Think twice before becoming Cenk Sahinalp's student
Severe problems with Cenk Sahinalp you must know about
FEATURED ON HOMEPAGE
Identical copies of this article can be found on Medium and GitHub.
Dr. S. Cenk Sahinalp is an accomplished scholar in bioinformatics. Apart from his shiny titles and outstanding publications, I also heard people, including both his students and collaborators, praising his research work in private conversations. He is said to have a solid grasp of his research fields, and whatever paper he writes is guaranteed high quality.
However, a great researcher as he is, I have a very negative judgment of him, both as a supervisor and as a person. Although I've never been his student or directly interacted with him in any way, his irresponsibility caused significant hardship in my graduate studies.
He seems to be very selfish, completely disregarding his responsibility or other people's interests while pursuing his own interests, probably even committing minor fraud. It may even suffice to say, he is despicable.
Nevertheless, while these issues can be deal-breakers in most relationships, they are less of a concern in academia: if you really want to pursue an academic career, Cenk might still be a good supervisor, which I'll explain in the "Implications for readers" section.
Table of Contents
Problem 1: Deceptive
He is deceptive and cares little about his students. Dr. Sahinalp was a professor at Simon Fraser University (SFU) between 2003 and 2019, but between 2013 and 2019, he was also a professor at Indiana University Bloomington. Do you think he spent around half-half time in each of those universities during this overlapping period of 2013-2019? No. Ever since he started working at Indiana University [1], he rarely returned to SFU in person, only holding a position in SFU; however, when recruiting students to SFU, he told them he'd be "at SFU half the time". The students would find out the truth only after starting their studies at SFU, then they had to find another local professor/postdoc to act as an on-site co-supervisor, while having a weekly 1-1 video conferencing with Cenk. At least that's what happened to some cohorts of students I know of, but most likely, other cohorts suffered a similar fate, based on Cenk's selfish and irresponsible character depicted in this article. At the time, we joked that Cenk was like a "shadow figure" in our department: we hear about his name frequently, but never see him in real life.
You might think that video conferencing with Cenk is still very helpful for those students, but meeting Cenk in person shouldn't be a privilege in the first place: it should be their right, unless they were informed of his complete absence before they accepted their PhD/MSc offers. Even with tools like video conferencing, face-to-face interaction is still indispensable, especially in a close relationship like a supervisor-student relationship, and even more so for supervisors and students who have never met in person. This distance and unfamiliarity don't bode well for the quality of guidance those students would get, but Cenk couldn't care less. Cenk's deception probably constitutes a minor fraud (definition).
Problem 2: Extremely irresponsible
His irresponsibility severely harms both his and other professors' students. From what I heard, Cenk's inaction and irresponsibility seemed to be a major factor behind the early termination of SFU's MADD-Gen program, which was a bioinformatics program funded by NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada). After its termination by NSERC at the end of 2016, graduate students recruited under this program had their funding sources cut off (yes, SFU professors continued recruiting students to this program until its last day without telling them the truth, despite knowing its termination well in advance), and I was hit especially hard, suffering from economic hardship for years (see this article for more details and how I fought back).
The program got terminated prematurely due to MADD-Gen committee's failure to meet the promises they made when establishing it. The MADD-Gen committee was mostly comprised of some SFU professors, including Cenk. To get the funding, the committee promised things like offering certain courses, offering students exchange opportunities, getting students into internship programs, etc. These were also selling points to attract prospective graduate students. When Cenk was in charge of the MADD-Gen program, he neglected his administrative responsibilities, only focusing on his work at Indiana University. Some older students told me that Cenk sent little to no students for exchange or internship during this period. Although these activities resumed to normal levels after another professor took over, it was too little too late: the damage was already done, NSERC doubted the committee's competence and commitment to fulfill promises in the future, leading to the decision to terminate the funding.
You can imagine my fury and disappointment upon hearing this story. When deciding which graduate school to go to, I had some better choices but chose SFU, largely due to its enticing financial aid. And now I was told this financial aid was a lie, its termination was caused by an unbelievable level of irresponsibility and incompetence.
I think this story, if true, clearly showed how selfish and despicable Cenk was, to almost ridiculous levels.
