Two New Independent Reports on the Death of Dan Markingson, But Now What Will Happen?

Years after his death, there is now a little more clarity about the clinical trial in which Dan Markingson was enrolled when he died.  Whether this clarity will have any impact remains to be seen.

We most recently posted about the aftermath of Mr Markingson's death here, (and see posts in 2013 here, and in 2011 here.)  Very briefly, Mr Markingson was an acutely psychotic patient enrolled in a drug trial sponsored by Astra Zeneca at the University of Minnesota.  His enrollment was said to be voluntary although at the time he enrolled he had been under a stayed order that could have involuntarily committed him to care.  Despite his mother's ongoing and vocal concerns that he was not doing well on the study drug and under the care of trial investigators, he continued in the trial until he died violently by his own hand.  After his death, his mother Mary Weiss, friend Mike Howard, and University of Minnesota bioethics professor Carl Elliott campaigned for a fair review of what actually happened.  University managers not only rebuffed their concerns, but harshly criticized Professor Elliott, and ended up reprimanding him for "unprofessional conduct."

Two New Reports

In the last few weeks, two new independent reports on the case appeared.  Both vindicated the concerns and questions raised by Mary Weiss, Mike Howard, and Prof Elliott.

Association for Accreditation of Human Research Protection

One, called for by the University of Minnesota faculty senate, was by the Association for Accreditation of Human Research Protection,  and said that the university left research subjects "susceptible to risks that otherwise would be avoidable" (see this Minneapolis Star-Tribune article.)  Furthermore, according to a post in the Science Insider blog from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, it said,

[T]he external review team believes the University has not taken an appropriately aggressive and informed approach to protecting subjects and regaining lost trust,

Also, it said the university has been

assuming a defensive posture. In other words, in the context of nearly continuous negative attention, the University has not persuaded its critics (from within and outside the University) that it is interested in more than protecting its reputation and that it is instead open to feedback, able to acknowledge its errors, and will take responsibility for deficiencies and their consequences.

Finally, it noted a "climate of fear" in the Department of Psychiatry.

Office of the Legislative Auditor for the State of Minnesota

The second report, available in full here,was from the Office of the Legislative Auditor for Minnesota.  If anything, it was more damning. Its summary included,

the Markingson case raises serious ethical issues and numerous conflicts of interest, which University leaders have been consistently unwilling to acknowledge. They have repeatedly claimed that clinical research at the University meets the highest ethical standards and dismissed the need for further consideration of the Markingson case by making misleading statements about past reviews. This insular and inaccurate response has seriously harmed the University of Minnesota’s credibility and reputation.

It seemed to affirm in detail nearly all of Weiss', Howard's and Elliott's concerns.  It recommended that the University should suspend new psychiatric drug trials until the problems it identified were remedied (see Star-Tribune article here.)

Vindication, but Will It Lead to Progress?  

Taken together, these reports vindicate the work of Mr Markingson's mother, friend, and academic watchdog Professor Elliott and their supporters.  As the Star-Tribune reported,

'Over the past eleven years the University of Minnesota has made us feel as if we have no voice, no rights and absolutely nothing remotely called justice,' wrote Mike Howard, a close friend to Markingson’s mother, in a letter in the audit. 'This report is the first step toward accountability.'

The Minnesota Post added the response of Professor Elliott and a colleague,

'It’s nice to have an independent confirmation of what we’ve been telling the university for five years, but which they have refused to listen to,' he told MinnPost on Thursday.

Elliott said he is not convinced, however, that Kaler and other university leaders are going to take responsibility for what happened in the Markingson case — or take the necessary steps to fix the problem going forward.

'One of the most worrying findings in the report was the widespread belief on campus that the university leadership doesn’t care about human study subjects,' he said.

Leigh Turner, another U bioethicist who has also been outspoken about the issues raised by the Markingson case, expressed similar concerns. 'Can we expect reform from the very people who have done nothing for the past several years?' he said in a phone interview.

'I hope there’s some change,' he added. 'But the fact that [Markingson died in 2004] and it’s now 2015, I think hope has to be tempered with a dose of realism. There are some very powerful forces interested in minimizing the findings and suggesting that there are only minor things that need to be done.'

It appears there a several major remaining questions.

What Were the Underlying Causes?

Although both reports went into some detail about what happened to Mr Markingson, they seemed not to dwell on why it happened.  They did not seem to address relevant contextual factors, policies, and decisions.  For example, the report by the Office of the Legislative Auditor included,

We understand that the University of Minnesota has been and should continue to be an institution that delivers not only high quality medical care but also engages in cutting edge medical research— research that does pose risks to human subjects. In addition, we do not question the appropriateness of the University obtaining money from pharmaceutical and other medical companies to support that research. However, in every medical research study—whether supported with public or private money—the University must always make the protection of human subjects its paramount responsibility.

However, as we and many others more erudite have discussed frequently, clinical research that evaluates products or services made by the commercial sponsors of the research has proven to be highly susceptible to manipulation by these sponsors to increase the likelihood that the results will serve marketing purposes, and suppression if the manipulation fails to produce the wanted results.  Commercial sponsors often strongly influence the design, implementation, analysis and dissemination of clinical research.  Often their influence is mediated by financial relationships with individual researchers and with academic institutions who seem more and more beholden to outside sponsors, that is, by conflicts of interest.  The report by the Auditor noted pressures, including financial pressures on the physician who ran the study in which Mr Markingson was a subject to enroll more patients and keep them enrolled.  To protect patients better in the future, in my humble opinion the relationships among commercial sponsors, academic medical institutions, and individual researchers need further consideration.  Is the easy money supporting research coming from commercial firms with vested interests in the outcome of that research really worth the risks of biased results, hidden results, and to research subjects?   

Will Anything Change and Will Anyone be Held Accountable?

Once these two reports were delivered, it now seems to be up to university managers to make needed changes.  In general, these are the same managers who are described above as so "defensive," who not only ignored complaints, but appeared to try to silence those who complained.  If they are left in charge, why should we expect them to make any meaningful changes?  Instead, should they  not be held accountable for their actions?  

Will the University Cease Hostilities Against Dr Elliott?

Again, as noted above, university managers did not merely disagree with Professor Elliott.  They disparaged him, appeared to try to intimidate him, and reprimanded him.  It seems at the very least he is owed an apology.  So far, nothing in the news coverage suggests he has or will receive one.

Will Anyone Notice? 

So far, this case has gotten good coverage in Minnesota media.  However, it has largely been ignored in the national media.  Beyond Minnesota, I could only find mention in some blogs, e.g., in PharmaLot by Ed Silverman, and in Forbes by Judy Stone.  I have seen nothing in any US medical or health care journal, although the British Medical Journal did cover it in a news feature.  This case clearly has global implications, and ought to be considered one of the most important cases illustrating the perils of commercially sponsored human research, but it remains proportionately anechoic.

Summary

The latest reports seem only to confirm that clinical research at major academic institutions has gone way off track.  It now seems that in their haste to bring in external funding, university administrators and the academic researchers who are beholden to them have sadly neglected the protection of their own patients.  As we have said ad infinitum, true health care reform would turn leadership of health care organizations over the people who understand and are willing to uphold the mission of health care, and particularly willing to put patients' and the public's health, and the integrity of medical education and research when applicable, ahead of the leaders' personal interests and financial gain.

ADDENDUM (25 March, 2015) - See also numerous posts by Professor Elliott on the Fear and Loathing in Bioethics blog,  by Bill Gleason in the Periodic Table blog,  and by Mickey Nardo on the 1BoringOldMan blog. 

