consequences of such unequivocal institutional support, particularly in light of:
> The $6 million jury verdict against Kristin Knouse for defamation and tortious interference.
> The jury’s findings of causation and liability for interference with Sabatini’s professional relationships.
> Private messages celebrating Sabatini’s removal and anticipating the revocation of his tenure.
> Court evidence raising serious questions about insider influence over MIT’s tenure-review committee selection.
> Communications between senior MIT and Whitehead leadership before the completion of MIT’s tenure-review process.
> Private messages discussing the concealment of Whitehead’s investigation behind a diversity survey.
> Sexually explicit exchanges involving Knouse and colleagues or trainees, raising questions about inconsistent professional conduct standards.
Defending leadership facing such serious questions risks irreparable damage to Williamson’s credibility, reputation, and fitness to remain Chair of the Whitehead Institute Board of Directors.
The ordeal has inflicted devastating personal and professional consequences on Professor @DMSabatini. The $6 million jury award must mark the beginning, not the end, of accountability. Every individual and institution found responsible for wrongdoing in this ordeal must face appropriate legal consequences. Institutional loyalty cannot substitute for justice and accountability.
⚠️ AND MORE EXPLOSIVE EVIDENCE IS YET TO COME.
ScienceGuardians™ will soon release new documentary evidence exposing deeply troubling private communications between Kristin Knouse and Tina Lopez (@KristinaELopez), including explicit references to Whitehead Director Ruth Lehmann (@REMLehmann), raising serious questions about behind-the-scenes coordination, extraordinary personal loyalties, and the disturbing dynamics surrounding the David M. Sabatini ordeal.
NO INSTITUTION. NO DIRECTOR. NO BOARD CHAIR IS ABOVE ACCOUNTABILITY.
🔱 ScienceGuardians™ Legal and Investigative Team
MORE COURT EVIDENCE. MORE REVELATIONS. STAY TUNED. ⚠️
@SciGuardians 🔱
After MIT removed Sabatini in 2021 and publicized his removal, social-media enforcers came out of the woodwork to celebrate the destruction of his career. Some praised MIT and Ruth Lehmann; others called him a sexual predator.
Anyone who challenged that narrative—or said anything positive about Sabatini or his science—could be attacked. The assumption was that his scientific accomplishments were meaningless because exceptional scientific talent did not exist: everyone was equally capable, and Sabatini had achieved prominence only through privilege and underhanded behavior that enabled him to become an oppressor. Supporting his return to science was therefore treated as an affront to what they viewed as science.
Now, the public can compare those confident denunciations with the evidence presented in court and the jury’s verdict. These posts capture the certainty, cruelty, and appetite for professional destruction that surrounded the campaign against him.
🚨 BOMBSHELL COURT EVIDENCE EXPOSES A SHOCKING FOCUS ON PERCEPTION OVER TRUTH — KRISTIN KNOUSE'S PRIVATE MESSAGES REVEAL “THE LONG GAME” IN THE DAVID M. SABATINI ORDEAL.
🔱 NEW REVELATION — Court evidence exposes extraordinary private communications between Kristin Knouse and Izabella Peña, revealing discussions of perception, personal hostility, intensive interview preparation, and institutional support.
On October 18, 2021, Knouse recounted advice she had received:
🔴 “But she said something like ‘Kristin it’s not about truth but perception…you want to play the long game’”
In the same conversation, Knouse acknowledged her personal hostility toward Sabatini:
🔴 “It’s the same about me not being able to show how angry I am or how much I hate him because it feeds his story that I’m a resentful bitch.”
She also described the preparation she received before her interviews:
🔴 “Yea I mean before my interviews they prepped me intensely. But it really helped because as Elizabeth and WI said they were completely convinced.”
Izabella Peña subsequently wrote:
🔴 “She said the same: the long game”
And:
🔴 “And she said the WI is on my side”
Coming after our previous revelations concerning Whitehead's investigation, the documented communications involving @MIT Professor Sangeeta Bhatia (@snbhatia), and the institutional decisions that devastated Sabatini's career, Exhibit 228 adds another deeply troubling dimension to the documentary record.