Unlike the committee's other failures that are more justified, for example, being unable to open some promised courses due to little to no students enrolling, sending students for exchange or internship is relatively easy: it just requires a small amount of attention and effort from the program chair, he didn't have to create anything new, as the exchange and internship programs were already running smoothly under the earlier chairs [2]. Yet Cenk refused to fulfill such a simple responsibility.
It's understandable that Cenk didn't want this responsibility due to his busy schedule at Indiana University, but he could have easily avoided harming students: he could have described the situation to colleagues well in advance and handed over this responsibility, which would have ensured normal operation of the MADD-Gen program. Why on earth didn't he do so? Isn't this problem completely foreseeable and easily preventable? Why he simply sat back to see things fall apart, as if he had nothing to do with it?
Perhaps that is the answer: Cenk indeed thought it had nothing to do with him. After all, the consequences of funding termination wouldn't affect him personally. They would hit students hard, but Cenk could not care less. Perhaps in his mind, students are meant to be compromised, betrayed, and mistreated.
Considering how easy it was to avoid this incident and how serious the consequences were to the students, Cenk's behavior showed an astounding level of selfishness and irresponsibility, revealing his disgusting nature. I have to say, Cenk's integrity and MADD-Gen program's management are jokes.
I wonder whether Cenk tried any mitigation methods, like asking other colleagues to help arrange student exchanges and internships. Likely not, or not early enough.
If such an incident could have been avoided or mitigated so easily, yet it still happened due to Cenk's indifference to others' interests, despite knowing its grave economic consequences for many students, do you think it's even possible that he cares about your interests at all? If he has to choose between your interest and his own, do you think he'll even hesitate for one second?
Cenk doesn't even honor the promises he made to the FUNDING agency [3], why would he honor the promises he made to you, once you become his student, or even collaborator?
Besides, I think it also demonstrated an astonishing level of incompetence and irresponsibility in the SFU School of Computing Science.
The MADD-Gen committee was a team, where people should cover each other to ensure the team's success. In contrast, members of this team were unaware and indifferent to the ongoing crisis for a long time, probably because they were similar to Cenk and didn't care about the consequences on students. To make matters worse, some team members even continued recruiting students to the MADD-Gen program until its last day without telling them the truth, despite knowing its termination well in advance, which could constitute fraud based on the Canada Criminal Code.
Similar to Dr. Sahinalp, those professors are likely also very selfish and have questionable moral standards. They include Dr. Martin Ester (my own supervisor), Dr. Leonid Chindelevitch, Dr. Funda Ergun, Dr. Arrvindh Shriraman, and probably many others. You can refer to here for more info. While Dr. Martin Ester definitely did, I don't know whether other aforementioned professors deceived and under-funded their students similarly, but I think some level of deception existed.
Like Cenk but to a lesser degree, if those people didn't even honor the promises they made to the FUNDING agency, why would they honor the promises made to you, once you become their student?
Defense for Cenk and its rebuttals
Now let's come up with a defense for Cenk. Note that I don't know the complete truth, so this argument is hypothetical: When Cenk took over the MADD-Gen program, it was already quite obvious that some of MADD-Gen program's promises couldn't be kept, e.g., the promised course offerings. Thus, the program's termination would be inevitable, regardless of whether Cenk worked on student exchanges and internships. If so, is Cenk still very guilty?
I disagree with this argument’s implicit assumption of NSERC being so strict. Scientific research is inherently risky, forcing things to go completely as planned discourages riskier scientific explorations, but they potentially lead to more breakthrough discoveries than more conservative research. Being overly strict would hinder scientific development. Hence, I think NSERC should have some tolerance for failure to meet certain promises, as long as there are proper justifications. However, if my knowledge is accurate, what Cenk did was not justifiable. He should be guilty for the following reasons:
This incompetent and irresponsible management truly disappointed NSERC, eliminating any hope they probably once had in MADD-Gen committee, necessitating the funding termination;
Those promises were also made to students, Cenk's failure to keep these promises unlawfully violated the obligations set out in the offer letters.
Reason #2 is self-explanatory, let's dive deeper into reason #1. I think NSERC's disappointments are as follows:
This incident shows MADD-Gen committee isn't engaged in the program. If there are truly insurmountable difficulties in fulfilling their promises, NSERC would likely understand it and be forgiving. But clearly, this doesn't apply to sending students for exchange and internship. If they cannot do, or even TRY to do such a simple thing, it's a problem with attitude and engagement. Then why give precious money to people who aren't engaged or committed?
