Arsenic in DNA

Not Likely...

I've posted before on this topic: Hic, Haec, Hype - Little Green Men or Arsenic in DNA?

My main problem is the initial claim by NASA backed scientists that arsenic was present in the backbone of DNA.  From the chemistry standpoint this just didn't seem likely, especially because of what we know about hydrolysis rates of arsenate esters.  There are possible ways to get around this. But usually Nature abhors Rube Goldberg...

The chemist Zachary Knight has a post up about this point: 

(a little bit inside baseball and wonky, but if you have had biology or chemistry, it should be understandable)

Others have argued that arsenate-linked DNA should have quickly fallen apart when exposed to water. Could you address this? [Q to Felicia Wolf-Simon, lead author of Science paper]

Wolfe-Simon responds with a three-part argument:

(1) No study has ever measured the rate of hydrolysis of nucleotide di and triesters of arsenate, which is what is proposed to be found in DNA.

(2) Studies of simple alkyl arsenate esters show that hydrolysis rates decrease as the size of the alkyl substitution increases (e.g. methyl, ethyl, isopropyl), probably due to steric effects.

(3) Nucleotides are even larger than simple alkyl substituents, and biomolecules are more sterically constrained.  Therefore, the rate of hydrolysis of nucleotide diesters could be much slower – perhaps slow enough that these molecules are stable in water.

In the author’s words: 

If the hydrolytic rate trend reported in Ref. 2 continues to larger-weight organics, such as those found in biomolecules, it is conceivable that arsenate-linked biopolymers might be more resistant to hydrolysis than previously thought. The small model compounds investigated in Refs. 1-3 are relatively flexible and can easily adopt the ideal geometry for water to attack the arseno-ester bond. Arsenate esters of large, biomolecules, however, are likely to be more sterically hindered leading to slower rates of hydrolysis.

Is this reasonable?  No.

The authors may be right about #1 – I couldn’t find a study that directly measured the rate of hydrolysis of arsenate nucleotides.  And they are correct about #2, at least according to the paper that I read.  But the conclusion (#3) is wrong, and the specific examples cited to support this claim are badly misinterpreted.

No.  The half-life of simple phosphate diesters in water is about 30 million years.  The half-life of the analogous arsenate diesters in water is measured in seconds. 

Interesting, but as one commenter reasonably points out:

Anonymous said... If the bacteria do it they do it, and if they don't they don't. The answer will be found experimentally soon enough, given all of the attention being paid. Meanwhile you argue about "angels dancing on a pin"

 +++

New Year's Resolutions for New 

University of Minnesota President

Guest Post by Michael McNabb

The full post is available on the Periodic Table, Too.  I like to post some things there that are not just sound bites but more developed arguments.  This site is indexed on the main university web site, so a search there will find this very relevant article.

My friend Mr. McNabb is a graduate of the University of Minnesota - University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974.  He is also a life member of the University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member. His children have attended the university.

Mr. McNabb and I both wish our university well and want it to return to its true mission - a land grant institution where first-class teaching and research is done.  A university that stands behind the proud statement inscribed on Northrop.

Let us make this our focus in the next year, Mr. President. 

(Dr. Eric Kaler will begin his presidency starting this summer.  We sincerely wish him success in this most important position.)

+++

Shoot Out at the Elk River Corral 

or Show Us the Money

My favorite biotech journalist, Thomas Lee, has stirred the pot again by telling another  inconvenient truth. This offends some in the community. In this particular case they are the Elk River Gang, who seem to prefer homers to journalists. For another example of this kind of behavior, see the Morrill Hall Gang.

From MedCity News:

Elk Run developer CEO gets medieval on MedCity News

When you’re the president and CEO of a major national real estate development firm, it’s best to develop a thick skin. It’s also probably not a good idea to post public comments to a news website when you’re [annoyed] at 1 o’clock in the morning.

Yet that’s exactly what Steve Marks, CEO of Tower Investments in California did upon reading my story Tuesday on the troubled Elk Run BioBusiness Park his company is developing in Pine Island, Minnesota.

