(source)

Moncton - Climate Change Denialist

Demonstrates a New Rhetorical Low...

Wow! From today's Strib:

A University of St. Thomas professor's online rebuttal to a well-known British climate change skeptic has touched off a cyberspace heat storm and activated the university's legal team.

Monckton* has fired back in a YouTube interview clip, calling Abraham "a wretched little man," the University of St. Thomas "a half-assed Catholic bible college," and its president, the Rev. Dennis Dease, "a creep."

[Ah those classics scholars from Cambridge, such a way with words...]

__________

*Moncton is described by the Strib as:

"Lord Christopher Monckton, a journalist, classics scholar, politician and hereditary peer also known as 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Monckton's critique of climate change science led him to testify before the U.S. Congress."

Others are not so sanguine (or gullible?):

From Wiki, check references!

Although he has asserted that as an hereditary peer he is "a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote", and in a letter to US Senators (Olympia Snowe and Senator John D. Rockefeller) he asserted that he was "a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature."^[4], the House of Lords has stated that "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member."^[5]

He was an unsuccessful candidate for a Conservative seat in the House of Lords in a March 2007 by-election caused by the death of Lord Mowbray and Stourton. Of the 43 candidates, 31 – including Monckton – received no votes in the election.^[6]

He was educated at Harrow School, Harrow, London; Churchill College, Cambridge, where he received a BA (Honours) in classics in 1973, and an MA in 1974; and University College, Cardiff, where he obtained a diploma in Journalism Studies. In 1990, he married Juliet Mary Anne Malherbe Jensen. Monckton is a Roman Catholic Christian. [sic]

His credentials as a commentator on climate change have been questioned. James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore note in their book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming that Monckton has "no training whatsoever in science" and criticise his asserted credentials as "unfounded self-promotion."^[16]

Editorial writer for The Guardian George Monbiot has criticised Monckton's arguments, labelling them "cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish".^[18]

In July 2008 Monckton wrote an article about climate sensitivity for the American Physical Society's Forum on Physics and Society,^[35][36]

The APS reaffirmed its unchanged position on climate change and pointed out that the newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society "carries the statement that 'Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.' This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed."^[38]

In a response, Monckton called the APS "red flag" "discourteous" and claimed his paper had been "scientifically reviewed in meticulous detail".^[40]

Summary: I'm disappointed the Strib wasn't a little more curious and then forthcoming about the lack of credibility of Moncton on climate change issues.

+++

The Old Dichromate Homeopathy Quackery

Debunked Again

I've noted here and elsewhere the continued espousal of homeopathy by the Academic Health Center at the University of Minnesota, e.g. the Strib blog post:

Homeopathy at the University of Minnesota
Academic Health Center.

The Director of the Center for Spirituality and Healing has written in glowing terms about a journal article concerning the use of homeopathic dilutions of dichromate in the ICU. See for example:

Director of University of Minnesota Center for Spirituality
and Healing Writes Approvingly of Homeopathy.

This absurd paper, published because incompetent reviewers did not read it carefully, has been debunked yet again. Despite the many debunkings, the homeopathy crowd including our self described nurse scientist head of CSH continues to tout it.

From Science Based Medicine:

Regular readers of this blog are probably familiar with a certain homeopath named Dana Ullman.

One study ... is a favorite of Ullman’s, one he likes to trot out time and time again. Specifically, it’s a study of homeopathy in the ICU that was published, in all places, in Chest ...

Although I do feel a bit guilty not providing you with more original peerless prose pontificating on medical pseudoscience that you know and (hopefully) love, this article is constantly trotted out by homeopaths, even five years later ...

From the abstract:

Conclusion: These data suggest that potentized (diluted and vigorously shaken) potassium dichromate may help to decrease the amount of stringy tracheal secretions in COPD patients.

Holy homeopathy, Batman! Does this study mean that homeopathy actually works for critically ill patients in the ICU?

First off, the title is interesting. Note how the word “homeopathy” or “homeopathic” does not appear. In fact, no derivative of the word “homeopathy” appears anywhere in the abstract. It’s almost as though the writers were trying to get this in under the radar. After all, most doctors don’t know much about homeopathy, which means that they don’t know much about what a “30C” dilution is or that such a dilution dilutes a substance to the point where there almost certainly isn’t a single molecule left.

This all makes me wonder how this study ever got past the Institutional Review Board (IRB). After all, if there’s active ingredient left over, then the study would be proposing to give a toxic substance to patients on ventilators in an ICU. If the investigators made it very clear to the IRB that the dilution would be such that there would be no potassium dichromate left, then the IRB should have asked about the ethics of giving both experimental groups what is, in essence, a placebo.

[You'll have to read the rest for technical details deemed not of general interest, especially since they have been repeated earlier many times and never refuted by the homeopathy crowd.]

The bottom line is that, contrary to Dana Ullman’s representation of this study as slam-dunk evidence of the efficacy of homeopathy, it’s nothing more than a very questionable study in which it is unclear whether the treatment and control groups were truly comparable. The homeopaths’ conclusion would be hilarious were it not so sad that such woo has found its way into otherwise reputable journals.