This incident shows MADD-Gen committee has terrible leadership and execution. It forms a vicious cycle with the engagement problem: poor leadership and execution can lead to low engagement, while low engagement makes the leadership and execution even weaker.
Being the program chair, why didn't Cenk do anything to prevent or mitigate the issue before it was too late? Isn't it completely foreseeable and easily solvable?
Why other professors didn't take matters into their own hands to solve the problem early on? Why was the MADD-Gen program in disarray and stayed dysfunctional for so long?
What gives NSERC the confidence that this terrible leadership and execution can improve dramatically overnight, turning things around and meeting expectations in the future?
This incident shows MADD-Gen committee has problematic work ethics and perhaps morality in general, funding them could potentially harm the academic community and society. As mentioned before, if those professors don't even honor the promises made to the funding agency, what promises will they honor? After all, committing crimes is also a form of breaking promises. As for Cenk, if he didn't even ATTEMPT to keep the promise, whose making he took part in, he should be deemed a liar, because making promises you never intend to keep, is a form of lying. It's common sense not to trust liars.
It seems Cenk was obviously obsessed with his own interest, ignoring the overall program, the students, and the funding agency. This shows major problems with work ethics and overall morality. As the saying goes, "If you see a cockroach in the room, there could be hundreds more hiding." His lack of morality likely manifests in other areas. What if his research funded by NSERC contains fake data and results? In that case, wouldn't NSERC be unwittingly supporting academic misconduct? What if he embezzles the NSERC funding?
Cenk likely also affects other members of the MADD-Gen committee due to their close relationship, especially considering Cenk's research prowess making him influential, if not a role model, in this social circle. What if they also have problematic work ethics and flawed morality? In that case, what if the funding is used to produce fake data and results, or embezzled by these professors?
I don't think these speculated misconducts and crimes are very likely, but the NSERC officer has to be prudent to allocate funding responsibly. I think he/she made a wise decision not to trust Cenk and his peers.
The committee didn't take effective disciplinary measures to prevent similar things from happening again. If Cenk were working in a company, he'd likely be fired "for cause" due to "failure to perform job duties", but the university can't fire a tenured professor for "minor" incidents like this. Besides, other members of the MADD-Gen committee were his peers instead of superiors, they've got no administrative power to criticize or discipline Cenk. In fact, they can't afford to offend him (he doesn't have the greatest temper in the world), jeopardizing their future opportunities to cooperate with Cenk in research projects.
I think no one dares to ask Cenk to write a COE (Correction of Error) document or take training, which is commonplace in a company. Without these disciplinary measures, NSERC won't be confident that Cenk and the committee have thoroughly reflected upon this incident and learned from their mistakes, taking necessary precautions in the future.
After this incident, I think no administrative staff with the power to discipline professors was invited to oversee or join the MADD-Gen committee, as can be seen here. Therefore, even if they created disciplinary mechanisms to prevent or mitigate issues, no one had the authority to enforce them. I wonder whether the committee members even tried to invite anyone; I guess not, who'd rather get a boss to oversee your performance when you can just relax? As for the consequence of funding termination, just let the innocent students bear it, who cares? After all, students are at the bottom of this power hierarchy, doomed to be exploited and mistreated.
These huge red flags should've been critical in the termination decision. Although they existed with the entire MADD-Gen committee, I believe Cenk was responsible for causing or significantly contributing to these problems; besides, it should be Cenk's behavior that revealed all these problems to NSERC. So I think he's very guilty.
Problem 3: Difficult to get along with
I heard this quote from some of his students. For a student, this shouldn't be a big issue: if your supervisor is a good person and competent researcher, some challenges in your relationship could be the price you're willing to pay. After all, no one is perfect.
But now we know Cenk's other problems, this problem becomes harder to ignore: they literally "add insult to injury". I guess "difficult to get along with" means Cenk is:
probably rude
bad-tempered, easily offended
self-centered without regard for other people's feelings or interests
probably has moral issues which makes you feel nasty
probably (?) asks for higher authorship than he truly deserves
I cannot speculate too much and I'll stop here. But in my opinion, unless this problem is significantly impacting your psychological health, it shouldn't be much of a concern: there are always more important aspects to focus on.