These are the participants' own contemporaneous private messages, documenting their accounts of interview preparation, personal hostility, advice concerning perception rather than truth, a long-term approach, and institutional support.
📑 REVIEW THE ORIGINAL COURT EVIDENCE BELOW.
🔱 ScienceGuardians™ Legal and Investigative Team
MORE COURT EVIDENCE. MORE REVELATIONS. STAY TUNED. ⚠️
@SciGuardians 🔱
MIT hired investigators to give its metoo investigation of Sabatini the appearance of independence and objectivity—and to shield itself from liability.
The court record, however, contains numerous accounts of investigators asking leading questions, seeking negative information about Sabatini, and disregarding information that contradicted the narrative they were building.
By contrast, Knouse and her allies described being “prepped” for interviews, reported that the investigators were “completely convinced,” and privately indicated that the investigators were on their side.
None of this will surprise anyone familiar with these investigations.
It took years of discovery and weeks of trial to give the public a firsthand look at how university investigations actually operate behind the polished language MIT used to defend it.
🚨 BOMBSHELL COURT EVIDENCE — THE IDENTITY OF “ELIZABETH” IN KRISTIN KNOUSE AND IZABELLA PEÑA’S PRIVATE MESSAGES: LEAD INVESTIGATOR ELIZABETH J. McEVOY.
🔱 NEW REVELATION — Explosive private communications between Kristin Knouse and Izabella Peña identify a troubling connection to Elizabeth McEvoy, one of the lead investigators at Hinckley Allen & Snyder (HAS), whose investigation formed the basis of Whitehead Institute's actions against Professor David M. Sabatini.
In August 2021, @WhiteheadInst Director Ruth Lehmann (@REMLehmann) publicly announced that concerns arising from an institutional Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) survey had led to the appointment of Hinckley Allen & Snyder LLP to investigate the @DMSabatini laboratory. She cited the investigation's findings in announcing Sabatini's immediate departure from Whitehead and HHMI.
Elizabeth McEvoy was one of the lead investigators involved in that inquiry — the very investigation whose findings carried devastating consequences for Sabatini's scientific career.
Now consider the extraordinary private message Kristin Knouse sent to Izabella Peña on October 18, 2021:
🔴 “Yea I mean before my interviews they prepped me intensely. But it really helped because as Elizabeth and WI said they were completely convinced.”
That “Elizabeth” is Elizabeth McEvoy — one of the lead investigators entrusted with conducting the supposedly independent inquiry.
“COMPLETELY CONVINCED.”
These words, appearing in Knouse's own private communications, raise serious questions about the impartiality of the investigation, the preparation of witnesses, and whether investigators approached the evidence with an open mind.
An investigation with such devastating professional consequences must itself be held to the highest standards of independence, fairness, and accountability.
📑 REVIEW THE ORIGINAL COURT EVIDENCE BELOW.
🔱 ScienceGuardians™ Legal and Investigative Team
MORE COURT EVIDENCE. MORE REVELATIONS. STAY TUNED. ⚠️
@SciGuardians 🔱
Some of the nastiest and most mean-spirited people you will ever encounter exist in academia, especially among people at roughly the same career stage.
Here we see one of Sabatini’s colleagues—Sangeeta Bhatia, a prominent figure at MIT of roughly the same age, but nowhere near his scientific caliber—actively cheering the destruction of his career.
She knew that he had devoted his life to science. Publicly, she presents herself as committed to truth and the advancement of science and technology. Behind the scenes, the record shows her participating in dirty tactics to destroy a rival inside MIT and prevent him from working anywhere else.
So much of academia is built around an age-related hierarchy. Those entering the system at the same time grapple and jockey for position, and this can expose extraordinarily unethical behavior.
Metoo was only one of many causes weaponized inside science. Rarely, however, do we get to see what years of court discovery and weeks of trial reveal about how vicious professors can be toward one another.
🤯
“Hard to imagine how he can be gainfully employed anywhere after this…”
—MeToo hoaxer Kristin Knouse and her MIT accomplices were not content to run David Sabatini out of MIT. They also lobbied private biotech companies to fire him and worked to ensure that no one would hire him anywhere.