I could summarize them. But instead, read his rant in all of its uncensored (not to mention grammatically incorrect and misspelled) glory:

I am president and ceo of Tower Investments. An incredible amount time, money and professional expertise has been spent on this project. We have massive support from public officials – why, because they see the tremendous addition to the community with a bio-tech park in their community. Yes, timetables have been delayed and Tower has been under serious confidentiality agreements with prospective users and tenants. if you believe that there are not seriously interested parties to be part of a new bio-tech park 12 miles from Mayo and less than an hour to Uof Minn, you are badly mistaken. This is a multi-year project. The support from the constituients and stakeholders has been overwealming. Frankly, if the public listened to your negative reports, there would be no growth in SW Minnesota along the line of bio-tech, a very strong field. We have continuous meetings with top experts in the field, and the stars must align, size, type space, financing, timing and negotiations over the past 3-4 years in Elk Run. It is my expectation that, unless your goal is roadblocks so you can “i told you so”, why you try to try to support a potential bio-tech park with prospectively several thousand workers over time, then if i were you i would try to help the project, not sandbag it with untrue facts and toal speculation on your part. Join our groups of hundreds that are enthousiastic about the future, In a perfect world, we have the precise space of Stanford Research Park in Palo Alto, which took years to develop. Rather than try to tear Elk Run down (which accomplishes nothing for the citizens), whi don’t you take a common courtesy approach to the hard working developers and stakeholders that have worked tirelessly for several years, and give the some slack.

Actually, upon further review, that’s a pretty coherent and reasonable comment. The same cannot be said for the next one:

if you think we are neophites trying to create something out of nothing, i suggest you review our websites: www.towerinv.com and burrill company. burrill is worldrenowned and we are extremely fortunately that he has taken a serious likeing to this project. Burrill travels worldwide continually, just returning from the middle east, russia and south Korea – you check his bio before you throw him under the bus in your narrative. Don’t pass us off as lightweights with no credibility. So it takes longer to get a biotech park right, so be it, would you prefer to run Elk Run off and go back to corn fields? Have you ever funded and managed such an endeaver. You have embarassed us both by your article. This is ludicrous and i feel you owe Steve Marks and Steve Brurrill an apology. This project may or may not succeed, but wih the team and support in place, it is likely to succeed, which is going to make you look like an ass.

Hmmm. Where to start? I guess I should say that plenty of people already think that I’m an ass.

But that’s besides the point. Let me offer my response to Marks:

1. Elk Run is in southeast Minnesota, not southwest. If you’re going to defend your project, at least know where the darn thing is.
2. Don’t refer to yourself in the third person. Only Lebron James can do that.
3. Tower and Steve Burrill may have a long and impressive resume. But they have absolutely NO experience in developing a biotech research park, never mind one in a rural community. It’s also worth noting that Tower’s original plans for Elk Run did not include a biotech park. That came once the state offered nearly $2 million in infrastructure improvements.
4. Corn fields at least grow corn. A bunch of dug up dirt and empty shells of buildings don’t do anything.
5. Use your public relations firm. That’s what you pay them for. And if you don’t have one, hire someone fast, preferably someone on retainer at 1 o’clock in the morning.
6. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. You don’t get an “A” for effort. Marks (and Burrill, for that matter) seem to believe that we should “cut them some slack” because they are trying to do something in Minnesota. But if we demand accountability from elected officials, shouldn’t we expect the same from out-of-town, for-profit real estate developers who are benefiting from millions of dollars in federal and state aid? 

One more point. If Marks thinks that I’m the only one in Minnesota who’s skeptical of Elk Run, then he should think again.

From the comments:

Mr. Burill promised a billion bucks in 2009 – the economy was already in the crapper. He later promised an inked deal with a soverieng wealth fund by this fall and then retracted. Mayo and the U of M already have infrastructure in Rochester funded largely by tax payers and few tenants – not biotech. Or are you suggesting some other infrastructure is needed? Since a recent white paper by the Biobusiness Alliance of MN says the state has 36 biotech incubators, it seems like there ought to be infrastructure available. The tax payer funded University Enterprise Laboratories in St. Paul failed in part because it was “too far” from the U of M, according to Peter Bianco. I’m tired of this (ab)use of my tax money.

Boy is this entertaining. Me thinks some doth protest too much.

Tom, Well done on both articles. Regarding the first, Can God Save Elk Run? The project already has a shaman: http://www.alexstark.com. With regard to the alleged facts that Mr. Algadi says you failed to report. Is Mr. Algadi referring to the wild horse debacle? More retail space than the Mall of America? More lab and office space than two IDS Towers? Or is he referring to the two buildings full of tenants, which they testified (to the Legislature) already existed in March of 2009? Perhaps Mr. Algadi is upset that you failed to mention BBAM’s report to DEED stating that there was financing AND a building already under construction in December of 2009. Or did you miss the three quarter of a million dollar payment of federal tax money indemnifying Tower for the elk herd they may or may not have purchased. The CUP on file in Olmsted County allowed the Hoehne’s to have 100 elk on the property and yet they somehow snuck an additional 500, 600, 700 or 900 animals onto the property. The numbers on the animals are as hard to pin down as the truth about what is going on with this project. It’s hard to know which “fact” Mr. Algadi is upset about since asking questions about the project, any questions at all, causes him to become enraged and to throw out accusations of “sabotage” and opposition to progress. On one occasion Mr. Algadi asked if I would prefer to have my tax money spent here or on “propping up a puppet regime like Israel.” I don’t know how he got from biotech to Israel, but I must say that at this point Israel is looking better and better.