ADDENDUM (30 March, 2015) - Note that after receiving offline comments, I changed the first paragraph to emphasize the clarity is about the trial, rather than the patient's death, and second paragraph to clarify that the order to commit was stayed.

How the Anechoic Effect Persists: The Case of the Continued Punishment of Dr Elliott

We have frequently discussed the anechoic effect, how evidence and opinions that challenge the dysfunctional status quo in health care, and that might discomfit those in power in benefit from it, have few echoes.  One major reason for the anechoic effect is that people are afraid to speak up because thus disturbing the powers that be may have bad consequences for the speakers.   

A December 21, 2014 article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune updated an ongoing example of how the leaders of health care may seek to silence their critics.  The article updated the career trajectory of Dr Carl Elliott, a psychiatrist physician and bioethicist at the University of Minnesota who dared challenge the university's handling of the untimely death of a patient in a university run clinical trial.

Background - the Dan Markingson Case

We first blogged about this case in 2011.  The case itself dates from 2003, and first got media attention in 2008.  A good quick summary appeared in the Center for Law and Bioscience blog out of the Stanford Law School. 

Dan Markingson – a vulnerable, psychotic young man – was forced to choose between enrolling in a Pharma-funded drug study or being involuntarily committed (in other words, locked up).  A UMN [University of Minnesota]  doctor enrolled him in the study despite having just determined that Dan 'lack[ed] the capacity to make decisions regarding [his] treatment,' rendering it highly unlikely that Dan could have given valid informed consent to participate.  As Dan's mother, Mary Weiss, observed his mental condition deteriorating, she repeatedly tried to have Dan removed from the trial – at one point asking  'Do we have to wait until he kills himself or someone else before anyone does anything?'  But the UMN co-investigators in the drug study refused to terminate his participation.  Shortly after Ms. Weiss made her desperate plea, Dan Markingson killed himself by cutting his own throat.

Dr Elliott, an expert in bioethics who had concentrated on issues such as the effect of conflicts of interest and commercial influences on clinical research, started probing the death of Mr Markingson after the 2008 media reports.

Some of what Dr Elliott found appeared in a May 23, 2014 article in Science. He concluded that previous efforts to investigate the death of Mr Markingson were flawed.

 Elliott came to believe that every investigation—not only by FDA but also by the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice, the university's IRB, and its general counsel's office—had been flawed or incomplete. FDA did not seek Weiss's perspective, the views of Markingson's caseworker, or interview staff at the halfway house who had interacted with Markingson, for instance. (FDA would not comment on the Markingson case for this story.) Nor did the agency examine conflicts of interest. Weiss's lawsuit was dismissed not on its merits, but because the university's IRB and Board of Regents were deemed immune from liability thanks their role as state employees. (The judge did argue that informed consent was obtained appropriately, because Markingson had signed the consent form and had not been declared mentally incompetent by a court.)

Furthermore, he found reasons to think that the problems with the trial in which Mr Markingson died were not unique.  He and a colleague

heard from other individuals who insisted that they had been harmed in UMN psychiatric drug trials or had witnessed others' mistreatment. One man said he had worked in the psychiatric units of the hospital where Markingson was treated. Another identified herself as a counselor for teenagers. Elliott heard from parents, who said their son or daughter had enrolled in a study under pressure.

Thus, Dr Elliott and others concluded that the university should do a thorough investigation of the case,

In November 2010, eight faculty members, including Elliott and [McGill University bioethicist Leigh] Turner, wrote a letter to the university's Board of Regents, requesting an independent, university-commissioned investigation into the Markingson case.

The Punishment of a Dissident

As the Science article noted, former Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson said that the

university hired Elliott because it 'found him to be one of America's most outstanding bioethicists. The moment he comes up with something that is sensitive to them, he becomes the village idiot.'

In fact, as we noted in 2013, in a 2012 post in the Center for Law and Bioscience blog, not only did university officials rebuff the call for a new, thorough investigation of the untimely death of Mr Markingson, but the university general counsel, who had been operating at the heart of this case, appeared to threaten the leading bioethicist dissident, Dr Carl Elliott:

 After Carl Elliott, the University of Minnesota bioethicist, refused to drop the matter, [university chief counsel] Rotenberg asked the university’s Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee to take up the question of '[w]hat is the faculty[’s] collective role in addressing factually incorrect attacks on particular university faculty research activities?' – a question that appeared both to accuse Elliott of 'factually incorrect attacks' and to call for some unspecified action to 'address' them.  Other faculty, including the president of the Minnesota chapter of the American Association of University Professors, viewed this as an attempt to intimidate Elliott into silence.  If so, it backfired.  The story ended up in the press, putting the Markingson case back in the public eye and once again making the University of Minnesota look really bad.

The December 21, 2014 Star-Tribune article reported that university administrators seem to be out to get Dr Elliott once again. First, it interviewed the university's chair of psychiatry,

[Dr S Charles] Schulz, the department chair, says he can’t even bear to read Elliott’s published accounts anymore. 'It’s too painful,' he said.

Both he and Olson say that Elliott gives only one side of the story and that he ignores the facts that don’t support his case.

'I think [people] believe that because Carl Elliott is a professor of bioethics and a member of the Center for Bioethics, that he must be telling the truth,' said Olson. But 'he’s not pursuing this in an academic way. I don’t think it’s conduct that becomes a faculty member and a peer.'

What is not academic or unbecoming about investigating the death of a vulnerable psychiatric patient during a clinical trial is not clear. Then,

University officials have not been amused. They accuse Elliott of whipping up hysteria with 'false and unfounded' allegations, and undermining research efforts in the process. And while the university hasn’t tried to fire him, it has reprimanded him for 'unprofessional conduct,' a move that he’s now challenging under the tenure code.

Again, rather than investigating the death of Mr Markingson, or at least responding to specific allegations, university administrators have set about to punish their own distinguished faculty member who wondered why a vulnerable patient died during a university run clinical trial. 

Finally,

So far, academic freedom has protected Elliott’s job. But last winter, the university claims, he crossed a line. It accused him of using a 'fabricated letter' in a speech about the Markingson case at Hamline University and demanded that he issue a retraction.

The 2004 letter, addressed to Weiss, Markingson’s mother, appears to be from a university lawyer disputing her right to her son’s medical records. The U says it’s a forgery; Elliott says he doesn’t believe it, and he refused to issue a retraction. He called it an attempt to discredit Weiss, adding: 'I won’t be part of it.'

Elliott received a letter of reprimand in August from Dr. Brooks Jackson, the current dean of the Medical School, citing him for 'significant acts of unprofessional conduct.' The reprimand is on appeal.

The evidence that the letter was a forgery was not apparent.  Yet while they pursue their own faculty member for his investigation of Mr Markingson's death, university managers still apparently have not addressed the many problems in the university's version of the story of Mr Markingson's death, from the fragmentary nature of previous investigations to the problems just revealed in a Scientific American blog with the knowledge of an expert witness for the university in the lawsuit brought by Mr Markingson's mother against it.  

Summary

Dr Carl Elliott is a respected physician bioethicist who has uncovered problems with commercial contract research organizations doing human research (see our blog posts here and here), and has written a critically acclaimed book, White Coat, Black Hat (reviewed here by Dr Howard Brody on his blog.)  Yet his previous work counted for naught when he dared look into possibly unethical clinical research done at his own university.  As noted in the Star-Tribune article,

Within the U’s Center for Bioethics, where he has worked since 1997, he says the tension is so palpable that he dreads setting foot in his office. He does most of his work from coffee shops.

