Fifty scientists from 33 institutions have asked MIT to reconsider how it pushed out biologist David Sabatini, three weeks after a Suffolk County jury found that his former colleague Kristin Knouse defamed him. The letter, dated November 4, 2026, asks MIT leadership to “reevaluate its decision to recommend the revocation of Dr. David Sabatini’s tenure and to undertake a fair and transparent review process,” Boston 25 News reported. The Tech, MIT’s student newspaper, reported the signers include three MIT professors.
Meanwhile, the case itself is not over. Knouse’s lawyer says she will challenge the verdict, and Sabatini’s lawyers have appealed an earlier ruling that let the Whitehead Institute out of the case. Here is what the letter says, how MIT responded, and where the litigation goes next.
What the letter says
According to Boston 25, which obtained the letter, and The Tech:
- Who signed. Biomedical scientists from 33 institutions in nine countries, signing as individual faculty members, Boston 25 reported. The Tech counted 50 signers, including MIT professors Linda Griffith, Regina Barzilay and Ömer Yilmaz.
- Who received it. Members of the MIT Corporation, including President Sally Kornbluth and Corporation Chair Mark Gorenberg, The Tech reported.
- The basis. “This request is made considering evidence presented during the civil trial that may not have been available at the time of the original decision, as well as the unanimous jury verdict returned in his favor,” the letter says, according to Boston 25. It says the trial “revealed much previously unseen evidence, including communications between MIT and the Whitehead Institute leadership.”
- The complaint about process. The signers wrote that many of them have long felt the MIT proceedings “carried a level of unfairness that did not meet the basic standards all institutions should afford their faculty.”
- The cost. “His loss of tenure at MIT was so damaging to his reputation that he became a pariah,” they wrote.
MIT’s response
MIT did not comment on the letter and said it is not a party to the lawsuit, Boston 25 reported. It pointed to an April 2022 letter from then-President L. Rafael Reif, which said Sabatini resigned his tenured position after a university review recommended revoking his tenure for violating MIT’s consensual relationships policy and for unprofessional behavior toward lab members. MIT noted the policy has been in effect since January 2018 and that the Whitehead Institute is an independent nonprofit research entity, according to Boston 25.
The Tech quoted Reif’s 2022 letter: “the reviewers found Professor Sabatini engaged in a sexual relationship with a person over whom he held a career-influencing role, he did not disclose the relationship at any time to his supervisors, and he failed to take any steps to relinquish his mentoring and career-influencing roles.”
The Whitehead Institute’s board has “full confidence” in Director Ruth Lehmann’s leadership, its workplace policies and the 2021 investigation of Sabatini’s lab, a spokesperson told The Tech.
What the jury decided, and what it did not
On October 16, after a three-week trial, the jury awarded Sabatini $6 million plus interest. It found Knouse defamed him and interfered with his contractual and prospective professional relationships, and it rejected her counterclaims of sexual harassment and retaliation, Boston 25 and The Tech reported. Our report on the verdict and the appellate rulings that shaped the trial.
Two limits matter for anyone reading the letter:
- The verdict binds the two parties. MIT was never a defendant, and claims against the Whitehead Institute and Lehmann were dismissed before trial. A jury finding against Knouse does not legally undo an MIT personnel decision.
- The jury did not rule on MIT’s policy. According to The Tech, the verdict form shows Knouse failed to prove sexual harassment, but no judgment was made as to the nature of the relationship. MIT’s 2022 review rested on a different question: whether Sabatini violated a rule against undisclosed relationships with people he supervised.
Why the judgment is closer to $9.6 million
The Tech reported Knouse is expected to owe about $3.6 million in prejudgment interest on top of the $6 million award. That figure comes from state law. Under G.L. c. 231, § 6B, which we read at malegislature.gov, when a verdict awards damages “for personal injuries to the plaintiff or for consequential damages, or for damage to property,” the clerk adds “interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum from the date of commencement of the action.”
Sabatini filed suit on October 20, 2021, according to The Tech. Our arithmetic: 12 percent a year on $6 million is $720,000 a year, and five years of that is $3.6 million, which matches the reported figure.
What happens next in court
Knouse. Her lawyer, Ellen Zucker, plans to challenge the verdict through post-trial briefs and believes there is a sound basis in law to challenge both the amount and the fact of the verdict, The Tech reported. Zucker called the result “extraordinarily disappointing” and said she does not believe it “will stand.” Boston 25 reported that Knouse plans to appeal. Post-trial motions go first to the trial judge, Judge Christopher Barry-Smith of Suffolk Superior Court.
Sabatini. His lawyer, Lisa Arrowood, said the team will challenge the dismissal of his claims against the Whitehead Institute. On November 4, Sabatini’s counsel filed to appeal the summary judgment in favor of Whitehead and Lehmann and the denial of his motions to require Whitehead to produce all materials from its 2021 investigation, The Tech reported.
The Appeals Court has already ruled once on the Whitehead claims. In Sabatini v. Knouse, No. 23-P-706 (Jan. 14, 2025), which we found on CourtListener, it upheld dismissal of his defamation and interference claims against the institute and its director, finding their statements conditionally privileged under the common interest privilege, as we reported in October.
On campus
The Tech reported that Knouse, members of her lab and the lab’s administrator have received hostile messages and calls since the verdict, and that Knouse has received death threats. MIT Police were contacted, and the parties’ contact information was removed from the internet, The Tech reported. The Boston Globe reported that the court battle “continues to roil the Cambridge campus.”
Sabatini told The Tech he may consider returning to MIT “under the right circumstances.” Knouse did not respond to The Tech’s request for comment, and her attorney did not respond to Boston 25.
Frequently asked questions
Did MIT respond to the scientists’ letter about David Sabatini?
MIT did not comment on the letter, said it is not a party to the lawsuit, and pointed to then-President Reif’s 2022 letter explaining the tenure review, according to Boston 25 News.
Can the Sabatini verdict force MIT to restore his tenure?
No. MIT was not a party to the case, so the jury’s verdict against Knouse does not bind MIT. Any change would be MIT’s own decision.
Why is the Sabatini judgment more than $6 million?
Massachusetts adds 12 percent annual interest from the date a tort suit is filed under G.L. c. 231, § 6B. On $6 million over five years, that is about $3.6 million.
Is Kristin Knouse appealing?
Her lawyer says she will challenge the verdict, first through post-trial briefs, according to The Tech and Boston 25 News.
Sources: Boston 25 News, November 6, 2026; The Tech, November 6, 2026; The Boston Globe, November 4, 2026. G.L. c. 231, § 6B, read at malegislature.gov. The 2025 Appeals Court decision in Sabatini v. Knouse, as described in our October 26 report. General information, not legal advice.