 This project is absurd.  The Emperor has no clothes.  University Enterprised Laboratory (UEL) was a failure and this project in the middle of nowhere will also fail.  It is time to stop milking the taxpayers.  I have my doubts about the tech park in the backyard of the U of M, but at least it is in the right location.

Location, location, location?  Anyone ever heard of that?

This is also why the UMore Park development is a farce and is really only an excuse for the U to proceed with gravel mining operations. 

And so it goes, as Kurt Vonnegut used to say. 

Oh, and keep up the good work, Thomas.  The right people are mad at you.

Eighteen Candidates for

University of Minnesota 

Board of Regents

From Campus Connect (Jenna Ross at Star-Tribune)

AT LARGE

Allen Anderson, former VP at CHS, Inc. and board member of the Minnesota Agri-Growth Council; Steven Hunter, current regent and secretary/treasurer of the Minnesota AFL-CIO; Robert Kennedy, president of the University of Maine; Gordon Bailey, chairman of Bailey Nurseries, Inc., and former regent of St. John's University

SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRCT

Laura Brod, a Republican state representative from New Prague; Steve Sviggum, Minnesota Management and Budget Commissioner and former Speaker of the House; Kelly Smith, superintendent of Belle Plaine Public Schools; Robert Vogel, CEO of New Market Bank; Thomas Devine, executive of the David Agency, Inc., and Leon Westbrock, former executive vice president for CHS, Inc.

THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

David Larson, current regent and executive VP at Cargill, Inc., Dr. Roby Thompson, Jr., associate dean in the School of Medicine, professor and head of the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery; Norman Rickeman, board member of The Blake School and the Minneapolis Foundation

EIGHTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

William Burns, attorney and former College of St. Scholastica trustee; Robert Ostlund, former superintendent of Wayzata Public Schools; George Goldfarb, chief operating officer of Maurices, Inc., and board member of UMD's Labovitz School of Business; David McMillan, senior VP at Allete and past chair of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce's Board of Directors; Scott Lyons, former Duluth chief of police and coordinator for the law enforcement program at Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College

 My suggestions:

At Large: Steven Hunter, Gordon Bailey

Second: Kelly Smith, Robert Vogel

Third: David Larson, Norman Rickeman

Eighth: Scott Lyons, Robert Ostlund

Comment: Just because someone is a sitting Regent does not mean that they should not be re-elected. Both Hunter and Larson have behaved admirably in their positions and have gone against the grain as much as one can given the rules of the game.  Regent Larson has suggested in the past that perhaps we should not be asking for as much funding from the state in these terrible economic times.  Regent Hunter had the nerve to question the alcohol policy.  During the last Regent selection there was a move not to re-appoint Regent Frobenius. This would have been a terrible mistake, given his performance over the last few years.  He is the one who is most likely to raise perceptive questions.

Without throwing stones, some of the candidates seem inappropriate because of their political or university connections.  Some of them will probably be selected.  Too bad.

+++

The Minnesota Daily Lets It All Hang Out

 Article on Frank Cerra 

Retiring Academic Health Center VP

and Dean of the Medical School

University of Minnesota

From the Daily:

As Cerra, 67, prepares to retire from 15 years of administrative leadership on Dec. 31, he is tying up the loose ends of a tenure marked by new buildings, commercial partnerships, curriculum changes and faculty conflicts of interest.

For a variety of reasons, a majority of faculty members contacted preferred not to share their thoughts on him for this story.

“After 15 years, there are people who don’t agree with some things I’ve done or decisions I’ve made,” he said. “That’s fine. They understand why I made them and what the circumstances were and move on.”

In 1997, Cerra made a bold move: He led the sale of the University’s hospital to Fairview Health Services, vowing to keep it a teaching hospital.

The decision drew a variety of responses, not all of them positive.

Neuroscience professor Robert Miller wrote in a 1999 article in Academe Magazine that the sale was the “single largest disaster in the hundred-plus-year history of the institution” and that faculty members were given no say in the matter.

The lasting effect of the merger is tension between faculty members at the University, whose mission is to educate, and Fairview, which is governed by a board of directors and a bottom line.

The University still owned the hospital when James Carey, a physical therapy professor, first arrived — and it was nice, he said. So nice that he said it’s time to think about getting it back.