In my humble opinion, it appears that top university managers have put their personal interests ahead of the mission of their university, the role of their faculty members in upholding that mission, and even the welfare of patients who put their trust in the university's academic medical center.  The hard life that Dr Elliott has lead since he started to challenge his own university's administrators show how the anechoic effect is generated.  As long as leaders of academic medical institutions, and other health care organizations can put their own interests ahead of the mission, health care professionals and other academics who object are likely to have their lives made miserable, possibly lose their jobs, or worse.  How many will have both the courage, and the resources to stand up for what is right under such a threat.

True health care reform would turn leadership of health care organizations over the people who understand and are willing to uphold the mission of health care, and particularly willing to put patients' and the public's health, and the integrity of medical education and research when applicable, ahead of the leaders' personal interests and financial gain.

ADDENDUM (30 December, 2014) - Post corrected.  Dr Elliott trained as a physician but is not a psychiatrist.

ADDENDUM (30 December, 2014) - also see comments on the 1BoringOldMan blog. 

Minimizing Legal Liability or Upholding the Mission? - the Markingson Case Redux

There are new, and troubling developments in the long running case of Dan Markingson, the psychiatric patient and research subject who committed suicide while enrolled in a trial of anti-psychotic drugs at the University of Minnesota nearly 10 years ago.

Summary of the Case

A good quick summary of this case just appeared in the Center for Law and Bioscience blob out of the Stanford Law School. 

Dan Markingson – a vulnerable, psychotic young man – was forced to choose between enrolling in a Pharma-funded drug study or being involuntarily committed (in other words, locked up).  A UMN [University of Minnesota]  doctor enrolled him in the study despite having just determined that Dan 'lack[ed] the capacity to make decisions regarding [his] treatment,' rendering it highly unlikely that Dan could have given valid informed consent to participate.  As Dan's mother, Mary Weiss, observed his mental condition deteriorating, she repeatedly tried to have Dan removed from the trial – at one point asking  'Do we have to wait until he kills himself or someone else before anyone does anything?'  But the UMN co-investigators in the drug study refused to terminate his participation.  Shortly after Ms. Weiss made her desperate plea, Dan Markingson killed himself by cutting his own throat.

Our most recent (2011) post on the case was here.  In it we also noted that there was reason to think:
-  The design of the controlled trial was flawed.
-  Financial conflicts of interests may have influenced the trial investigators' actions, particularly their questionable enrollment of Mr Markingson in the trial and their retention of him in it despite his apparent clinical deterioration.
Despite that, when bioethicists and the University of Minnesota called for a new investigation of the trial and what happened to Mr Markingson, the university rebuffed them.

Worse, as detailed in a 2012 post in the Center for Law and Bioscience blog, not only did university officials rebuff this call, but the university general counsel, who had been operating at the heart of this case, appeared to threaten the leading bioethicist dissident, Dr Carl Elliott:

 After Carl Elliott, the University of Minnesota bioethicist, refused to drop the matter, Rotenberg asked the university’s Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee to take up the question of '[w]hat is the faculty[’s] collective role in addressing factually incorrect attacks on particular university faculty research activities?' – a question that appeared both to accuse Elliott of 'factually incorrect attacks' and to call for some unspecified action to 'address' them.  Other faculty, including the president of the Minnesota chapter of the American Association of University Professors, viewed this as an attempt to intimidate Elliott into silence.  If so, it backfired.  The story ended up in the press, putting the Markingson case back in the public eye and once again making the University of Minnesota look really bad.

New Evidence Unearthed

In 2013, Dr Elliott made public what may be important new evidence in the case.  As summarized by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune,

The professor, Carl Elliott, says he has obtained consent documents for two separate schizophrenic patients that appear to be exact copies — not just in the subjects’ apparent replies, but in the positions of the lettering on the pages.

Elliott said it is improbable that separate patients would provide identical responses to the questionnaire, which includes open-ended questions about the risks and requirements of clinical research. And that, he said, raises questions about whether the university was really examining patients to determine their ability to consent to research.

 One crucial question about the case is how a patient who was actively psychotic - out of touch with reality - could give true informed consent to participation in a drug trial.  These new documents suggest major irregularities in the process used in the trial to assure that patients did give informed consent. 

Furthermore, as reported by the Minnesota Daily, other documents that Dr Elliott found suggested problems with records that related to whether study investigators would have had legal authority to access Mr Markingson's medical records, also suggesting major problems with trial administration. 

These documents, unknown until recently, suggest new concerns with how the study in which Mr Markingson was enrolled, and during which he died, was run.  Yet, the University of Minnesota's official response to them, once again orchestrated by university counsel Mark Rotenberg, attacked the legitimacy of the documents (and indirectly, attacked Prof Elliott again), as reported by the Star-Tribune,

the university’s general counsel, Mark Rotenberg, challenged the authenticity of the documents and disagreed that study recruiters failed to obtain proper and independent consent from mentally ill patients.

'I am challenging these allegations directly,' he said. 'We have no reason to believe the consent forms were prepared inappropriately.'

As Matt Lamkin wrote in the Stanford Law and Bioscience blog,  the University's responses all through this case have been focused  not on the welfare of patients, maintaining the trust of research participants, or the integrity of clinical trials, but on the legal defense of  the University and its leaders

Despite all this (and much more), the University has never acknowledged any errors or taken any disciplinary action related to the Markingson case and has repeatedly rejected calls for an independent investigation.  That’s probably because from the start the University has handled this case as a litigation matter.  Rather than trying to determine whether there were problems with the way its personnel treated Markingson, the University has focused on minimizing its potential liability.  Accordingly, the University appears to run every inquiry related to the case through the office of its General Counsel, Mr. Rotenberg.  When Carl Elliott (my mentor as a grad student at UMN) wrote a damning article about the case in Mother Jones, the University’s response came from Rotenberg.  When UMN bioethicists called on the University’s Board of Regents to launch an independent investigation, the Regents deferred to Rotenberg.  Not surprisingly, he declined.

When you turn to your lawyer, you’re going to get a particular kind of response.  The GC isn’t in a position to take an objective look at the circumstances.  He’s an advocate.  His role is not to make sure the client has conducted itself ethically, but to minimize the client’s risk.  Asking your lawyer to respond to allegations of wrongdoing is like asking your PR flacks to do so.  Their job is to make their clients look good, not to make sure they’ve acted properly.

Note that this still begs the question of who the client is.  Is it the university, or the university's leaders?

Furthermore, as Mr Lamkin pointed out, the general counsel would appear to have a conflict of interest.  It may be he has an interest in defending his own actions, as well as those of his client(s), whether they are the university, its leaders, or both. 

In addition to Mr. Rotenberg’s role as the University’s top defender and advocate, there is another reason he cannot impartially consider requests for an investigation: the General Counsel’s Office is an important player in some of the disturbing events at issue.  As noted above, Rotenberg himself has been accused of attempting to intimidate and silence the bioethicist who has most doggedly sought an investigation.  The University’s lawyers are also responsible for the disgraceful silencing of Markingson’s mother, Mary Weiss.  After avoiding liability by arguing the University was immune from suit, these lawyers then threatened to force Weiss – whose son had died in a University doctor’s 'care – to pay the University’s legal costs of some $57,000.  The University used that threat as leverage to get Weiss to forgo an appeal of the trial court’s decision.