Implications for readers
Dr. Sahinalp's dishonesty and irresponsibility are quite eye-opening, revealing his disgusting nature. You should consider those issues when choosing your graduate supervisor. But as a responsible author, I must stay balanced and honest.
Comparatively speaking, Cenk is not that bad in academia, based on my limited understanding of him. At least 20% of all professors could be worse than him. Meanness and misconduct are so rampant in academia that, it effectively lowers the participants' moral standards. When assessing a professor, we should use more lenient criteria than elsewhere. Due to the nature of academia, lots of these issues are not made known to the outside world, professors end up enjoying a higher social status than they truly deserve. I'll write another article about this dark side in the future.
Avoiding Cenk doesn't mean you'll find a better professor. Graduate students rarely write bad reviews for their supervisors, especially if the student works in academia after graduation. As of now (end of April 2024), there have been no negative reviews of Dr. Sahinalp online, until this one. Please keep in mind that, if you read this article and decide not to be Cenk's student, there's a small probability that you could end up with an even worse professor who happens to have no negative reviews online, although I think you're more likely to find a better professor.
Cenk has questionable work ethics and morality, but if you become his student, you may be lucky enough that his issues don't manifest in your interactions and you stay unharmed, although I suggest you not count on anything that's out of your control. There are 4 things that I think are the worst for a professor: 1) academic misconduct and crimes, 2) physically and mentally abusing students, 3) intentionally and severely delaying graduation, and 4) severely stealing your authorship. If Cenk doesn't have those misconducts, he's an acceptable supervisor. I don't know whether he has those misconducts. Even if he does, the victim may choose to stay silent.
If you have a real interest in scientific research and a career in academia, Cenk could still be a good choice, as long as he doesn't have the 4 severe misconducts mentioned above. His knowledge, experience, intelligence, fame, and connections will give you a headstart in your academic career. In academia, it is research capabilities and connections that matter the most, Cenk will help you get them, and surely you need to pay some price, perhaps a hefty price for it. From his homepage, I see some of Cenk's old students still working in his lab even after graduation, which probably attests to this argument. However, if you simply want to get a degree, then stay away from Cenk.
Do you see why I say academia has low moral standards? Those issues with Cenk could be deal-breakers in a romantic relationship or an employment relationship in the industry, but in academia, they're acceptable to most people: only research output and serious crimes matter, other problems are not critical. Thus, research institutes will continue to employ, fund, and cherish him, collaborators will continue to work with and praise him, and students will continue to come to him; no disciplinary measures will be taken whatsoever. Students are at the bottom of this power hierarchy, their interests are somewhat "meant to be" compromised and no one cares, unless you fight back really hard. If you stay here long enough, you'll likely be assimilated too, though there are also people with integrity in the academia.
Such is the truth with academia. If you strongly resent this culture, then don't become a research graduate student; at least, don't do a PhD, unless there're absolutely no better alternatives. I'll write a more detailed article in the future about it.
If you decide to be Cenk's student, please keep it in mind: Cenk didn't even honor the promises he made to the funding agency, you shouldn't expect he'd honor the promises he made to you.
The decision is yours. I hope this article has provided you with valuable information to help you succeed in your life.
Disclaimer
Regarding some important facts I mentioned in this article, I possess some evidence that I can confidently show in a court trial, if it ever takes place.
I'm trying my best to be responsible and accurate in this article, but errors, distortions and omissions could still occur. If presented with compelling proof of such problems, I'm willing to modify this article in accordance with the fact.
This article probably contains copyrighted material, especially Cenk's photo, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The photo, and any other copyrighted material herein, are made available in an effort to advance the public understanding of Dr. S. Cenk Sahinalp. It is believed that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this article is distributed without profit to those who express an interest in knowing more about Dr. S. Cenk Sahinalp.
Footnotes
[1]: I only know for sure that since Fall 2016 (when I started studying at SFU), Cenk rarely returned to SFU, I don't know whether he has been like that since 2013 when he started working at Indiana University. But based on his character, I think the answer is likely YES.
[2]: This part is an educated guess: I don't know whether there were indeed earlier chairs of the MADD-Gen program before Cenk, and I don't know whether the exchange and internship programs were running normally under their management. But I'm pretty confident that the answers to both questions are YES.
[3]: Though I don't know for sure, I believe Cenk was a founding member of MADD-Gen and participated in creating the plan and making promises to NSERC.