[Sadly, the author concludes:]

As much fun as I have deconstructing such studies, hoping in vain for a good study but inevitably being disappointed, it is still disconcerting to see this sort of study published in Chest.

More disturbing still is that an IRB allowed such a study of a useless medication on intubated ICU patients with COPD. It just goes to show that peer review is not perfect. It may remain the best bulwark against pseudoscience, but it’s only as good as the reviewers, and it’s not a foolproof guarantee against pseudoscience.

What I fear is that, as more and more pseudoscience and non-evidence-based woo invades medical school, the dividing line between evidence-based medicine and woo will blur even more, and, as the older generations of physicians retire, the newer generation, who has been exposed to woo in medical school, will be less willing or able to call a duck a duck when they see it. Quack quack.

+++

(click to enlarge)

Shootout at the University of Minnesota Informatics Corral

Double Dipper Winged

Note: The new director of the Biomedical Health Informatics operation is also the acting director of the Institute for Health Informatics (IHI). The previous IHI director (aka "lead faculty") is none other than one of the famous U of M double dippers.

From Dave Durenberger's Newsletter:

August 18, 2008

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA ACADEMIC HEALTH CENTER maintains its silence on the allegations that two new professors have been double-dipping pay and expense reimbursement as employees of Georgia Tech and UMN. Francois Sainfort was recruited from Georgia Tech to head up the Division of Health Policy and Management in the AHC's School of Public Health. Sainfort and his wife, Julie Jacko, were signed to UMN employment contracts October 1, 2007 at $285,000 and $216,000 respectively or $99,000 over their GA Tech pay. Georgia Tech alleges they were still employed and paid there through the first of 2008.

After the story broke locally in April, Sainfort was pressed by his new faculty to go on leave from the directorship (for which $20,000 of his annual comp was allotted). In August, he informed faculty that he was asking Dean of Public Health John Finnegan to replace him as division director, the job the UMN went looking to fill 2 years ago. He calls the Georgia Tech charges "unexpected and unfair."

His wife Julie was also on the Georgia Tech faculty in information technology. The UMN's price to get a new division head in public health was to take both Sainforts, creating a dual position in Nursing and in Health Policy and Management for Julie, and giving Francois their Mayo chair and authority to hire additional faculty. AHC head Dr. Frank Cerra was quoted then as saying, "This is all part of the 'medical arms race' for research talent among universities."

And what will it cost us to keep Sainfort-Jacko around the campus doing what?

[As of 2008: $474,169]

(2009 figures not available yet)

_____________

When later asked about why Dr. Jacko was being asked to head the Institute for Health Informatics despite these serious and as yet unresolved double dipping allegations, Dr. Cerra responded:

"I have asked Prof Julie Jacko to serve as lead faculty for the Institute for Health Informatcs (IHI). I believe IHI needs to move forward and continue its development." Frank Cerra [21 July 2008]

"I think people will think what they want to think," Cerra said, in response to possible criticisms of appointing someone who is under investigation. [Daily: 30 July 2008]

The reshuffling of the informatics deck at the U of M no doubt has something to do with the latest failure of the U's proposal to the NIH for a clinical and translational research grant that is of utmost importance to our survival as an Academic Health Center of note. Copies of the critique of the proposal have been floating around the electronic grapevine at the University for some time.

I don't believe this is an accident...

And Frank, if you are going to play in the medical arms race, you had better know what you are doing, or at least consult some people - faculty - who do. As a famous philosopher once said:

If you don't know where you are going,
you might wind up someplace else.

There is this process called vetting. Did the lure of potential grant money drive this, or did achievement in the field for which recruitment was ostensibly done? Who, exactly, was responsible for these hires?

+++

More on MNSCU Idiocy

$300,00 in bonuses to administrators?

Executive summary: Pawlenty and Dayton agree on one thing: MNSCU bonuses inappropriate. Once again higher ed administrators in Minnesota immolate themselves. Is it any wonder why they are in such bad odor with the citizens, the lege, and the gov? To steal from Will: There is something rotten in the state of Minnesota.

I've posted earlier on this.


Casey Selix has an interesting post on the topic at MinnPost:

Even Gov. Tim Pawlenty thinks the $40,000 bonus for the chancellor of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system was a bad idea. Keep in mind that Pawlenty appoints members of the MnSCU Board of Trustees, who approved the bonus for Chancellor James McCormick.

MnSCU reportedly has given $300,000 in such bonuses this year. The board authorized McCormick's bonus on top of his $360,000 annual salary because he reached four of his five goals.

Meanwhile, MnSCU employees have been under a two-year wage freeze, and 550 positions are to be cut through attrition and layoffs in the system of 32 colleges and universities.

I asked for a reaction to the governor’s statement and she sent this comment from MnSCU Board Chairman Scott Thiss, CEO of Sailforth: "Now more than ever, the system needs a strong visionary leader. The board believes that paying for performance is the best way to assure that kind of strategic focus."

[Were the peons allowed bonuses based on performance, I wonder?]