So as the University continues to refuse any new consideration of this this seemingly never-ending case, Dr Elliott has posted an online petition calling for an outside investigation.   We will see how Mr Rotenberg reacts to this.

Summary


A very troubling aspect of this case is that it has shown that the university leadership has seemed to care, at best, more about fending off litigation than upholding the university's mission.  The mission of the university is supposed to be discovering and disseminating the truth in a spirit of free inquiry.  Added to the mission of medical schools and university teaching hospitals is taking good care of patients, and putting the patients' interests ahead of all other concerns.  Yet, in this case, university leaders have not seemed to care whether in their haste to push back legal liability they were stepping on their faculty's academic freedom and free speech, the integrity of the medical research done at the university, and most importantly the rights of their patients and research subjects.  Furthermore, it is not clear whether they mainly feared the impact of litigation on the university, or how litigation might actually end up holding them accountable.

As Dr Judy Stone wrote in her Scientific American blog,

  it appears that UMN believes, as do many other institutions, that protecting itself from scandal and its consequences comes first and foremost and that, like the big banks, that it is too big to be punished.

Again, note that UMN cannot itself believe or protect.  People acting ostensibly on its behalf may have been protecting themselves from scandal, and believing that the size and status of their institution gave them, the leaders, impunity.

The case of Mr Dan Markingson is a continuing reminder that to reform health care, health care organizations need to be lead by people who put the health care mission first and are willing to be accountable for that mission.   I hope that eventually there is an honest investigation of this case, and a commitment to reform based on its conclusions.

See additional thoughts from Dr Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog, on the 1BoringOldMan blog, on the Periodic Table blog, and last but certainly not least, many comments by Dr Carl Elliott on the Fear and Loathing in Bioethics blog. 

Who Is Really "Bullying?" - Academic Leaders and the Stifling of Critics of Conflicts of Interests

Universities, which are supposed to discover and disseminate knowledge, ought to be the foremost defenders of free speech and a free press.  However, in the past decades, university executives have become notorious for trying to control speech that offends their political sensibilities (for numerous examples, see the FIRE - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education web-site.) 

It seems that academic leaders get even more upset when their or their faculties' conflicts of interest are criticized, as demonstrated by updates about two important cases we have discussed.

Columbia University

We recently posted about reactions at the university to revelations in the movie "Inside Job" that the Dean of the Business School and one of its prominent professors failed to disclose pay they received that might have motivated their enthusiastic promotion of economic policies that helped contribute to the Great Recession. 

These reactions occurred six months after the movie came out.  A Columbia Spectator student columnist asked why it took so long:

Why have students waited until April to address the consequences of “Inside Job” when the film was released in October? Why has our reaction been delayed by seven months?

Her postulated answer:

Why should Columbia need an outside documentary to point out its ethical failures?

Embedded in the Spectator news article about the film—published April 15— is a quote from University Senator Liya Yu that offers a frightening answer to our question about the delayed student reaction. 'I think people in the Business School haven’t responded because they are afraid,' Yu was quoted saying. 'If you are the dean of a school, obviously all the students are going to be dependent on you for their careers and futures. It’s hard for them to do anything.' I think this explanation extends to students beyond those currently enrolled in the Business School. In fact, its implications pose a threat to student journalism as a whole. For the first time in history, everything that a student journalist writes during his or her time in college is published on the Internet. This is a good thing for many reasons: It increases readership, allows writers to cross-reference easily, etc. But it also creates a permanent, compromising memory that is available forever to anyone who seeks it.

From the moment the college application process began, we were told that the content of our Facebook profiles could be used against us in admissions. We have learned to censor our traceable online behavior so as not to compromise our professional or educational prospects. Unfortunately, this has led to journalistic over-caution. We fear that anything we say now will be used against us later. And maybe it’s true. After all, not enough time has passed for us to take a careful account of the degree to which students’ first publications can affect their futures. Even editors have advised me to mitigate the strongest claims in my columns for fear of consequences to come. Perhaps they are right. But the most insidious kind of censorship—the hardest to recognize, the hardest to combat—is self-censorship, the persistent imaginative failure that prevents us from even recognizing what we should be writing about.

In the Internet age, bravery in student journalism is not trailing a military unit on the Iraqi front lines. Rather, it is the willingness to address controversial issues as they surface, not once these points of view have become popular. Our brand of fear—which is frankly selfish—censors our thoughts almost unnoticed. Next time, let’s skip the delayed reaction. I for one hope to do better.

So students may fear challenging conflicted faculty or administrators for fear of immediate academic punishment and future harm to career prospects in a society in which criticism of acquisitive leaders is decreasingly tolerated.

University of Minnesota

Earlier this year we posted about the troubling case of the death of an ostensibly voluntary participant in a clinical trial at the University of Minnesota years ago.  A particular concern was whether the money they received from the trial's sponsor influenced faculty and university leaders to overlook problems that might have put patients at risk in a trial whose main goal was marketing, not science.

The case got recent attention in an article by Dr Carl Elliott, a university professor of bioethics, and a letter he signed with other faculty requesting a new university inquiry into the case.  Not only did the university administration rebuff this request, but it now seems to be looking for ways to deter any future criticism of the institution's human research.  As reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education,

At the prompting of the University of Minnesota's general counsel, a committee of the University Senate has taken up the question of how faculty should collectively respond to "factually incorrect attacks" on particular faculty research.

Some faculty members say that direct appeal from the general counsel, Mark B. Rotenberg, is an attempt to quiet some faculty members' criticism of drug trials conducted at the university, including one seven years ago in which a participant, Dan Markingson, committed suicide. Before they took up the general counsel's question at a meeting this month, members of the university's Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee were provided with copies of material related to that case, including a letter sent by eight bioethicists to the Board of Regents last fall, asking it to appoint a panel of outside experts to examine the ethical issues raised by the death.

Committee members discussed with two administrators who attended that meeting, on April 8, whether faculty members have a responsibility to respond to attacks on fellow faculty members, according to minutes from the meeting; failure to do so, one professor said, could be seen as parallel to 'bullying.'

Professor Carl Elliott, who wrote the Mother Jones article that brought the recent unpleasantness of the Markingson case back into the public view, was concerned:

In an interview, Mr. Elliott said the general counsel's actions are troubling. Instead of fostering an open discussion about research practices, Mr. Rotenberg, and by extension the university administration, is attempting to use the faculty senate as a 'stalking horse' for intimidation and punitive action, Mr. Elliott said.

It defies common sense that Dr Elliott, representing only his own intellect and knowledge of ethics, was the "bully" in this case, while Mr Rotenberg, representing the university hierarchy, and the faculty members who ran the trial in which Mr Markingson died were the victims. As University of Minnesota faculty member Karen-Sue Taussig, a medical anthropologist, said per the Bioethics Forum:

I was worried the committee might be being used to intimidate a member of the faculty who was critical of the University. It seemed to me that there was a logical inconsistency in the University counsel's position: he did not provide any evidence that any individual faculty member felt chilled by Carl's work, yet his bringing up the issue clearly posed the threat of chilling Carl's speech. . . . In short, I was concerned about the possibility of an Orwellian attempt to invoke academic freedom in order to chill academic freedom.