What’s shocking about this is that Knouse had spent a lot of time with Sabatini’s son during their friendship, so she knew that she was hurting his child’s financial future too. Evil.
@SciGuardians for the info
There is a widespread belief inside universities that favorable DEI characteristics are major professional assets and working the DEI system is an important career skill.
In this exchange about Sabatini’s new girlfriend, who was also an academic, Knouse and her student openly joke about the advantages they believed she was receiving because she was “half black.” They then contrast her with “full black chicks,” whom they describe as having “much more potential.”
The exchange is an apparent acknowledgment of how they thought DEI could be used inside universities.
🤖 Made with AI
MIT owes the public an honest accounting of what they did to David Sabatini.
In August 2021, Ruth Lehmann, director of the MIT-affiliated Whitehead Institute, sent an announcement that was widely circulated and reported in the press. She said a DEI survey had prompted what she described as an independent investigation that found violations of sexual-harassment policies.
The announcement publicly portrayed Sabatini as a sexual harasser. By pairing his departure with a commitment to DEI, it cast the destruction of his career as a demonstration of Whitehead’s moral leadership.
A jury has now found Knouse liable for defamation and tortious interference, awarded Sabatini nearly $10 million, and rejected her counterclaims.
The tortious-interference finding is central. Sabatini establishing causation from Knouse's actions to his losses was necessary to win.
Under a but-for standard which Sabatini had to overcome, if the same career loss would have occurred independently of Knouse’s wrongful interference, he could not recover damages.
In other words, Sabatini would not have suffered damages but for Knouse's actions according to a court of law.
MIT and Whitehead cannot answer that finding simply by repeating “DEI survey” and “independent investigation.” The sexual harassment and hostile work environment claims were tried and rejected by the court. Paying outside investigators does not purchase immunity from accountability.
They attached a devastating label to Sabatini and presented his departure as evidence of their values despite him being their most productive scientist at the time.
This is the current state of our universities such as MIT.
A tenure-track female professor openly jokes to her student that her professional title should reference how much sex she has had, then lists “Ender of careers” among her qualifications.
Knouse clearly has a career in comedy if advancing through MIT’s DEI bureaucracy does not work out for her.
A jury later awarded Sabatini nearly $10 million with interest. It is becoming clear why the award was so high.
A key argument made in the so-called independent investigation against Sabatini was that they claimed he used or tolerated crude language in the workplace.
MIT cites the outcome of this investigation as the basis for his removal.
What became clear during the court case was that Knouse routinely used extreme, vulgar, and pornographic language with her student. She would casually describe the state of her vagina and her sexual arousal in graphic terms and made explicit jokes about genitalia, rape, and sex.
These documents are publicly available. MIT was aware of this evidence, yet it continues to claim that Sabatini and his work environment were the problem.
The double standard is glaring.
🤯🤬
“God fuck him”
“Rip his balls”
“Need to seal every crack in the coffin”
—This is how two MIT professors talked about their scheme to bring down Dr. David Sabatini. (Kristin Knouse called it Operation Dethrone.) This was an extensive MeToo hoax that was born out of personal and institutional malevolence.
MIT owes the public an honest accounting of what they did to David Sabatini.
In August 2021, Ruth Lehmann, director of the MIT-affiliated Whitehead Institute, sent an announcement that was widely circulated and reported in the press. She said a DEI survey had prompted what she described as an independent investigation that found violations of sexual-harassment policies.
The announcement publicly portrayed Sabatini as a sexual harasser. By pairing his departure with a commitment to DEI, it cast the destruction of his career as a demonstration of Whitehead’s moral leadership.
A jury has now found Knouse liable for defamation and tortious interference, awarded Sabatini nearly $10 million, and rejected her counterclaims.
The tortious-interference finding is central. Sabatini establishing causation from Knouse's actions to his losses was necessary to win.
Under a but-for standard which Sabatini had to overcome, if the same career loss would have occurred independently of Knouse’s wrongful interference, he could not recover damages.
In other words, Sabatini would not have suffered damages but for Knouse's actions according to a court of law.
