What the documentary uncovered is more than a scandal. It’s a reflection of the deeper cracks in research culture.

The recent DW documentary, How Germany’s Elite Research Institution Fails Young Scientists, has sent shockwaves through the global academic community.1 The documentary has exposed a deeply troubling culture of exploitation, bullying, and systemic failure within the Max Planck Society, one of the world’s most prestigious research institutions. Young scientists shared stories of power abuse, discrimination, and career-destroying obstacles, bringing to light issues that many in academia have whispered about for years but seldom dared to confront publicly.

Researchers came forward with devastating stories. Gabriel Lando, a former postdoctoral researcher at the Max Planck Society, described being yelled at, humiliated, and emotionally broken by his director.

Lando, who joined the institute in 2020, described the experience as deeply traumatic: “I think those were the worst moments of my life,” he said, adding that “it took me more than a year to heal from it, to stop dreaming about it.”1

A PhD student was excluded from discussions about her own project and feared her work wouldn’t be credited fairly. International researchers had their contract renewals used as leverage to stay silent. Unfortunately, many early-career researchers remain silent in the face of misconduct—not because they accept it, but because they fear retaliation, reputational harm, or simply don’t know where to turn.

“I felt there is zero interest in actually doing any investigation,” one former PhD student told DW.1

The Core Problems

The challenges facing researchers today aren’t isolated incidents—they’re symptoms of deeper, systemic problems that persist across institutions and disciplines. These are some of the most pressing issues shaping the academic experience:

  • Toxic Lab Cultures: Many early-career researchers describe research environments rife with micromanagement, bullying, sexism, and unhealthy power dynamics that undermine growth and well-being.2,3
  • Lack of Mentorship & Guidance: Researchers are left to navigate complex academic and funding landscapes alone, often leading to burnout and career stagnation.
  • Pressure to Publish & Funding Challenges: The constant demand for publications and external funding creates an unsustainable work environment, leaving little room for innovative or high-risk research.
  • Lack of Career Stability: Many researchers grapple with job insecurity, uncertain not only about what comes next—but whether they want to remain in academia at all. With more early-career scientists choosing to leave the system altogether, the pipeline is under increasing strain.4,5,6

This Isn’t Just a Max Planck Problem

The documentary has ignited fierce debate on LinkedIn and other platforms, with professors, researchers, and students sharing their own experiences and demanding change. The sentiment was overwhelmingly one of grim recognition: “This isn’t just Max Planck. This is everywhere.”

 The hierarchical structure inherent in many academic institutions often fosters environments where power dynamics can be exploited, leading to bullying and harassment. In a global survey of 2,006 graduate students and postdoctoral researchers across academic scientific institutions, 84% reported experiencing academic bullying, 59% had witnessed it, and nearly half (49%) identified as both victims and witnesses of abusive supervision.7

But the challenges in academia don’t affect trainees alone. PIs themselves are under mounting pressure—tasked with balancing grant applications, publishing demands, teaching loads, administrative duties, research, and mentorship responsibilities. An increasing number of faculty are considering leaving academia, citing burnout, bureaucracy, and a misalignment between their values and institutional expectations.4 In fact, more researchers are transitioning into roles in industry, policy, and government, seeking environments where their expertise can thrive without the constant emotional and logistical strain of academic life. These challenges show that the academic system isn’t failing just one side—it’s creating pressure at every level.

The System Isn’t Broken—It’s Operating as Designed

PIs are often hired for their research output and the amount of grant funding they can attract—not for their ability to lead or mentor. Many receive no formal training in leadership, management, or conflict resolution. Institutions rely on outdated systems of prestige and deference, allowing top researchers to act with near-total autonomy, often with minimal oversight.

Meanwhile, research trainees are left to navigate uncertain career paths, relentless funding pressure, and overwhelming workloads that often blur the line between ambition and burnout. Reporting misconduct is risky. Asking for help is stigmatized. Many feel isolated, silenced, or forced to leave the system entirely.

It has also raised an important question: What can be done to create a healthier, more supportive research environment?

What Would a Better System Look Like?

A healthier, more supportive academic system wouldn’t just react to harm, it would be built to prevent it.

Imagine research environments where early-career scientists understand what’s expected of them, receive regular feedback, have access to career development support, and collaborate in spaces grounded in trust—not fear. Where mentorship is intentional, communication flows both ways, and success isn’t reserved for those closest to power, but shared through clear structure, purpose, and mutual respect.

Now imagine PIs who are also thriving and leading high-impact research, mentoring with confidence, securing funding, and balancing teaching, supervision, and administration without burning out. A system where they’re supported as both scientists and leaders, empowered to build teams that innovate and grow together.

This isn’t idealism. It’s possible with the right support, structure, and commitment to doing things differently.