Pawlenty also recently appointed former Republican state legislator Phil Krinkie, president of the conservative Taxpayers League of Minnesota, as an at-large trustee. I [Casey Selix] have a difficult time seeing Krinkie supporting future bonuses for public university administrators in tough times, based on what he told me last year in a story about the pay-cut trend. At the time, Krinkie, who owns a small business, had written op-ed pieces proposing that any government employees making more than $100,000 a year should take a 10 percent pay cut.

"The problem with pay freezes or furloughs is that they fall very unjustly across the spectrum," Krinkie said at the time. "If we look at pay freezes or pay reductions, it should be top-down — not bottom-up." The janitor making $25,000 to $30,000 is going to suffer more than someone making more than $100,000, he said.

Meanwhile, at least one candidate for governor has said bonuses for MnSCU administrators will come to an end if he is elected. Mark Dayton, a DFL candidate, showed his support for union protesters Tuesday.

+++

Public Feud over University of Minnesota's

Tech Tranfer Office

Produces Silver Lining

Tech Transfer Blog Cites Periodic Table

In his blog The Periodic Table, William Gleason, PhD, associate professor in the departments of medicinal chemistry [not true...] and laboratory medicine and pathology at the University of Minnesota, applauds Tim Mulcahy, PhD, the university’s vice president of research, for firing back at Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-St. Paul), who chairs the Bioscience and Workforce Development Committee in the state’s House of Representatives.

Mahoney recently told MedCity News that he will propose a bill to privatize the school’s tech transfer operation or recommend hiring a university president to “shake up” the office unless the university adopts a more aggressive approach to tech transfer. “They’re screening companies to death,” Mahoney said, referring to the TTO’s strategy of being more selective in supporting only high-potential innovations.

“Here’s what we can propose,” Mulcahy replied in a follow-up interview with MedCity News. “We will make any of those technologies and potential companies that we pass on immediately available for the state to invest in. They can put some skin in the game in proportion to their tolerance of risk. That way, we don’t lose anything. Either we fund them, or they fund them.”

“This discussion is a great start,” Gleason writes on his blog. “We need an open dialogue between the members of the business community and the higher-ups at the U. What Dr. Mulcahy says is very encouraging.”

Columnist Thomas Lee then seconded Gleason’s response on his blog at MedCity News. “Can’t we just all get along?” he asked, noting that Mulcahy and Mahoney have been allies on angel investment tax credits, the creation of the Minnesota Science & Technology Authority, and the need for Minnesota to more fully convert its research assets into real technologies.

“Normally, you call someone out when things aren’t going so well,” he wrote. “Given Minnesota’s enormous progress on economic development issues, Mahoney’s threat to privatize the school’s Office for Technology Commercialization is akin to a manager firing his team after they just made the playoffs.”

Lee agreed that “the dispute itself reflects real progress. That two fairly important guys would openly argue about something as arcane as technology transfer shows how far we’ve come. Let’s face it folks, until recently, very few people really cared about issues like tech transfer.” Which is why it’s healthy to drag the debate into the public glare of the news media, he added.

“We need to openly butt heads — if anything to ensure we’re on the same page, that we set high but reasonable goals for our efforts. So while Tim and Tim probably won’t send each other Christmas cards, this year, we can thank them for saying what needs to be said.”

+++

Soon to be retired MNSCU head

gets 11% bonus

From the Strib:

"You don't lay people off and give them a pink slip in this hand and give bonuses to the other people in this hand."

Such a performance-based system is actually "better for the taxpayers," said Scott Thiss, new chair of the Board of Trustees. In the past, the chancellor's pay was "almost guaranteed."

He pointed out that because of a systemwide salary freeze, McCormick's base pay remained at $360,000 -- appropriate for the head of a "$2 billion, complex enterprise," Thiss said.

Last year, the MnSCU system paid out nearly $300,000 in performance bonuses to its chancellors and presidents.

So let's see..

McCormicks salary is frozen at 360K$ but he got a $40K bonus.

That works out to 11%, doesn't it?

I am always amused when someone implies that because they run an expensive, complex, enterprise, they are worth the large salary they are being paid. I'd love to see one of these folks try to run a company like 3M or Medtronic - they'd get cut off at the ankles.

When's the last time you've heard of a university president going off to run a large corporation? Maybe sit on a board for a couple of hundred thou a year (see Ruth Simmons/Goldman Sachs), but RUN a company? In your dreams...

As Margaret Soltan put it:

... Simmons is incompetent as a director of a complex financial organization. She seems to be good at being a university president. She should probably have stuck to that. But now, after a decade at Goldman Sachs, she’s in deep doo-doo.

+++

More Money to Ratchet Up the Election Rhetoric

New Sources of Corporate Money This Year

From MPR:

A group funded by Minnesota corporations has begun running a TV ad praising Republican gubernatorial hopeful Tom Emmer. The ad is the latest effort by an independent group that hopes to influence elections.

The ad focuses on Emmer's commitment to Minnesota businesses.

"As a legislator, Emmer voted against job-killing taxes and for reduced government spending. Now he's running for governor, working to grow jobs, getting government out of the way," the ad stated in part.