Many faculty members are concerned about the potential for imbalance in meeting Fairview’s needs and the University’s needs in the relationship between Fairview and the Medical School, said David Ingbar, professor of medicine.

There’s a fear among the faculty that the primary function of the Fairview-University relationship could be to provide clinicians for Fairview rather than fulfill the University’s academic mission, Ingbar said.

Down the hall from Executive Vice Dean Mark Paller’s spacious office in the Mayo Building is one with Frank Cerra’s name on the door alongside the words “Dean of the Medical School.”

But depending on the day, Cerra could be across the street in his other office, that of the senior vice president for health sciences of the Academic Health Center.

There’s been tremendous disagreement over whether the dual role of dean of the medical school and head of the AHC should remain one or be split in two when Cerra’s successor, pediatrics chairman Aaron Friedman, takes over.

In July of this year, 93 percent of 354 Medical School faculty members responded in a survey that they believed the school should have a dean whose “sole responsibility” is to manage the Medical School.

“There was an overwhelming response that we want our own dean,” Campbell said.

But in an interview last week, University President Bob Bruininks had a different interpretation of the survey. He said that the 93 percent group was, in fact, signaling its desire that the positions stay integrated.

 “I think the overwhelming sentiment is that combining these two positions is the strongest possible position for the University to take in the long-term future,” he said.

The dual role “greatly streamlined the decision-making, it reduced administrative overhead, it strengthens the leadership platforms of the vice president and dean,” Bruininks said.

But many faculty members argue that the Medical School is much larger than other schools in the AHC, so it shouldn’t be handled by someone who’s only focusing part of his attention on it.

The prompt was a two-part question, which also stated that the dean should have a direct line of communication with the president. As the position exists now, Cerra communicates frequently with Bruininks through his leadership role in the AHC.

“We felt that the Medical School was such a driving force of the University and the Academic Health Center, it was worthy of having a direct line — not to be arrogant or anything like that — but just because it’s an important unit that is critical to the overall operations of the University,” Carey said.

If the survey wasn’t clear enough, three months earlier, 35 members of the Medical School FAC sent a letter to Bruininks asking him to restructure the AHC and alerting him of the “need to return the leadership of the Medical School to the position of dean of the Medical School without being combined with the senior vice president of Health Sciences (SVPHS) position.”

In their reasoning, the faculty members wrote that the cost savings Cerra and Bruininks claim results from combining the positions is “not apparent.” Further, the rigid leadership structure distances faculty members from the leadership, jeopardizing the possibility of a fully engaged faculty.

Bruininks wrote back two months later acknowledging that he had received their letter.

Beginning in January, Friedman will assume a slightly different role than Cerra: dean of the Medical School and vice president for health sciences of the AHC. Some of the administrative oversight of the health science colleges that Cerra performed will go to the University Provost Tom Sullivan.

When asked what the differences between his and Cerra’s positions are, Friedman said, “I think it remains to be seen what the real distinctions are. I’m not sure.”

Ultimately, incoming University President Eric Kaler will make the final decision.

For some, that disconnect between faculty members’ desires and administrative decision-making has soured the view of Cerra’s tenure.

While many blame faculty apathy, professor of medicine Gregory Vercellotti said they weren’t always that way, but have grown more apathetic as their power seems smaller.

“We had leadership here that consistently didn’t listen to faculty or didn’t reward faculty input — I’m not going to say punish — but basically that faculty input wasn’t listened to,” he said. “And after a while, faculty said, ‘Well, what’s the use, it’s going to happen anyway.’”

As a surgery professor, Cerra’s reputation was at times fogged with connections to sketchy operations.

A colleague of Cerra’s, David Knighton, was found by the FDA to have illegally sold and promoted his drug, Procuren, through his company, Curative Technologies.

Cerra worked in Knighton’s clinics for several years in the 1980s.

Years later, when Cerra was in the running to become dean of the Medical School, his reputation was again tainted by his controversial relationship with Caremark, a company Cerra and other University doctors were accused of illegally referring patients to.

Under Cerra’s watch, a number of Medical School faculty members were found to have unethical relationships with private industry, including David Polly’s consulting deals with Medtronic and Leo Furcht funneling grant money into his own company, which he later sold.

“We’ve actually had very few of those, if you count them up,” Cerra said.

Eventually, the conflicts of interest became serious enough, however, that they forced the entire University to overhaul its Conflict of Interest Policy, with Cerra and Furcht helping to shape many of the details in the new policy.

The University of Minnesota is in

"good financial health" according

to Chief Financial Officer Pfutzenreuter

Yes, you read that right...