Invest in Leadership, Not Just Research Output

Most PIs enter their roles with little to no training in leadership, management skills, or conflict resolution. Yet they’re expected to lead diverse teams, manage grants, mentor junior scientists, and navigate interpersonal dynamics, all on top of producing high-impact research. Strong leadership directly improves research productivity, retention, and team satisfaction.8,9

What’s needed:

  • Mandatory leadership and mentorship training for new and current PIs
  • Institutional incentives for strong team culture
  • Ongoing professional development focused on human-centered leadership
  • Support systems for PIs that provide peer exchange, coaching, and structured reflection on team challenges

Create Clear, Supported Career Paths for Trainees

Many researchers face deep uncertainty about their futures. They are unsure not only whether they’ll find stable footing in academia but whether they want to stay at all. Despite years of training, most are left without structured guidance, transparent advancement pathways, or the support needed to plan for diverse careers—both within and beyond the academic system.

What’s needed:

  • Structured career development programs that support both academic and non-academic pathways
  • Workshops and training in professional skills like project management, science communication, teaching, and grant writing
  • Opportunities for networking and exposure to industry, policy, government, and other sectors
  • Clear, transparent expectations for authorship, advancement, and performance at each stage

Establish Systems of Accountability That Actually Work

One of the most alarming patterns revealed in the DW investigation wasn’t just the abuse itself. It was the widespread institutional failure to respond. Complaints were quietly redirected to individuals with clear conflicts of interest, and the few formal processes that did exist often lacked transparency, follow-through, or protection for those coming forward.

What’s needed:

  • Transparent, well-communicated reporting channels with independent oversight
  • Protection for whistleblowers and clear anti-retaliation policies
  • Climate audits that capture lab culture and identify risks before harm occurs
  • Institutional data transparency on how complaints are handled—including how many are submitted, investigated, and resolved

Foster Intentional, Inclusive Lab Cultures

Too often, lab cultures reflect outdated norms: rigid hierarchy, silence, and the normalization of overwork, exclusion, or micromanagement. But culture can be cultivated and built deliberately through shared values, transparent communication, mutual respect, and consistent inclusive leadership.

What’s needed:

  • Structured, proactive mentorship programs that prioritize growth, accountability, and accessibility—not just informal or inconsistent guidance
  • Leaders who model inclusion, create psychological safety, and are equipped to navigate conflict, feedback, and diverse team needs
  • Clear lab expectations and values statements that outline how team members collaborate, communicate, and support one another
  • Regular team check-ins and anonymous feedback mechanisms to surface concerns early and strengthen trust and transparency

A Call to Institutions and Funders

The burden of fixing academic culture cannot and should not fall solely on individual researchers. It is time for universities, research institutes, and funding agencies to take collective responsibility for the systems they’ve built and the environments they sustain.

Real change requires structural support. Institutions must move beyond reactive policies and toward proactive investment in lab culture, mentorship, and leadership development. That includes:

  • Implementing mandatory, evidence-informed mentorship and leadership training for PIs.
  • Enforcing zero-tolerance policies around bullying, discrimination, and harassment, backed by transparent accountability systems.
  • Conducting independent lab climate audits and making results actionable.
  • Providing safe, accessible reporting mechanisms and conflict resolution resources that protect all research team members—not just those in positions of power.

Funders also have a critical role to play. By integrating mentorship quality, lab culture, and team support into grant evaluation criteria, they can shift the incentive structure toward long-term sustainability and researcher well-being—not just short-term outputs.

Culture change can no longer be optional. If we want a research ecosystem that truly drives innovation, advances knowledge, and serves society, we must prioritize the health and success of the people doing the work.

Join the Movement for Better Research Environments

The DW Documentary has sparked a global conversation about the urgent need for systemic reform in academia. But awareness is only the beginning—lasting transformation demands bold, coordinated action.

We require systems that prioritize mentorship, leadership, transparency, and team health just as much as publications and grants. Systems where early-career researchers aren’t left to survive alone, and where PIs are supported in becoming the kind of leaders they wish they had.

At PositionScale, we’re proud to be part of that change.

References

  1. Sanders IV, L., & Felden, E. (2025). Uncovered: Abuse at top German science institution. DW News. Retrieved from: https://www.dw.com/en/abuse-elite-scientists-germany-max-planck-society-v2/a-71897800
  2. Kamoun, S. (2024).What’s a toxic environment for a PhD student? Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10732659
  3. Woolston, C. (2015). Work environment: When labs go bad. Nature, 525(7569), 413-415.
  4. Naddaf, M. (2024). Nearly 50% of researchers quit science within a decade, huge study reveals. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03222-7
  5. Ryan, J. (2025). More than 40% of postdocs leave academia, study reveals.  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-00142-y
  6. Forrester, N. (2023). Fed up and burnt out: ‘quiet quitting’ hits academia. Nature, 615(7953), 751-753.
  7. Moss, S. E., & Mahmoudi, M. (2021). STEM the bullying: An empirical investigation of abusive supervision in academic science. Eclinicalmedicine, 40, 101121.
  8. Antes, A. L., Mart, A., & DuBois, J. M. (2016). Are leadership and management essential for good research? an interview study of genetic researchers. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 11(5), 408-423.
  9. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2019). How to determine if leadership, management training could improve lab productivity, morale. MIT Professional Education. Retrieved from: https://professional.mit.edu/news/articles/how-determine-if-leadership-management-training-could-improve-lab-productivity-morale