By the way, there is also nothing to suggest that Dr Elliott's work was "factually incorrect."  Per the Bioethics Forum:

Philosopher and historian of science Ken Waters, who also attended the second meeting, was just as concerned. 'The University's general council planted a false question, the implicature of which [the committee] seemed to be uncritically accepting (that Carl was advancing factually incorrect claims),' he wrote to me in an e-mail. 'And in planting the question, the counsel was trying to turn the tables and squelch my colleagues' academic freedom by somehow suggesting that they were impinging upon the academic freedom of others.'

In the 1980s and 1990s, university administrators tended to attack speech they felt was hurtful to minorities and women, using speech codes (again as has been amply demonstrated by FIRE). Now they seem most sensitive to speech critical of their own exercise of power, and of the cozy financial relationships that generate conflicts of interest and threaten the academic mission.  Furthermore, now that it has become fashionable to decry "bullying," "anti-bullying" initiatives may become the chief way to quell criticism that make academic leaders uncomfortable.

Summary

At one time, university administrators and favored faculty justified attacks on free enquiry, a crucial part of the academic, by claiming a higher political or social purpose.  Now they seem to be willing to trash the core values of academia to stifle critics of their own actions, especially those involving lucrative conflicts of interest.   Such actions may be a major cause of the anechoic effect.
Increasingly, academic institutuions seem to be run more for the personal benefit of their leaders and their cronies than to discover and disseminate knowledge.  True health care reform would return academic medicine to its fundamental purpose, and return its leadership to those who would uphold the mission rather than fill their pockets.  

Hat tip to Ed Silverman in the PharmaLot blog re the University of Minnesota case.  See also comments by Prof William Gleason in the Periodic Table blog, e.g., here and here, and by Gary Schwitzer in the HealthNewsReview blog.

The University of Minnesota, Where Nothing Can Go Wrong, Go Wrong, Go Wrong...

As noted on the Periodic Table blog, the administration of the University of Minnesota continues to believe all is well with its clinical research activities.  A recent internal review said there was nothing more to investigate about the unfortunate death of a psychiatric patient years before. So should we all be relieved?

It will take an extensive review of the case to ultimately suggest we should not at all be relieved.  The case raised important concerns about the validity of clinical research, and whether it violates the trust of its patient-subjects.  These concerns had not been addressed before the university's most recent review, and thus seem even more pointed after its recent non-investigation.

Background: the Untimely Death of Dan Markingson

In May, 2008, the (Minnesota) Pioneer Press ran a series of articles about the untimely death of Dan Markingson which occurred while he was enrolled in a randomized trial sponsored by AstraZeneca (the CAFE study) at a site at the University of Minnesota.  The first article in the series made the following major points:

Mr Markingson had given his consent to be enrolled despite evidence that he was actively psychotic

He started having visions of killing his mother in the storm. Markingson was taken Nov. 12, 2003, to Regions Hospital in St. Paul, but it had no open psychiatric beds. He was then transferred to the University of Minnesota Medical Center, Fairview.

Weiss said discussions about research started right away at the hospital. Markingson was placed in Fairview's Station 12, a new unit at the time created to treat psychotic patients and screen them for research. Olson and Dr. Charles Schulz, head of the U's psychiatry department, helped launch the unit in part to enhance the hospital's startup schizophrenia program and meet the U's mandate to bring in more research dollars.

Olson first recommended on Nov. 14 that a Dakota County District Court commit Markingson to the state treatment center in Anoka because he was not fit to make decisions about his care. He wrote to the court that Markingson was convinced his delusions were real and that he wasn't mentally ill.

The doctor changed his opinion about the commitment in less than a week, telling the court Markingson had started to acknowledge the need for help.

Reversals by patients are common, Olson explained in an interview with the Pioneer Press last month. Schizophrenics often arrive for treatment with delusions and denial but change their outlook while hospitalized.

A judge agreed Nov. 20 with Olson's new recommendation, requiring Markingson to follow the doctor's treatment plan. The next day, Markingson signed a consent form to be part of a national anti-psychotic drug study, Comparison of Atypicals for First Episode, or CAFE.

His mother's multiple complaints that while in the study, Markingson was not getting better and not getting proper treatment were ignored

Weiss' letters to Olson and Schulz, who was a co-investigator in the study, urged them to consider different treatment options for her son, which would have disqualified him from the study. But the doctors were unconvinced by her pleas.

In particular, she wrote with strange prescience,

'Do we have to wait until he kills himself or someone else,' she asked three weeks before his suicide, 'before anyone does anything.'

There was evidence that Markingson was not getting optimal treatment

In retrospect, it was not even clear that Markingson was taking his study medications prior to his suicide:

An autopsy showed no medication in Markingson's bloodstream, and a coroner's photo showed a sealed bottle of his medication. Had he been taking his drugs?

Study officials could have been fooled. They only counted drugs left in pill bottles instead of testing blood levels in patients.

Suggestions that financial conflicts of interest influenced trial investigators' actions

The initial news article raised questions whether the study investigator had been unduly influenced to keep Markingson in the study by financial concerns:

CAFE was an early opportunity at the U for Olson to add research experience to his academic credentials. The U had recruited him in 2001 for his expertise in schizophrenia.

It was a slow start. Olson recruited one patient in 2002, and CAFE study leaders considered dropping him altogether, according to monthly recruiting summaries. Olson and the university had been dropped from a previous study because of low recruiting numbers, the doctor later said in his court deposition.

Exchanges between local and national study officials made it clear that there was pressure for results and a 'risk' that the study would be shut down if it didn't recruit enough patients.

Note that:

As Subject 13, Markingson was worth $15,000 to the U, with some of that going to Olson's salary and the psychiatry department. Switching or adding medications could have disqualified Markingson and halted payments to Olson and the department from AstraZeneca.

Overall, the study offered $327,000 to the U and an opportunity to raise the profile of its schizophrenia program.

An accompanying Pioneer Press article indicated that both Dr Olson, and the Chair of Psychiatry, Dr S Charles Schulz, were receiving considerable financial support from AstraZeneca and other pharmaceutical companies at the time of the study.

Olson received $220,000 from six companies since 2002, including $149,000 from AstraZeneca, according to the state records. Schulz received $562,000, including $112,000 as a researcher and consultant to AstraZeneca.

Olson said his AstraZeneca money went straight to the U but did support his salary. Markingson's full participation in the yearlong study meant up to $15,000 for the university.

Did the lawsuit's results indicate nothing was wrong?

Mr Markingson's mother sued the University of Minnesota and AstraZeneca, but (per the first Pioneer Press article),

The lawsuit ended this year after a judge ruled that the university had statutory immunity from such lawsuits and that AstraZeneca shouldn't stand trial because there was no convincing proof that its drug caused Markingson's death. Weiss settled with Olson, the only defendant left. She said she was granted $75,000, which went entirely toward legal bills.

Note that the results did not address the university's or its administration's role.

Dr Carl Elliott Takes Another Look

Thus the case appeared to end, with no real reconsideration of how medical schools' dependence on commercial funding of clinical studies, and how individual faculty members' financial relationships with drug, device, and biotechnology firms may affect research done on human beings.

However, in September, 2010, Mother Jones published an article by Dr Carl Elliott, a University of Minnesota bioethicist, which raised further questions about the case.