Other interesting things from the Daily:

The University of Minnesota ranked among the top 10 research schools in the country for the first time in its history, based on year-end data presented Friday.

Bigger is better?

While the school moved up two places since 2005, it’s still struggling to reach its goal of being a top three research institution

 Maybe not?

“If you’re going to rate a university on its research enterprise, this is the single number most would rely on,” Mulcahy said.

 So, uh, we're better than Harvard, better than Caltech, better than any institution that does not garner as much research funding?  Doesn't size have anything to do with this?  

“I used to think the goal of being [among] the top three research universities was only an aspiration,” Regent Linda Cohen  said. “But after this report I’m beginning to think perhaps this could be a reality.”

 Breathtaking lack of understanding about what a top research university is...

The end of the federal stimulus program — which netted the University $208 million over two years — and shifts in federal funding could threaten future research growth, Mulcahy said.

“To be honest with you, I’m concerned,” he said. “The future does not look bright for research at the national level.”

Bingo!  And remember the old saying: The bigger they are the harder they fall. 

The University is in “good financial health” and things are beginning to turn around after the recession, Chief Financial Officer Richard Pfutzenreuter  said Friday during an annual finance review.

“It’s been a tough couple of years with the economy,” Pfutzenreuter told the Board of Regents. “[But] the University, I think, is certainly on the repair.”

Sure Pfutz, whatever you say.  About those layoffs?  About those salary freezes?  About those tuition increases?  About a trip to Boynton for a reality check?

The University’s expenses remained essentially the same as the previous year, something Controller Mike Volna  attributed to an “extraordinary effort” to cut costs and budget more efficiently.

How about EFS Mr. Volna?  Is this model of efficiency saving us money?  How much money was spent on this fiasco?  And how much more will be required to make it work?

Pfutz and the provost

dazzle Regents...

 +++

On The Hidden Cost of Research 

Michael McNabb's Response to

Minnesota Magazine Article:

Research to Revenue

Jay Weiner has a thought-provoking article in Minnesota Magazine about research and money at the University of Minnesota: Research to Revenue.

It might not be obvious to the casual reader, but there are hidden costs of doing research. 

It is an open question whether the U drains tuition dollars to support research, the cost of which is not fully covered by outside grants and contracts. 

It is important to clarify the actual costs of research at the university as well as the costs for education. Having this information available in a transparent way is important for justifying requests for suppport of the U by the citizens of the State of Minnesota.

Mr. McNabb writes to Jay Weiner:


The focus of your report on Research To Revenue in the current issue of Minnesota Magazine is on revenue.  There is another aspect that you may wish to investigate further:  the cost of the research. 

You report that the University received $95.2 million in gross revenue from royalties in 2009 and that all but $8.7 came from the royalty paid by GlaxoSmithKline for the drug Ziagen.  Gross income declined to $75.2 million in 2010 according to the report of Jenna Ross in the December 10 Star Tribune.  

In 2010 the University received $823 million from outside sources for research according to the same Star Tribune report.  The University also allocated its own funds for the costs of research in an amount that is not included in the report.  

Those costs include the capital costs for construction and maintenance of  the research facilities plus the operating costs for the salaries of the researchers and staff.  The University classifies those costs as Facilities & Administrative Costs (F & A).  The March 2010 report of the Senate Research Committee includes a discussion of those costs by vice president Tim Mulchay:     

F & A costs (indirect costs, overhead) are real costs incurred while conducting research. . . .

[OMB] Circular A-21 classifies research costs as direct and indirect; the latter are F & A costs . . .  .  Indirect costs are administrative and research facilities costs.

The calculation of the F & A rate is different from the actual F & A costs.  Dr. Mulchay explained the formula used, which results in a calculation of 62% indirect cost rate for the University of Minnesota.  One would think that this would mean that the federal government would provide 62 cents in addition to each research dollar provided, but it does not.

The actual rate negotiated with the federal government is 51%.  The reason it is lower than 62% is because there is a federal cap of 26% on administrative F & A costs. . . .

If the full F & A rate of 51% were applied to all appropriate sponsored research costs, the University would receive $145 million per year.  The EFFECTIVE rate, however, is 37% because the University only received $104 million in 2009.  It is not that the federal government is not paying the full rate (which some agencies do not), but that other funding organizations do not either. . . .

Dr. Mulchay noted again that the University has a total unrecovered cost of research of about $75 million (the difference between the full rate of 62% or $179 million and the effective rate of 37% or $104 million) . . . .

See pp. 2-4 of the March 22, 2010 report of Senate Research Committee at http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/61936/1/10-03-22%20SRC.pdf. 