Minnesota Forward is an umbrella organization that's funded by Minnesota businesses including Target, Polaris, Hubbard Broadcasting and Davisco Foods. Because of a U.S Supreme Court ruling earlier this year, those businesses and other companies are now allowed to spend corporate money to influence elections.

That court ruling, along with an open governor's race, means political spending will dramatically increase from the last governor's race.

"We're going to see probably double the amount of what we saw in 2006," said Gary Goldsmith, executive director of the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board.

Some lawmakers aren't happy that companies are taking sides in the governor's race. State Rep. Ryan Winkler, DFL-Golden Valley, says it's unwise for Target Corp. to back Emmer, because his views on abortion, gay marriage and the minimum wage could upset Target shoppers.

"Why they would want to get involved and say 'we're for one person' or 'we're for one party' is really beyond me," said Winkler. "There are a lot of people who take politics very seriously and they take their views on issues very seriously, and they do not want to see their money going directly to fund somebody who is directly antagonistic to their belief system."

Target spokeswoman Lena Michaud says Target does not give funds based on party, but on which candidates and causes "directly effect the company's retail agenda."

She said the company gave $150,000 in cash and in-kind contributions to Minnesota Forward because the group's mission is to elect candidates from both parties who are focused on making "economic growth a priority."

McClung, who until recently was chief spokesman for Gov. Tim Pawlenty, says his organization is backing Emmer because he's the only candidate who supports spending cuts and tax cuts. McClung says the new rules won't change state politics much.

McClung points out that labor unions, DFL donors and the Democratic Governors Association are also funding independent groups this election cycle. Those groups, Win Minnesota and the 2010 Fund, are paying for ads criticizing Emmer's record in the Legislature.

+++

Is Tom Emmer on a Slimfast Diet?

The latest kerfuffle in our high minded governors race here in Minnesota involves the possibility that an Emmer photo may have been manipulated for an advertising video/tv piece.

The latest comes from the Strib:

Did a pro-Tom Emmer group skinny down the Republican candidate for governor's face in their new television ad?

As espied by MinnPost media reporter it sure looks like they did. The reporter, David Brauer called the apparent MN Forward face shaping, "a subtle and somewhat silly fib, but trust me, every pixel of these ads is fawned over, so it's no accident."

But it turns out, it is an accident or rather a problem of the medium on which the ad is viewed, according to MN Forward director Brian McClung.

What's going on, McClung said, is that the photo, pulled from Emmer's legislative Web site, looks skinnier on a YouTube screen grab than it does on television. On television, Emmer's face should look as wide as it does on the photo.

McClung said the group didn't ask the ad production firm to change the photo and the ad production firm "didn't squeeze or change the photo in any way."

------

Well being an empiricist, I did the following test. Take the photo of note and insert it into a short video in Windows Movie Maker. Upload it to YouTube and play the video. Screen capture. Then run the Emmer campaign video on YouTube. Screen capture.

The results can be seen above. It certainly looks to me like some sort of manipulation of the Emmer photo must have been done to get this kind of result.

Am I right or does someone want to set me straight? Mr. McClung?

Is College Tuition Bubble About to Burst?

Chart of the Day

The price of a college education, compared to the CPI, has risen dramatically since 1980. It has outpaced the housing bubble, and has many of the same characteristics, including a government sponsored credit bubble.

And with competitive quality now in question compared to emerging economies like China, the value per dollar spent for that American college tuition may be even lower.

Observation: The answer to the title question is, yes. And when the bubble bursts we will have the leadership of the current Morrill Gang to thank. Despite what they would have you believe, while they are bailing with their golden parachutes, this did not happen overnight. As with the Pawlenty administration, we are going to be paying for the sins of Morrill Hall well into the future.

Pray that we can recover, if you are of the prayin' persuasion.

+++

The Two Faces of MAK

(It's only fair... See previous post)


+++

The Three Faces of Emmer

Hat Tip to David Brauer of MinnPost.

+++

University of Minnesota Needs Better

Communication With Community

[Beer & Burgers at the Big Ten?]

Comment on Thomas Lee's piece in MedCity News: "Tim vs. Tim feud is good for Minnesota. Beers and burgers on me."

I think your post has resonated, Thomas.

What is notable here, is that Dr. Mulcahy spoke candidly and openly to the media – namely you – without being filtered by people like Mr. Wolters, who is currently chief spinmeister. Putting him out to take the bullets is the usual strategy followed by what I like to call the Morrill Hall Gang. If this strategy is unsuccessful then they have deniability.

If the U wants to get out of their current mess, more open dialogue between top administrators there and the folks writing the checks at the State capitol is in order. As Professor Ison of the J-school noted in a guest piece for the Daily ( http://bit.ly/a21Irn ) entitled “The Closed U - As administrators circle the wagons, open discourse, and citizens, lose out”

…evidence is mounting that the University isn’t much interested in an open, public dialogue that must be part of the deal.

We’ve seen a few examples lately:

Key stakeholders of the University’s graduate programs were blindsided recently by the announcement that the Graduate School would be restructured.