I talked to several university colleagues and administrators, trying to learn what had happened. Many of them dismissed the story as slanted and incomplete. Yet the more I examined the medical and court records, the more I became convinced that the problem was worse than the Pioneer Press had reported. The danger lies not just in the particular circumstances that led to Dan's death, but in a system of clinical research that has been thoroughly co-opted by market forces, so that many studies have become little more than covert instruments for promoting drugs

Major design defects of the CAFE study:

It barred subjects from being taken off their assigned drug; it didn't allow them to be switched to another drug if their assigned drug was not working; and it restricted the number of additional drugs subjects could be given to manage side effects and symptoms such as depression, anxiety, or agitation. Like many clinical trials, the study was also randomized and double-blinded: Subjects were assigned a drug randomly by a computer, and neither the subjects nor the researchers knew which drug it was. These restrictions meant that subjects in the CAFE study had fewer therapeutic options than they would have had outside the study.

In fact, the CAFE study also contained a serious oversight that, if corrected, would have prevented patients like Dan from being enrolled. Like other patients with schizophrenia, patients experiencing their first psychotic episode are at higher risk of killing themselves or other people. For this reason, most studies of antipsychotic drugs specifically bar researchers from recruiting patients at risk of violence or suicide, for fear that they might kill themselves or someone else during the study. Conveniently, however, the CAFE study only prohibited patients at risk of suicide, not homicide. This meant that Dan—who had threatened to slit his mother's throat, but had not threatened to harm himself—was a legitimate target for recruitment.

As Dr Elliott noted, this appeared to be yet another example of manipulation of clinical research designed to make the sponsors' products look better, a topic we have frequently discussed on Health Care Renewal:

A 2006 study in The American Journal of Psychiatry, which looked at 32 head-to-head trials of atypicals, found that 90 percent of them came out positively for whichever company had designed and financed the trial. This startling result was not a matter of selective publication. The companies had simply designed the studies in a way that virtually ensured their own drugs would come out ahead—for instance, by dosing the competing drugs too low to be effective, or so high that they would produce damaging side effects. Much of this manipulation came from biased statistical analyses and rigged trial designs of such complexity that outside reviewers were unable to spot them. As Dr. Richard Smith, the former editor of the British Medical Journal, has pointed out, 'The companies seem to get the results they want not by fiddling the results, which would be far too crude and possibly detectable by peer review, but rather by asking the 'right' questions.'

This was likely what was going on with the CAFE study:

Although the documents unsealed in the Seroquel litigation do not specifically mention the CAFE study in which Dan was enrolled, they do suggest that AstraZeneca planned to establish Seroquel as the "atypical of choice in first-episode schizophrenia,' according to a 2000 'Seroquel Strate'y Summary.' A later document titled 'Seroquel PR Plan 2001' discusses the agenda for an advisory panel meeting in Hawaii. Among the potential topics were the marketing of Seroquel to first-episode patients, adolescents, and the elderly. The document refers to these populations as "vulnerable patient groups."

Even more alarming are internal documents suggesting that AstraZeneca was designing clinical trials as a covert method of marketing Seroquel. In 1997, when Dr. Andrew Goudie, a psychopharmacologist at the University of Liverpool, asked AstraZeneca to fund a research study he was planning, a company official replied that 'R&D is no longer responsible for Seroquel research—it is now the responsibility of Sales and Marketing.' The official also noted that funding decisions would depend on whether the study was likely to show a 'competitive advantage for Seroquel.'

Were study subjects protected?
So, as Dr Elliott wrote,

Many clinical studies place human subjects at risk—at a minimum, the risk of mild discomfort, and at worst, the risk of serious pain and death. Bioethicists and regulators spend a lot of time and energy debating the degree of risk that ought to be permitted in a study, how those risks should be presented to subjects, and the way those risks should be balanced against the potential benefits a subject might receive. What is simply assumed, without much consideration at all, is that the research is being conducted to produce scientific knowledge. This assumption is codified in a number of foundational ethics documents, such as the Nuremberg Code, which was instituted following Nazi experiments on concentration camp victims. The Nuremberg Code stipulates that an 'experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society,' and 'the degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.'

But what if a research study is not really aimed at producing genuine scientific knowledge at all? The documents emerging in litigation suggest that pharmaceutical companies are designing, analyzing, and publishing trials primarily as a way of positioning their drugs in the marketplace. This raises a question unconsidered in any current code of research ethics. How much risk to human subjects is justified in a study whose principal aim is to 'generate commercially attractive messages'?

Conflicts of interest
Of course, university faculty pushed to bring in more external funds to support their careers (see this post) by university leaders with their eyes on the bottom line may not be too critical of the intricate designs of the studies they need to do to continue their academic careers, and whether such studies are really meant to promote science and improve patient care, or position products in the marketplace, especially when the same companies are paying them as consultants, speakers, etc.

In fact, Dr Elliott found reasons to make such concerns specific to the case of Mr Markingson's untimely death:

Olson had another financial reason to maintain good relations with AstraZeneca. According to a disclosure statement for a 2006 conference, he was a member of the AstraZeneca 'speaker's bureau,' giving paid talks for the company. He had similar arrangements with Eli Lilly and Janssen, the makers of the other atypicals being tested in the CAFE study, as well as Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. In addition, Olson was working as a paid consultant for Lilly, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pfizer.

Bioethicists Demand an Investigation

So eight University of Minnesota bioethicists, including Dr Elliott, wrote a letter to the University administration demanding an investigation, as reported in December, 2010, by the Minneapolis- St Paul Star-Tribune,

In a letter to the board Monday, the professors questioned whether U psychiatrists lacked ethical judgment in enrolling the victim, Dan Markingson, a schizophrenic who may have lacked the wherewithal to consent to research. They also questioned whether financial incentives from AstraZeneca, the drugmaker funding the study, presented conflicts for the researchers, Dr. Stephen Olson and Dr. S. Charles Schulz.

At the time, the administration promised a serious response:

U leaders will take the letter seriously and take the protection of human research subjects seriously, said the U's general counsel, Mark Rotenberg.

But then almost immediately indicated its bias:

'The fact that this is tragic doesn't mean the treating physicians did anything wrong,' he said.

What, Us Worry?

It did not take long for Mark Rotenberg to decide that there was nothing more to worry about. As reported in February, 2011, by the Pioneer Press:

in a Monday letter to Elliott and colleagues, the chairman of the U's board of regents wrote 'we do not believe further university resources should be expended re-reviewing a matter such as this, which has already received such exhaustive analysis by independent authoritative bodies.'

'Our general counsel has provided us with the extensive reviews of this case that were performed over the years by a number of independent experts and governmental units,' chairman Clyde Allen Jr. said in the letter. 'Each and every one of these reviews resulted in the same conclusion: there was no improper or inappropriate care provided to Mr. Markingson, nor is there evidence of misconduct or violation of applicable laws or regulations.'

Of course, since Mr Rotenberg is responsible for, among other things, reducing the university's legal liability, one could see how he might not want to delve further into this case.  As we noted earlier, it is not clear that previous "exhaustive" investigations asked the questions that needed to be asked, or had access to all the relevant data.  The issues are not whether their was criminal conduct, or even civil liability, but whether the university is presiding over good science and protection of research subjects?

So we should be worried, of course, that commercial firms sponsor research on human beings mainly to serve marketing objectives, and that university faculty and administrators go along, allowing their formerly prestigious universities' names to be added to the research in exchange for the money they so much want to keep themselves living in the style to which they are accustomed. We ought to be particularly worried when these universities seem to forget about their mission to find and disseminate new knowledge in favor of defending the work that continues to bring in the money.

