HET BEDROG VAN DJ TIJDENS HAAR GESPREK MET MITCH BLAIR
From: Blair, Mitch E <m.blair@imperial.ac.uk>
Date: 2015-09-14 15:41 GMT+02:00
Subject: Groningen input to MOCHA
To: “Auke Wiegersma (pawiegersma@gmail.com)” <pawiegersma@gmail.com>
Cc: “Rigby, Michael J” <m.rigby@imperial.ac.uk>, “Hourmat, Bernardo” <b.hourmat@imperial.ac.uk>, “Rautiu, Radu” <r.rautiu@imperial.ac.uk>, “Alexander, Denise” <d.alexander@imperial.ac.uk>
Dear Auke
I am writing to follow up the issues with regard to MOCHA and the different strands of activity in Groningen, namely the WP 3 work, DIPEx, and the Country Agent role. We had had built up a picture of a fragmented approach in UMCG, with the different strands being run separately. Indeed, I had started making enquiries at Imperial following our last discussion to set up a separate contract with you as a result. We are obviously eager that the best possible scientific approaches should be in place with all partners, recognising at the same time the differences with each set of circumstances
However, from a useful discussion with Danielle on Friday, I have to say that we picked up a very different picture. Danielle indicated that there was an integrated team, including two dedicated researchers, addressing all aspects of the work including the interface with the other DIPEx partners, and the county agent work, and that she herself was very much in charge of the whole holistic team. This is very much the situation in place at the other partners with several roles, and of course is one we welcome. She felt that Manno had no direct role in the MOCHA work other than as overall head of school, and she did not feel there would be any inappropriate influence, disturbance or distortion of the planned objective scientific approach.
I have to say that Michael and I are rather perplexed at why you would appear to hold such a different view. We understood and believed that you were good colleagues both within and outside UMCG. Danielle gave us a much more positive and sound picture than we had gleaned hitherto . At the same time she indicated that the financial resources from MOCHA had been planned for use in an integrated way, and that removal of one component would be destabilising for the planned holistic approach. You can therefore understand that we are perplexed as to why your view differs in this why which potentially could be seen as undermining Danielle’s role as the local coordinator of the Groningen effort for MOCHA.
From MOCHA we are in a difficult position – we are not party to internal issues, nor do we want to cause or fuel conflicts. At the same time, our responsibility is clear – to ensure the best outcome for the project using balanced scientific methods. I have to say that from what we are hearing – albeit at a distance – it does seem that in your local issues you have compromised some of your equipoise, as your views are not just against Manno, but are potentially unhelpful to Danielle as overall MOCHA lead and to the UMCG team working on MOCHA including their plans for covering the country agent tasks. We do therefore feel that it would be in the best interests of MOCHA to avoid new and parallel contracts, and instead to run with one integrated MOCHA input from Groningen led by Danielle. Moreover, she will be at the London meeting, and will therefore pick up the Country Agent briefing, which unfortunately you have to miss.
I hope that you understand our position. I am happy as always to discuss by phone /Skype at some stage but only if you feel that it would be useful.
Best wishes,
Mitch
From: Auke Wiegersma <pawiegersma@gmail.com>
Date: 2015-09-14 21:02 GMT+02:00
Subject: Fwd: Groningen input to MOCHA
To: Mitch Blair <m.blair@imperial.ac.uk>
Cc: “Rigby, Michael J” <m.rigby@imperial.ac.uk>, “Alexander, Denise” <d.alexander@imperial.ac.uk>, Bernardo Hourmat <b.hourmat@imperial.ac.uk>
Dear Mitch,
I must say this email took me quite by surprise.
I do want to give a reaction, but at the moment I am not quite capable of doing so. It is clear that my name and reputation is being questioned and I must say that I am slightly surprised by the ease in which this seems possible.
I will come back to you with a more extensive reaction but at the same time I can see that Danielle has succesfully convinced you that I should be excluded from any involvement – something I did not see coming, I might add. Especially as I was the one that made her the leader of WP3 instead of myself (as you know – same with Manna).
regards
Auke
From: Blair, Mitch E <m.blair@imperial.ac.uk>
Date: 2015-09-16 10:18 GMT+02:00
Subject: RE: Groningen input to MOCHA
To: Auke Wiegersma <pawiegersma@gmail.com>
Cc: “Rigby, Michael J” <m.rigby@imperial.ac.uk>, “Alexander, Denise” <d.alexander@imperial.ac.uk>, “Hourmat, Bernardo” <b.hourmat@imperial.ac.uk>
Hi Auke
I understand and perhaps you need to have some further internal discussions and reflection as you suggest. I will wait until I hear from you.