Members of a task force on ethics reform in the Medical School complained recently of being kept in the dark about key issues, including the fact that a co-chair of the task force himself had been reprimanded for a “serious” conflict of interest violation. That came to light only after the Star Tribune reported it. Later, some task force members had to learn from the Daily that a draft report based on many months of their own work had been weakened.

The administration has flogged the Daily over its reporting, of course, even while faculty and others have found that reporting essential. That only furthers the University’s reputation as an institution that, while espousing education and knowledge, is intent on choking the flow of information to the public — even while it asks the public for hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

——————-

I could go on but you get the idea. Let’s hope that under a new president the folks in Morrill Hall begin behaving more like Tim Mulcahy than the way described by Professor Ison.

Keep up your good work, Thomas, it is much appreciated.

Bill Gleason, U of M faculty and alum

+++

Tim vs. Tim, Round II.

MedCity News Picks Up on My Suggestion

Earlier today I posted Round I. "Tim Mulcahy Strikes Back, University of Minnesota Research VP Responds to Criticism."


Thomas Lee is right back with an excellent follow-up:

Tim vs. Tim feud is good for Minnesota.

Beers and burgers on me.

Tim Mahoney and Tim Mulcahy share a lot more than their first names and initials. The two men have been allies on everything from angel investment tax credits, the creation of the Minnesota Science & Technology Authority, and the need for Minnesota to more fully convert its formidable research assets into real technologies.

“I get up sometimes and say what the heck am I doing this for?,” Mulcahy said. “If I’m going to get slammed for making a huge effort and making a huge investment or equally slammed for doing nothing’ you know? Mama didn’t raise no fools.”

Yet believe it or not, the dispute itself reflects real progress. That two fairly important guys would openly argue about something as arcane as technology transfer shows how far we’ve come.

Mahoney has been in the legislature a long time so why call out the university now? You don’t complain about something unless you think someone actually cares about it.

I’m not the only one who sees the silver lining. From William Gleason, a university faculty member who writes The Periodic Table blog:

"This discussion is a great start.

We need an open dialogue between the members of the business community and the higher-ups at the U. What Dr. Mulcahy says above is very encouraging.

I suggest a meeting at the BigTen for burgers, beer, and a discussion between Mulcahy, Mahoney, the U’s tech transfer folks and people like [venture capitalist Vance Opperman.]

Let’s finally start working together?

Also invite some folks from the state legislature, Dems and GOPers, for a serious and frank discussion."

Something tells me Mulcahy is not in the mood for a (Burgers and) Beer Summit, at least right now. (Maybe if they were Jucy Lucys.)

“I think the state of Minnesota in general has a done a very poor job in this domain,” he continued. “I would say the U is a part of that team so we have been a part of the failure to date to get to where we have to go. I do think the university has been very proactive in trying to create change in university and partnering outside the university to try to move the agenda forward.”

You can’t blame Mulcahy for being a wee defensive. Fairly or unfairly, politicians from both parties love to take shots at the university.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty (another Tim!) once ridiculed OTC at an investment conference where university-bred start-ups were seeking money. Dan McElroy, commissioner of the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED), reportedly threatened to wage “budget jihad” on the university if Miromatrix Inc. left the state. (He denies this.)

Why do people openly rip the university and not, say, Mayo Clinic, which sits on a very large reservoir of intellectual property?

“That’s a great question,” Mulcahy said. “And I’ll be honest with you. It is a political minefield to give you a straight answer. Why the U and not Mayo? I would say: if you look at Mayo, for the volume of research they do, and it’s impressive, I don’t think they are any more productive [than the university]. I would even say they are less productive on a normalized basis.”

“We are a publicly-supported entity,” he said. ” I think there is a different expectation. I think it’s reasonable for the state to have different expectations for the university than Mayo. I think the academy has created some unrealistic expectations in our messaging about why we should be supported by the public.”

“What I mean by that is this: we go out and say that the research that is done by our public university is vital to the economic survival of the state,” Mulcahy continued. “That’s unquestionable. But what we have failed to do in delivering that message is that we are a part of the solution. I think we have inadvertently created the expectation that we alone can turn the economic tide.”

Mulcahy says he’s already told something like that to Mahoney and other politicians, both publicly and privately. Maybe they just don’t want to hear the message, he suggested.

Which is why it’s good to drag this debate into the public glare of the news media. By birth and design, Minnesotans are passive aggressive creatures- they complain behind closed (or partially opened) doors but rarely confront each other so openly. But those days are over. We have angel tax credits and a scientific authority to coordinate high tech economic development. We have the Biomedical Discovery District and the Elk Run project. We have several early stage venture capital funds in the works. None of this existed a few years ago.

We need to openly butt heads, if anything to ensure we’re on the same page, that we set high but reasonable goals for our efforts.

So while Tim and Tim probably won’t send each other Christmas cards this year, we can thank them for saying what needs to be said.


I’ll order some beers and burgers…just in case.

Amen...