Thus, physicians, researchers, patients, and the public ought to be very skeptical about clinical research sponsored by commercial firms with vested interests in the research turning out a particular way, and even about research not sponsored by such firms, but done by researchers who have personal financial ties to such firms. Worse, patients ought to be extremely skeptical about the motives of researchers who want to enroll them in trials when the researchers have financial ties to commercial firms whose products could be promoted through such trials, and especially when such firms are sponsoring the trials.

As a long-time advocate for evidence-based medicine, whose advancement depends on the continuing creation of valid research evidence from clinical research, it is heart-breaking to have to make these recommendations, but they will be necessary until there is better assurance that clinical research is being done to advance science and patient care, not the commercial interests of the sponsors and the researchers.

Until academic medicine becomes more open about how and why it is doing clinical research, such skepticism is warranted.

However, I will end with a ray of hope. If the administrators and faculty do not get it, the student journalists do. Read these words in an editorial in the Minnesota Daily:

Of course, the University has maintained neither it nor anyone involved in the case did anything wrong, an odd claim to make after the Minnesota Legislature unanimously passed a law that prohibits exactly what happened and named the law after Markingson.

The University seems to think that because it was not held liable in court for Markingson’s death, it did nothing wrong. This is false; it is a cynical excuse to keep corporate drug money flowing into the University.

The regents’ decision fundamentally undermines our mission: Supposedly, the University is 'dedicated to … the search for truth.' But the letter makes it clear that corporate research cash is more important to the University than patient safety and transparency.

Refusing to set up an independent investigation is a willfully ignorant attempt to sweep the Markingson case under the rug and damages the integrity of the entire University.

Perhaps it is time for the state legislature to take another look at this issue.

True health care reform would separate clinical research, that is, research done on human beings, from the commercial interests of health care corporations and the people who work for them.

ADDENDUM (18 March, 2011) - See this post by Naomi Freundlich on the Health Beat blog.

The Conflicted Authors of the University of Minnesota's New Conflicts of Interest Policy

Te Minneapolis Star-Tribune published this story about the University of Minnesota's peculiar approach to updating its conflicts of interest policy:

A professor who is leading the University of Minnesota Medical School's effort to write tougher ethics rules was himself disciplined in 2004 for secretly steering a $501,000 research grant to his own company, according to university investigative reports obtained by the Star Tribune.

Dr. Leo Furcht, the chairman of lab medicine and pathology, was reprimanded for a "serious violation" of university conflict-of-interest policies in connection with a grant from Baxter Healthcare for stem cell research at the Medical School, according to the investigation, which the newspaper received through the state's public records law.

As a result, Medical School Dean Deborah Powell banned Furcht in May 2004 from any business-sponsored research for three years.

In 2007, Powell named Furcht to co-chair a task force to reform the Medical School's conflict-of-interest policy.

Furcht, a nationally known scientist and author, declined to comment. He said through a spokeswoman that the matter had been 'amicably resolved, and that there was nothing to be gained by talking about it.

Powell said in an interview that she chose Furcht for the task force because he had extensive experience with national professional organizations on devising conflict-of- interest rules. 'That seemed to me to be a compelling reason to appoint him to that role,' she said.

Also,

Powell said Friday she did not inform the rest of the task force members about the sanctions against Furcht. 'I did not think it was relevant,' she said.

The Strib's summary of the previous case against Furcht was as follows:

In the late 1990s, a colleague, Dr. Catherine Verfaillie, had made a breakthrough in stem-cell research. When the university declined to patent it, Furcht created his own company, MCL, and filed for the patent along with Verfaillie and another researcher.

In July 2000, Furcht lined up a research grant from Baxter to pay for more research, to be conducted in university laboratories, but did not disclose the deal to the university. Instead, Baxter paid the money, $501,000, to MCL.

Verfaillie said Friday she performed the research in her university lab, but did not receive the money. Eventually, she contacted the dean, triggering an investigation.

A panel of three faculty members investigated and concluded that Furcht 'committed a serious violation of the conflict of interest policy,' according to a Dec. 19, 2003, report.

Among other things, they found that Furcht 'knew or should have known' that he was required to disclose the financial arrangement with Baxter, because he had 'a significant financial interest' in MCL and the stem-cell technology.

'In fact, it appears Dr. Furcht stands to personally gain several million dollars from the pending sale of MCL,' the report said.

In November 2003, Furcht sold MCL for $9.5 million in stock, sharing 5 percent of the proceeds with the university.

The panel recommended that Furcht be disciplined and questioned whether he should retain his position as department chair. It also raised concerns that he may have misused his position 'to personally benefit him and his commercial interests,' and recommended further investigation.

A follow-on report published by the Star-Tribune revealed that the University had declined to provide the newspaper with the financial disclosures of the other members of the committee tasked with writing the new conflict of interest policy. When asked directly by the reporter,

Sixteen [of 26] responded (one could not be reached).

Ten said they had nothing to disclose and six reported various relationships with drug and medical device companies -- from royalties for inventions to grants for clinical research to equity stakes in start-up firms. (Furcht did not respond.)

Apparently, the members of the committee did not even reveal their financial relationships to each other. Gary Schwitzer, faculty in the University of Minnesota School of Journalism, wrote this in his Schwitzer Health News Blog,

I was asked by the dean to serve on that task force.

I never thought I would have to poll fellow task force members about their own past or present conflicts of interest, so I didn't.

No one ever told task force members - at least not me - about the history of Furcht and Powell. Maybe everyone else knew. But I was the outsider on this task force - the journalism guy from across the street.

I am disappointed and feel misled. I'm not sure that knowing these details up front would have changed anything about the task force report. But I do know I'd feel a lot better about the process had there been full transparency and disclosure up front - which is at the core of conflict of interest policies.

Finally, it turns out this is not the first time Dean Powell has made an appearance on Health Care Renewal. In 2007, we posted about how in addition to serving full-time as medical school dean, she has a part-time position as a member of the board of directors of PepsiAmericas, raising concerns about conflicts of interest. (See those raised by the director of the public health school's obesity center.) Although Powell suggested that her position on the board would be to provide "knowledge about obesity," she was not hired by PepsiAmericas as an obesity consultant. Instead, as a board member, her main duty is to protect the financial interests of the share-holders and the corporation as a whole. Were she really to mainly function as a "voice for nutrition," she would be violating her fiduciary duty to her share-holders, a duty, by the way, for which she her total compensation was $130,651 in 2007 (see this 2087 proxy statement).

So let's see... the University of Minnesota committee charged with drafting a new conflict of interest policy included members with conflicts of interests who did not reveal these conflicts to other members of the committee. Its chair had committed a "serious violation" of the current conflict of interest policy, which was known to the medical school dean who appointed him, but which was not revealed to the rest of the committee. That same medical school dean seems to have her own significant conflict of interest, a financial entanglement about which her previous pronouncements have been at best naive.

I have not been able to find much information about what the University of Minnesota committee has recommended. The Star-Tribune only noted, "The proposed policy bans gifts from industry, faculty ghostwriting in medical journals and elsewhere on behalf of industry as well as industry funding for courses that keep faculty updated in their fields. One proposal with wide appeal calls for public disclosure on the Internet of industry relationships." It is not clear to me what the policy says about the most lucrative and presumptively influential sorts of relationships faculty and administration members may have with industry, such as receiving royalties for patents, and serving as consultants, and on speakers' bureaus, advisory boards, and corporate boards of directors. One wonders whether a committee run and partially made up by people with conflicts who did not see fit to reveal them, and reporting to a dean with a hazy notion of the meaning of her own conflicts, would be capable of fairly addressing the most significant sorts of conflicts of interest.