Even the "full rate" of 62% of indirect costs leaves the University responsible for payment of the remaining 38% of indirect costs of research.

Here is the math.  If $179 million equals 62% of the indirect costs of research, then $289 million equals 100% of the indirect costs.  In 2009 the University received $104 million for indirect costs.  So the University paid $185 million in indirect costs ($289 million minus $104 million) and received $92.5 million in gross revenue from royalties.  

What is the source of the funds used to pay the $185 million in indirect costs of research?  

Then there are related questions.  What is the cost of instruction for undergraduate education?  Does tuition exceed that cost?  Is undergraduate tuition used to subsidize research in a vain attempt by the senior administrators and the Regents to make the University "one of the top three public research universities in the world?"  Have undergraduate students and their parents endured years of huge tuition increases in order to pay for the indirect costs of research rather than to pay for the costs of teaching the undergraduate students?    

See the 2009 Report of the Future Financial Resources Task Force.  New Fiscal Reality No. 2 (on p. 8 of the Report) declares that "tuition is the revenue stream with the highest potential for significant, long-term growth."  Tuition Policy Question No. 2 (on p. 17 of the Report) asks:  "What should tuition pay for when tuition revenue exceeds the cost of instruction?"  The Report is included in the October 2009 report of the Board of Regents at http://www.umn.edu/regents/docket/2009/october/worksession.pdf. 

(For a broader discussion of costs at the University see:  Stop Using Students as ATMs at http://ptable.blogspot.com/2010/10/stop-using-students-as-atms-university.html#links; The Hidden Cost of College at http://www.ptable.blogspot.com/2010/05/hidden-cost-of-college.html#links ; and Three Minutes at http://www.ptable.blogspot.com/2010/06/three-minutes-of-input-at-university-of.html#links.) 

Your report notes that "some professors are wary of the influences of the corporate world on their research."  There is a reason to be wary.  Ever since Congress passed the Bayh-Doyle Act on technology transfer in 1980 (the University Small Business Patent Procedures Act) there has been an increasing blurring of the line between the priorities of non-profit institutions of higher education and the priorities of the for-profit commercial ventures operated by those institutions.  For a brief discussion of one aspect of this development at the University of Minnesota see  University Inc. at http://ptable.blogspot.com/2010/11/p-margin-bottom-0.html#links .

Jennifer Washburn delivers a compelling exposition of this national trend in her book,  University Inc. (New York:  Basic Books, 2005).  Her book is the product of four years of reseach and writing with financial assistance provided by the New America Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.

Michael W. McNabb
Attorney at Law

   

POSTSCRIPT

 

From the Introduction to University Inc. by Jennifer Washburn (New York:  Basic Books 2005):

Page x

The problem is not university-industry relationships per se; it is the elimination of any clear boundary lines separating academia from commerce.  Today, market forces are dictating what is happening in the world of higher education as never before, causing universities to engage in commercial activities unheard of in academia a mere generation ago.  Universities now routinely operate complex patenting and licensing operations to market their faculty's inventions (extracting royalty income and other fees in return).  They invest their endowment money in risky start-up firms by their professors.  They run their own industrial parks, venture-capital funds, and for-profit companies, and they publish newsletters encouraging faculty members to commercialize their research by going into business.

Page xii

In fact, only a small minority of schools prove successful at licensing research to industry, despite the enormous time, energy, and money that they have devoted to such efforts in recent years.  Although every university president eagerly awaits that blockbluster discovery--a cure for cancer, an inexpensive way to desalinate sea water--that would generate millions in royalties, in reality a mere two dozen universities in the entire country make significant profits from technology licensing .  Many others barely break even--or lose money.  The more universities try to sell politicans on the idea that they can serve as engines of economic growth, the more they are setting themselves up for failure and undermining the basis for their public support.  (emphasis added)

Page xii-xiii

The same universities that invest millions in high-tech research labs and industrial parks have been whittling down the professoriate, replacing tenured and full-time faculty with part-time adjuncts and graduate students.  Whereas star professors in fields like computer science and economics are recruited with six-figure slaaries (and assurances that they will have to do little teaching), humanities courses, which form the core of the academic curriculum, are taught to several hundred undergraduates at a time in large lecture halls, with graduate student teaching assistants (TAs) bearing nearly full responsibility for the one-on-one instruction and grading.  Indeed, with the exception of the smaller liberal arts colleges, the job of undergraduate education often seems like a subsidiary activity at many universities today--a task farmed out to the growing army of part-time instructors who receive no benefits and meager pay.