Tim Mulcahy Strikes Back

University of Minnesota

Research VP Responds to Criticism

[Full disclosure: Although Dr. Mulcahy and I disagree on some of the specifics, we are both in agreement on a common goal - making the U of M a better place. We have had friendly arguments and discussions and I respect his engaging with faculty who do not always share his point of view. We need a lot more of this at the U...]

From one of Thomas Lee's always insightful posts on MedCity News:

Top University of Minnesota research official
fires back at critical legislators

“Here’s what we can propose,” said Mulcahy, vice president of research at the University of Minnesota. “Perhaps the university is too risk averse in our assessment” of potential startups.

“We will make any of those technologies and potential companies that we pass on immediately available for the state to invest in,” he said. “They can put some skin in the game in proportion to their tolerance of risk. That way, we don’t lose anything. Either we fund them or they fund them.”

Um … are you serious?

“Why not? Mulcahy said. “We’re being criticized for due diligence because we’re trying to protect our investment resources and technologies, and being criticized by people who are not in the position of having to make the decision to put skin in the game. If you think we’re doing so badly, we’ll give you the direct opportunity to do it yourself.”

By “people,” Mulcahy is specifically referring to Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-St. Paul). The chairman of the House Bioscience and Workforce Development Committee recently told MedCity News that unless the university adopts a more aggressive approach to tech transfer, he will propose a bill that will privatize the school’s Office for Technology Commercialization (OTC), or recommend hiring a university president to “shake up” the office.

“They’re screening companies to death,” Mahoney said.

Mulcahy, a respected research official and a former top candidate to lead the University of Wisconsin at Madison, is not exactly a loose cannon. He is a politically astute guy who frequently works with legislators like Mahoney.

But in an hour long interview with MedCity News, which he requested, Mulcahy pulled no punches, offering a spirited, often exasperated, defense of the university. He also pushed back hard against Mahoney who says the university is too risk averse in pushing out technologies.

“I actually thought we were working on a team,” Mulcahy said. ” I joke to people: ‘Now I know what Terrell Owens teammates feel like.’ It’s disappointing. I don’t know what [Mahoney] is basing his assessments on. In many regards, he is ill informed or partially informed … Winning an election doesn’t make you an expert.”

Oh, it’s so on.

But Mahoney believes the university should move faster, a criticism rejected by Mulcahy as naive and even reckless.

“That’s easy for someone who doesn’t have to put any skin in the game,” Mulcahy said. “The university owns important technology we can’t afford to jeopardize by making a poor decision. That requires a lot of due diligence. If we were irresponsible, we should be taken out and shot. Starting a company is not a zero sum game. It’s a costly venture. We’re holding a very real financial liability that we may never see” a return on investment.

“It’s ironic,” he continued. “We are being now criticized for bringing the professional due diligence to the operation that people criticized five years ago for lacking.”

But for all of Mulcahy’s efforts, obvious success has been elusive. The university launched only one company last year, compared to four in 2007. And in other key areas, OTC has actually lost ground over the past five years.

In 2009, OTC said revenue totaled $95.2 million, almost double than 2005. But in that same period, U.S. patent filings fell to 65 from 104, disclosures dropped to 244 from 251 and licenses dropped to 50 from 86.

Externals factors like early stage venture capital and partnerships with state government, like Ohio’s widely lauded Third Frontier Program and Wisconsin’s angel investment tax credits, also play major roles in technology transfer. And until recently, Minnesota hasn’t had much of either.

Vance Opperman, a prominent local investor and lawyer who sat on a task force that recommended changes to OTC, gives the university mixed reviews.

“Yeah, there has been some progress,” said Opperman, founder of Key Investments in Minneapolis. “The real question is have they made enough. I think expectations have been too high and OTC has not met those expectations. It depends on the culture [ informing the observer]. The university says it has been a success. But the corporate world probably doesn’t think so.”

Mulcahy said politicians tend to directly connect university research with new companies and jobs, a misguided perception he partially blames on the university. The school should do a better job at managing expectations, he said.

“If you say that the only value add is the number of companies that you started, I will tell you that you’re missing the boat,” Mulcahy said. “It’s a reasonable metric but it is not the sole metric.”

“We as an institution need to inform people, and people have to be open minded to recognize that perhaps the metric that they have glommed onto is not the whole story,” he said.

Given the recent passage of angel credits and the creation of the Minnesota Science and Technology Authority, “I would like the legislature to recognize the urgency [of action] and the possibility that something is within their grasp, and that we should seize upon it.”

Comments:

This discussion is a great start.

We need an open dialogue between the members of the business community and the higher-ups at the U. What Dr. Mulcahy says above is very encouraging.

I suggest a meeting at the BigTen for burgers, beer, and a discussion between Mulcahy, Mahoney, the U's tech transfer folks and people like Vance O. Let's finally start working together? Also invite some folks from the state legislature, Dems and GOPers, for a serious and frank discussion.

More of this needs to happen and soon.

+++

NSF Fellowship Data


How Are We Doing at the University of Minnesota?