MIT and Whitehead cannot answer that finding simply by repeating “DEI survey” and “independent investigation.” The sexual harassment and hostile work environment claims were tried and rejected by the court. Paying outside investigators does not purchase immunity from accountability.
They attached a devastating label to Sabatini and presented his departure as evidence of their values despite him being their most productive scientist at the time.
🚨 BOMBSHELL SWORN TESTIMONY EXPOSES A PREDETERMINED TERMINATION DECISION AT WHITEHEAD INSTITUTE IN THE DAVID M. SABATINI ORDEAL.
🔱 NEW REVELATION — Court-disclosed sworn testimony exposes that Whitehead Institute Director Ruth Lehmann (@REMLehmann) had communicated a decision to terminate Professor David M. Sabatini before he received the investigators' report and had an opportunity to respond to its findings.
The testimony comes from Professor Jonathan Weissman, a scientist affiliated with MIT, Whitehead Institute, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI).
In his June 3, 2024 deposition, Weissman described conversations with Lehmann immediately preceding @DMSabatini’s removal from Whitehead Institute (@WhiteheadInst) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (@hhmi_science) in August 2021.
THE TIMELINE REVEALED UNDER OATH IS EXTRAORDINARY.
🔴 1. THE DECISION TO TERMINATE — BEFORE SABATINI RECEIVED THE REPORT.
Weissman testified that Lehmann contacted him before the public announcement concerning Sabatini.
Describing what Lehmann communicated, Weissman stated:
🔴 “The gist of it was that they had gotten this report from Hinckley Allen, and that in light of it, they were going to fire David.”
The previously disclosed court-document analysis records that Sabatini received the investigative report on the afternoon of August 19, 2021, after Lehmann had communicated the termination decision to Weissman.
Weissman also testified that Whitehead had notified HHMI and that HHMI was expected to act first, affecting the timing of Whitehead's announcement.
🔴 2. THE TERMINATION WAS ALREADY BEING ARRANGED.
Weissman described the purpose of the meeting that Whitehead was preparing to hold with Sabatini.
When questioned about that meeting, he testified:
🔴 “My understanding as of, you know, the 17th or 18th, it was just a matter of when, and not if, and it was going to be soon.”
When subsequently asked whether it was “a done deal,” Weissman confirmed:
🔴“Yes. David was not viable at the Whitehead.”
This testimony places the decision-making process under serious examination, particularly given the timing of Sabatini's receipt of the investigative report.
🔴 3. THE INVESTIGATION'S ORIGINS AND WHITEHEAD'S LEADERSHIP.
The significance of this testimony extends beyond the final days of Sabatini's employment.
Previously disclosed communications from 2020 also document discussions involving Kristin Knouse and Whitehead's leadership concerning possible actions against Sabatini before the external investigation began.
In the court evidence presented in the post quoted below, we revealed contemporaneous communications in which Kristin Knouse and Nora Kory discussed using Whitehead's diversity survey to conceal an investigation already under consideration.
Those earlier communications, combined with Weissman's testimony, raise substantial concerns about the origins of the investigation, the independence of institutional decision-making, and whether Sabatini was afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond before the decision to remove him was made.
🔴 4. AN INSTITUTIONAL PROCESS WITH DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES.
On August 20, 2021, Sabatini's association with Whitehead Institute and HHMI ended.
The consequences extended far beyond those institutions, affecting his scientific career, professional affiliations, and reputation.
The subsequent proceedings at MIT culminated in a recommendation to revoke his tenure in April 2022, after which he resigned.
The scientific community deserves a full accounting of how these consequential decisions were reached, who participated in them, and whether the applicable procedures were followed.
Full accountability is essential for any misconduct established by the evidence, including improper institutional influence or denial of procedural fairness that contributed to Professor Sabatini's devastating ordeal.
📑 REVIEW THE ORIGINAL SWORN TESTIMONY AND COURT EVIDENCE BELOW.
🔱 ScienceGuardians™ Legal and Investigative Team
MORE COURT EVIDENCE. MORE REVELATIONS. STAY TUNED. ⚠️
@SciGuardians 🔱