The public and some of the apparently few unconflicted medical academics and practicing physicians who remain in business have become increasingly disillusioned as more and more leaders in academic and clinical medicine have been revealed as part-time paid marketers of drugs, devices, and for-profit medical services. Some academic medical institutions have responded by promising reform. But will "tough" new conflicts of interest policies crafted by the conflicted really provide meaningful reform? Will people who recoil from revealing their own conflicts really be trusted to police their colleagues' conflicts?

See additional comments by Margaret Soltan on the University Diaries blog.

A Medical School Joins the Pepsi Generation

We just discussed a story from late 2006 about the Dean of the University of Minnesota Medical School joining the board of directors of PepsiAmerica.

It turns out that this has been generating continuing controversy at the institution. This controversy has shed light on some serious misconceptions among medical school leaders about what service on the board of directors of a publi, for-profit corporation entails. According to the Pioneer Press,

University of Minnesota Medical School Dean Dr. Deborah Powell expected questions after joining the board of PepsiAmericas, one of the world's largest sellers of Pepsi and Mountain Dew.

Three months after Powell signed on with PepsiAmericas, though, the questions haven't ebbed. Outside critics continue to ask why a high-profile state health official would join with a firm whose main products are linked to childhood obesity and diabetes. One U researcher wants a 'serious conversation' about the ethics of corporate consulting.

Powell said she wanted to be a voice for nutrition in the boardroom. She and her boss — who backs her decision — say the PepsiAmericas position is proper and valuable to the university.

A recently completed internal review, standard for any U employee involved in outside work, found no conflict of interest in her service to PepsiAmericas, a publicly traded company that is the world's second-largest bottler of PepsiCo. brands.

'If I didn't think I could make a difference on this board, I wouldn't stay on it, and I wouldn't go on it in the first place,' Powell said Friday. 'I'm trying the best I can to do something that I think will be valuable for the school and valuable for this company.'

'What better way to get knowledge about obesity into the company than by bringing it into the boardroom?' said Dr. Frank Cerra, senior vice president for health sciences at the U. He oversees all aspects of medicine and health research at the U, including the medical school and the school of public health.

'It seems to me like a very appropriate role for the university, providing there are no conflicts of interest that haven't been disclosed.'

Each director of a public, for-profit corporation has fiduciary responsibility to the stock-holders of the company for the company's financial performance and general management.

From Monks RAG, Minow N. Corporate Governance, Third Edition. Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. P. 195.

In theory, at least, the law imposes on the board a strict and absolute fiduciary duty to ensure that the company is run in the long-term interests of the owners, the shareholders.

Members of the board are not simply advisors. The notion that Powell's main role on the board is to provide "knowledge about obesity," or to be "a voice for nutrition" is naive at best. Powell is supposed to protect the stock-holders financial interests. If PepsiAmerica wanted Powell to provide advice about obesity or nutrition, it could have hired her as a consultant or put her on a scientific advisory board.

It's noteworthy that even some of Powell's critics seemed to misunderstand her responsibilities as a board member.

But Robert Jeffery, a nationally known researcher and a director of the Obesity Prevention Center in the U's school of public health, worries Powell's PepsiAmericas duty ultimately may hurt the university.

The U, he said, needs to have a 'more serious conversation about where the ethical lines lie in corporate consulting. Whenever you get into a paid relationship with a commercial enterprise, there is an implied or maybe even explicit agreement that you're doing things for their benefit.'

With public concern rising about marketing and overconsumption of soft drinks and the health problems that can result, 'I think the university does run the risk of being seen in a less favorable light by having a high-profile person taking a high-profile consulting job … in an industry that people are trying hard to regulate,' Jeffery said.

Were Powell hired as a consultant, these objections would make sense. But Powell's relationship with the company is supposed to be much stronger than that of a consultant. And as a board member she certainly has an obligation to be "doing things for their benefit."

Powell also seemed to have an odd misconception about the remuneration of board members.

Like other outside directors, Powell will be paid in cash and PepsiAmericas stock for her service on the beverage company's board, including a $30,000 annual retainer, $2,000 for each board meeting attended and $60,000 in stock.

Powell said the money didn't factor into her decision. 'I didn't know before I went on the board that I would be paid,' she said.

One critic has suggested Powell donate her PepsiAmericas board money to obesity and health research. Powell said she makes charitable contributions but that her philanthropy was her own business.

Of course, board members of large US for-profit corporations tend to be paid handsomely, sometimes well into six figures a year. It is amazing that Powell did not seem to know that. Maybe it is not so amazing that having found out her good fortune, she seemed reluctant to part with it.

Again, it is striking to me that there is this much naivete, or denial about what being on the board of directors of a for-profit corporation entails among the top leaders of academic medicine.

Once they understand what obligations they have as for-profit corporate board members, they need to re-think whether these obligations pose severe and unmanageable conflicts of interest with respect to their responsibilities as academic health leaders.

As long as academic health leaders remain on the board of corporations, which are, unlike PepsiAmerica, directly involved in health care, (e.g., pharmaceutical, biotechnology, medical device, managed care, and contract research corporations), questions will be raised about conflicts between the obligations of their day jobs and the fiduciary responsibilities entailed by their board memberships.

Medical Schools Go Better With Pepsi?

This is not a new story, but one I just discovered thanks to one of our helpful correspondents. The Associated Press reported this controversy late last year.

The dean of the University of Minnesota Medical School is defending her decision to join the corporate board of PepsiAmericas, even though doctors and public health officials increasingly name Pepsi and other sugary drinks as a major factor in rampant childhood obesity and tooth decay.

Medical School Dean Deborah Powell said it's fair to question why she would join the board of the world's second-largest maker of soft drinks.

'I really thought about that a lot,' Powell told the St. Paul Pioneer Press. 'I thought it was an opportunity for me as a health professional to have my voice heard by the leadership of a major beverage distributor with a global reach.'

Pepsi, Diet Pepsi and Mountain Dew remain its most important brands, accounting for $3 billion in U.S. sales. That could put Powell in a delicate position, on the board of a company whose success rests on products often reviled by her medical peers.

But Powell believes she can bridge the two worlds.

'The issue of children and adolescents being exposed to carbonated, sugar-filled soft drinks is one that everybody is talking about, and I think (corporate) boards have to reflect about,' Powell said. 'I think we can do it in a responsible way to ensure that the company is successful and shareholder value is maximized and people take into account responsible stewardship.'

Like all outside directors, Powell will be paid in cash and company stock for her board service. That includes a $30,000 annual retainer, $2,000 for each board meeting she attends and $60,000 in stock.

With all due respect, I do not believe Dean Powell understood the responsibilities of a director of a public, for-profit company. Her job is not to "make her voice heard" about or thus advise the company about public health or health care policy. Her job is to take fiduciary responsibility for the company for the benefit of its stockholders. Her job is to maximize the financial performance of the company, whether or not doing so is in accord with her, or anyone's ideas about ideal health policy. That is why her new position could lead her into conflicts of interest.

I wonder whether leaders of academic health care who have more acute conflicts of interest, because they also are directors of pharmaceutical, biotechnology, medical device, managed care, or contract research companies, may similarly misunderstood, or rationalized their corporate responsibilities.

If so, they ought to be better informed. But as long as they accept fiduciary responsibility for for-profit health care companies, they are liable to acute conflicts of interest between those responsibilities and their responsibilities to uphold the academic health care mission, which requires putting the care of individual patients first, and creating and disseminating knowledge through free enquiry.