[Note added later: downloadable pdf of this post]

...we're in the midst of transformative change en route to becoming one of the top three public research universities in the world. [sic]

President Bruininks Dec 7, 2009 (web site)

(Really, Bob? Which one of those top three above - in the US - are you planning to dislodge? Berkeley, Michigan or Udub? And how, exactly are you planning to pass UCLA, Wisconsin, Texas, Illinois, and Florida? To say nothing of other high quality publics not even in your self-selected list... You've only got four years, but then you'll be gone in a year. Someone else's problem?)

For those in Morrill Hall or on the U's Board of Regents who think the Shanghai Rankings mean something...

I've got a longer post up at the other place, here are some of the low-lights:

A recent example of pitiful efforts to document progress toward becoming one of the top three research universities in the world was given by Provost Sullivan as described in this post: University of Minnesota Provost Declares Shanghai Rankings Best. As is pointed out in this link: "Some people follow the world school rankings published in Shanghai blindly. You'd be foolish to do so."

I ran across something today, that I think the Morrill Hall Gang and the Regents might find interesting. Every year the National Science Foundation gives out about two thousand fellowships. These awards go for such things as engineering, physics, biological sciences... There are even some awards for social sciences. It is considered a great honor to get an NSF fellowship and these grad students to be are the best and the brightest and highly sought after.

They are also in the position to pick what graduate school they want to attend, knowing that their stipend will be provided. Thus the source of these people - their undergrad institution - and their choices of graduate institution are quite revealing and probably a pretty decent indication of the current strengths of an institution in terms of both turning out good people and in being attractive as high quality research institutions.

So how did the University of Minnesota do? I'll let you judge. I'll let you decide whether these results validate the hubris about "one of the top three public research universities in the solar system."

From NSF data:

(These institutions include the U of M and our so-called aspirational peers, whatever that means. I'd prefer to compare us with the BigTen schools. But so be it. The Morrill Hall Gang has made this bed, let them lie in it.)

Undergraduate Institution of Fellowship Recipients:

Berkeley (67)

Texas [35]
Michigan (31)
Florida (29)
Illinois (27)
Wisconsin (25)
University of Washington (25)
UCLA (23)

Minnesota (15)

Penn State (13)
Ohio State (12)

U of M Rank 9/11

Graduate Institutions Chosen by Fellows

Berkeley 192

Michigan 74
Washington 56

UCLA 41
Wisconsin 37

Illinois 31
Texas 32

Florida 22

Minnesota 21

Ohio State 10
Penn State 7

U of M rank: 9/11

So Provost Sullivan and President Bruininks, which is more indicative of where we stand? The source and choices of two thousand of our best and brightest, or the Shanghai rankings?

(Maybe we could recruit a dead Nobel Prize winner...)

Higher Ed at the Tipping Point?

In Minnesota and beyond...

Excellent and thought-provoking article from Politics in Minnesota:

Pawlenty said, “Do you really think in 20 years somebody’s going to put on their backpack, drive a half-hour to the University of Minnesota from the suburbs, haul their keister across campus, and sit and listen to some boring person drone on about Econ 101 or Spanish 101?”

I’ve never taught either Econ 101 or Spanish 101, but I have taught at the college level at many different kinds of institutions — private, both large and small, large public and for-profit organizations.

And my point is that, to some extent, all universities are public — they all rely on public dollars from both the federal and state government levels: subsidized student loans, the GI Bill and other credit and aid programs.

Nevertheless, to hear some advocates of public higher ed tell it, the fact that we cannot simply throw more money at the system to keep up a huge number and size of programs is a tragedy that’s sending Minnesota backward on every quality-of-life indicator.

But that doesn’t square with reality.


A recent report in the Chronicle of Higher Education, “Veterans Use New GI Bill Largely at For-Profit and 2-Year Colleges” by Michael Sewall (June 18, 2010), describes how online, for-profit institutions are attracting a large share of active-duty military and returning veterans by tailoring their support services and schedules and handling the specific issues unique to this group.

The response from the traditional higher ed community is too often that for-profit online educational institutions are a scam or lack sufficient accreditation—or that there aren’t enough “safeguards” to make sure that students don’t pay top dollar for a worthless degree.

Although there may be fly-by-night online outfits, just like there are in any industry, the fact is that it’s easy enough to find out which schools are accredited and which aren’t.

In fact, it’s easier to find out which online schools are the real deal than it is to find out which majors in state universities lead to jobs and which will require more training.

If a for-profit online model can deliver a product that addresses the needs of certain types of students, then so be it. The public system should learn from their successes where it makes sense and leave them alone where it doesn’t.

If the public system attempts to assert its political clout to chase for-profit online institutions out of the market—by restricting student loans or through unreasonable regulation—that will not benefit students or taxpayers.

Margaret Martin has a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Michigan and an M.A. from the London School of Economics.


Please note: The original article is longer and should be consulted for further information. I don't agree completely with the analysis, but the author is clearly no fool and her arguments need careful and respectful consideration.

Verbigeration Until the Cows Come Home?

U of M sells Crookston Cows,

Keeps those in St. Paul

Once again, one wonders about the priorities at out land grant institution, The University of Minnesota...