Page xiv

Indeed, one could argue that in a knowledge-driven economy it is all the more important that undergraduates are provided not with narrow vocational training but with a broad-based foundation in reading, writing, arithmetic, and science--an education that sharpens the students' intellectual faculties, their curiosity about the world, and their ability to think critically and creatively.  Because technology and the state of knowledge in nearly every discipline are changing so rapidily, the most valuable skills universities could impart is the capacity to learn and grow intellectually throughout one's lifetime.

Page xv-xvi

But much of the university research that we assume is independent often is anything but.  Today, at prominent medical colleges, it is not unusual for professors to be paid by drug companies to put their names on review articles and academic papers ghostwritten by industry.  These articles are then published in leading medical journals without any disclosure of corporate involvement.  Whereas, in the past, clinical studies at universities were conducted at "arm's length" from the industry sponsor, today these sponsors routinely exert control over the study design, the raw data, and even the way results get reported.  What's more, it is increasingly common for the lead investigator and the university itself to own equity in the company sponsoring a drug trial, so they have a direct financial interest in a favorable outcome.

It would be hard to overstate the importance of preserving a space in our culture where the ideal of disinterested inquiry is preserved.  Many major public-policy questions Americans will grapple with in the decades to come--global warming, the search for alternative fuels, the safety of genetically engineered crops, international ecomomic development, the regulation of human cloning--will require us to turn to trained experts to help us untangle the complex moral, social, and scientific issues involved.  Unfortunately, it has already grown difficult to find disinterested authorities in many fields.

Page xviii

This book is written out of a belief that although the profit motive plays an important role in our society, so do other values that limit and constrain what unregulated markets will do if left to their own devices.  In the past, our universities have played a vital role in this regard, not least by focusing on issues the markets ignore.  Traditionally, for example, universities tackled public health threats that offered little immediate financial return but impacted millions of lives.  They protected and defended the information commons, the pool of public knowledge that is freely available for researchers and creators to use and build upon.  Academic scientists also excelled in the performance of research that corporations were reluctant to undertake:  undirected "blue-sky" research, risk-taking experimentation, and unconventional inquiry that yielded important practical results over time.

Page xix-xx

Universities have served as a check on market values in another way:  by providing an environment where young people have been encouraged to think critically and explore ideas, not because of their dollar value but because of how captivating or original they are.  Without this independent academic sphere, would the United States be as open, pluralistic, and democratic a society? . . .

To invoke this ideal is not hopelessly quixotic.  Nor does it mean we must call on universities to beat a hasty retreat to the ivory tower and wall themselves off from private industry.  As I argue in my conclusion, universities should be places that are engaged with the outside world, encourage creative problem solving, and support entrepreneurial thinking.  They should have mechanisms in place to facilitate the transfer of new knowledge and inventions to industry and should provide students with the tools and training they need to start up new companies and pursue careers.  It is imperative, however, that universities accomplish all of this without sacrificing their autonomy or compromising the values and ideals they have long pledged to uphold.

This book is written for parents, students, professors, administrators, and all those who care about such ideals, who take it as a given that the university's primary mission is still the education of well-rounded citizens and the performance of public research, not merely service to industry's short-term bottom line; who expect academic administrators to stand up to corporations when they threaten to sue a professor who has unearthed information that the public deserves to know; and who want to see the line separating business and academia preserved, even as universities continue to play a role in fueling innovation and stimulating economic growth.

U.S. colleges and universities, whether they are public or private, enjoy enormous levels of public support and tax exemptions because of a belief that they are generating goods that no other market actor would produce without a public subsidy:  basic science; liberal education; independent, publishable research.  Every year the federal government pays roughly $20 billion in taxpayer money to subsidize the research at our nation's colleges and universities, and another $60 billion more in loans and grants to help financially disadvantaged students attend these schools.  At the state and local levels, taxpayer contributions to higher education now run around $68 billion.  In addition, hundreds of thousands of Americans carefully put aside their hard-earned income to pay for tuition, room and board, books, and other expernses needed to send their kids to college.  It is up to them--up to all of us--to make sure that the world of higher education is not for sale.

+++

Mark Rotenberg, General Counsel

at the University of Minnesota,

Denialist in Chief?

From the Star-Tribune:

Karen Himle, the University of Minnesota vice president at the heart of a controversy over the university-produced documentary "Troubled Waters," will step down in January.

the issues go deeper than one person's "conflict of interest," DeVore [Brian DeVore, communications coordinator for the Land Stewardship Project] said. "The U needs to address what was the environment that allowed something like this to take place, and make sure that it doesn't happen again," he said.


The U has detailed the events surrounding the "Troubled Waters" broadcast in a 10-page report dated Nov. 15. The U's general counsel, Mark Rotenberg, said he and the provost are holding meetings with faculty committees so they can explore concerns about academic freedom raised by this incident.