Mitch
From: Auke Wiegersma <pawiegersma@gmail.com>
Date: 2015-09-22 12:56 GMT+02:00
Subject: Re: Groningen input to MOCHA
To: “Blair, Mitch E” <m.blair@imperial.ac.uk>
Cc: “Rigby, Michael J” <m.rigby@imperial.ac.uk>, “Alexander, Denise” <d.alexander@imperial.ac.uk>, “Hourmat, Bernardo” <b.hourmat@imperial.ac.uk>, “Rautiu, Radu” <r.rautiu@imperial.ac.uk>
Dear Mitch
This will be a relatively short reaction to your first email and your wonderfully empathic second one.
I never even hinted at fragmentation of the UMCG research group, and never voiced any doubt about the scientific prowess of either Daniëlle or Manna – would have been rather strange as I proposed them to you as replacement. I only talked and wrote to you about the serious issues I have with Menno and my doubts about his objectivity in the project, based on my extensive experience in this.
My goal – even before it became clear Menno had completely cut me off – was to stay involved in the project outside Menno’s sphere of influence. I focussed on ‘country agent’ as in your letter/email of June 16th 2014 you indicated that that was a function that was or could be separate from the actual research – a ‘third party’ as you called it. I even proposed to do this work without pay (just travel and subsistence) should that be a problem with Imperial.
However, after a phone call from someone you hardly know, and without having the common decency to check back with me, you came to the conclusion that I was the pawn to be sacrificed to ensure the cooperation of the UMCG and wrote (and CC’ed to all involved) an email that some would consider to be insulting but at the very least can be termed a defamation of character. I deeply resent that, the more since if you would have had the courage to discuss it with me I would have understood. That would still have left some room for me to contribute to the project based on my extensive knowledge of the preventive youth health care in The Netherlands.
You will understand that I will refrain from giving a presentation at the EUPHA conference. I will update the other people involved in MOCHA.
regards
Auke Wiegersma
From: Auke Wiegersma <pawiegersma@gmail.com>
Date: 2015-09-22 12:59 GMT+02:00
Subject: Presentation at MOCHA workshop in Milan
To: ————- (ca. 80)
Dear All,
Due to rather unsavoury circumstances I will not give a presentation at the EUPHA conference during our workshop.
Also, I will no longer have a role in MOCHA, which I find rather sad since I (still) like the project very much indeed.
I am always willing to personally give you more information about this should you need or want it.
I wish you all the wisdom, perseverance and, above all, fun in the next couple of years with this wonderful project. In principle the outcome could be of major importance in restructuring primary health care for children in Europe.
kind regards
Auke Wiegersma
From: Blair, Mitch E <m.blair@imperial.ac.uk>
Date: 2015-09-22 17:37 GMT+02:00
Subject: RE: Groningen input to MOCHA
To: Auke Wiegersma <pawiegersma@gmail.com>
Cc: “Rigby, Michael J” <m.rigby@imperial.ac.uk>, “Alexander, Denise” <d.alexander@imperial.ac.uk>, “Hourmat, Bernardo” <b.hourmat@imperial.ac.uk>, “Rautiu, Radu” <r.rautiu@imperial.ac.uk>
Auke
I am truly sorry myself as I had absolutely no intention whatsoever to “defame your character” or offend you in any way. As you know I have been more than happy to discuss the issues with you by phone even in the middle of student examinations!. However, I am now in a very difficult position as lead for this project in trying to balance all the many competing demands of the various partners and I have realised that I just cannot and will not take up every single issue to everyone’s satisfaction. I am bound to upset people and that is not a characteristic I am comfortable with and I am deeply sorry for that. Would we have been able to resolve this issue in any other way? Please tell me as I am not sure how! I would wish for you to continue working on MOCHA and helping the team but I am afraid that a more formal paid role is unlikely to occur within the existing arrangements at Groningen.
I greatly respect you and your work as you know and I hope we can find some resolution
Mitch