Casey Selix seems quite willing to put her head in the lion's mouth:

It took me a while to work up to that call. I started out asking News Service Director Dan Wolter whether the U of M has $89 million it doesn’t need until next summer. That’s the amount of aid the state has proposed delaying to the U because of another shortfall in state tax revenue, according to a DFL legislative press release I read Monday.

[To which Mr. Wolter responded verbigeratively:]

"This is certainly not an insignificant amount of money and it has the potential to create significant concerns with regard to our credit rating," Wolter wrote in an email. "However, we don't anticipate having to engage in any short-term borrowing to deal with it. Keep in mind that state appropriation has fallen to about a fourth of our total budget. The biggest concern for the university is how it impacts our liquidity and bond rating, which has the potential to drive up costs in the long-term.

At the end of his email, Wolter noted (with a wee bit of humor): "We've been tied up with cows all day!

A reporter doesn’t read such a statement every day. She may try to connect the dots, however, between a vaunted institution selling off a herd and covering an $89 million delay in state funding.

[Ah, Dan, if my paycheck doesn't come in on time, it creates problems. It does affect my liquidity, and how is this to be handled? Selling cows?]

What the national reports didn’t say is that the U is laying off seven people at the dairy operation at the University of Minnesota Crookston. This move is the biggest reduction of an operation that Greg Cuomo says he has dealt with in his time as associate dean of CFANS.

Selling off one herd won’t cover right away the anticipated shortfall for research and outreach operations. Cuomo anticipates an upcoming auction will bring in about $300,000 from selling the entire herd in Crookston. The bigger savings will come in cutting recurring expenses of running the dairy center. He doesn’t have a precise figure for the savings in staff and operations but estimated "several hundred thousand dollars" a year overall.

So, here’s the math on covering that potential $89 million hole with cows, not that anyone would seriously suggest it as a broader strategy. Based on the $300,000 expected from the auction of 260 animals (bringing in an average of $1,154 each), the U would need 77,123 cows to bridge the gap. Or, it would need to set minimum bids at $342,307 per animal at the upcoming auction.

+++

Kudos to

University of Minnesota's

Professor Alex Khoruts

From the NYT:

Dr. Alexander Khoruts had run out of options.

In 2008, Dr. Khoruts, a gastroenterologist at the University of Minnesota, took on a patient suffering from a vicious gut infection of Clostridium difficile.

Dr. Khoruts decided his patient needed a transplant. But he didn’t give her a piece of someone else’s intestines, or a stomach, or any other organ. Instead, he gave her some of her husband’s bacteria.

Before the transplant, they found, her gut flora was in a desperate state. “The normal bacteria just didn’t exist in her,” said Dr. Khoruts. “She was colonized by all sorts of misfits.”

Two weeks after the transplant, the scientists analyzed the microbes again. Her husband’s microbes had taken over. “That community was able to function and cure her disease in a matter of days,” said Janet Jansson, a microbial ecologist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a co-author of the paper. “I didn’t expect it to work. The project blew me away.

+++

A Harsh Spotlight on

the State's Top Research University?

Thomas Lee writes in MedCityNews:

Top bioscience lawmaker calls out
the University of Minnesota

Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-St. Paul) has good reason to feel a fresh spring in his step these days.

[We're not just talking about some mean old Republican here...]

He helped pass long over due tax credits for angel investors and research and development spending, a feat that earned him a prime spot (second from the left) behind Gov. Tim Pawlenty when the presumed Republican presidential candidate signed the bill and warm applause at events hosted by LifeScience Alley and the Minnesota High Tech Association.

But rather take a holiday, the chairman of the House Bioscience and Workforce development Committee has already selected his next target: the University of Minnesota.

“If I were you, I would pay attention to tech transfer,” Mahoney said during a recent phone call.

Despite some improvement in recent years, the university is still “terrible” at converting its research into viable companies, he said. So unless the university makes significant progress by the end of the year, Mahoney will introduce a bill that either privatizes tech transfer or calls for the university to hire a ” strong entrepreneurial” president that will “really shake up” the Office for Technology Commercialization (OTC).

Wow. Where to start? Lawmakers have long bashed the university’s tech transfer efforts, so that’s nothing new. But Mahoney’s ultimatum kind out of comes out of nowhere.

Under vice president for research Tim Mulcahy, the school has made progress, spinning out promising start-ups like Miromatrix Inc., boosting licensing income, and hosting technology showcases for potential investors.

Apparently, Mahoney is not impressed. Ironically, his chief complaint concerns one of OTC’s proudest reforms: the use of experienced “technology mangers” to determine whether the school should launch a company, license the research, or reject it all together.

OTC director Jay Schrankler and Venture Center chief Doug Johnson have long emphasized quality over quantity. The school’s goal is to spin out up to three potential “blockbusters” a year by carefully vetting the technologies in a thoughtful, systematic way to ensure success.

But that deliberate, painstaking process has made the university “too risk adverse,” Mahoney said.

In truth, Mahoney is not the only person out there unhappy with the school’s tech transfer efforts. Though Mahoney’s bill may ultimately go nowhere, it will shine a very harsh spotlight on the state’s top research university.

+++