But Rotenberg rejects the idea that such freedom was compromised. "The film was not censored, it was not edited, and it was shown exactly when everyone anticipated," he said. "That's the bottom line. That's a reaffirmation of the principles of academic freedom."

E-mails between Himle and others make clear that "there were concerns about how constituencies in the state of Minnesota would feel about the film," he said, "and that's appropriate. We're a land-grant university."

He added: "There is no evidence whatsoever that any outside business interests played any role in her decision to postpone the film."

Here's the real bottom line, counselor.  The reason that the film went on as scheduled is because of the enormous outcry that the attempted postponement WAS censorship and a violation of academic freedom.  Without this outcry would the film have gone on as scheduled?

And you, counselor, have a conflict of interest in this matter. Who do you work for, exactly? Who is/are your clients?  Why are you afraid of an independent investigation? Your involvement in this matter is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

For further thoughts, please see:

Did the University of Minnesota

Throw Ms. Himle Under the Bus

or Did She Take One For the Team?

+++

Ethically Challenged Academic Health Center

Admin at University of Minnesota

Continues in Denial...

From the Pioneer-Press:

A dozen faculty members and a student group at the University of Minnesota are calling for an investigation into the 2004 suicide of Dan Markingson, a West St. Paul man who participated in a medication study at the U that critics say might have featured a series of ethical violations.

"It's fair to say this is a 'routine' review, based on the concerns that were raised," said Daniel Wolter, the university spokesman. "At this point, it's premature to say what, if any, further review the board would pursue."  

"It's one thing to ask subjects to enroll in a research study that is aimed at generating useful scientific knowledge and will advance patient care," [U bioethicist] Elliott said. "It's another thing entirely to enroll in a clinical trial that's being conducted to advance the marketing aims of a pharmaceutical company." 

Justin Paquette, a spokesman for the U's Academic Health Center, said Thursday that he would not make Olson available to respond to the letters and student resolution. But he pointed to a statement the U posted on the health center's website that enumerates the various outside groups that have investigated the case.

"None found fault with the University," the statement reads, "none found fault with the involved faculty."

We didn't do anything illegal?

Just unethical and immoral?

The AHC has a problem with a damaged moral compass, see for example:

 

"We're not violating a legal statute"

 

 

+++ 

Did the University of Minnesota

Throw Ms. Himle Under the Bus

or Did She Take One For the Team?

I am in disagreement over who bears the primary responsibility for the Troubled Waters fiasco and don't think that it is entirely the fault of Ms. Himle. I think that the president and the academics involved share a major part of the blame. I note that just because the emails from Bruininks are inconclusive does  NOT mean that other communication did not occur. Most of us have been aware for some time that email can be dangerous. There are old-fashioned methods that are a little more difficult to track: personal conversations and the telephone, for example. One of the emails from Levine indicated that the President was aware of the decision to pull the film. Why didn't he prevent this from happening?

It would be best if this whole matter were independently investigated, since the president, the provost, the administration including the Office of the General Counsel, and several deans are involved. Having them do the investigation is what is called a conflict of interest and it is unethical.

In support of this claim, please see the post:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

(Who will guard the guardians?)

Link: http://bit.ly/bfvKl4

"Mr. Rotenberg said he is the lawyer; his clients, the President and the Provost, have already answered the question." Faculty Consultative Committee, Oct 22, 2010.

"If the clients of the general counsel are the president and the provost, then a conflict of interest prevents the general counsel from conducting an independent investigation and from advising any other groups, such as the Academic Freedom & Tenure Committee or the Faculty Consultative Committee."

See:

Rule 1.7 (a) of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (formerly known as the Canons of Ethics).

"Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest.

A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:

(1) the representation of one client [president and provost] will be directly adverse to another client [the University]; or

(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients [the University] will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client [president and provost], a former client or a third person, or by a personal interest of the lawyer [a general counsel who may serve at the pleasure of the president]."

A mechanism for independent investigation has been suggested: A Call For An Independent Investigation of Troubled Waters at the University of Minnesota | Community Voices: Star-Tribune

Link: http://bit.ly/9uuucR

William B. Gleason, faculty and alum 

+++

The L'Oreal Approach - I'm worth it

is not working at the University of Minnesota

Time for a change?

I am not so sure that the legislature is going to be inclined to maintain the university's funding, even at its current low level, let alone give an increase as is being requested. Such a request will appear to be arrogant and selfish in the current economic environment. Certainly there is a track record of poor priorities and choices about money from the current administration.

The next university administration needs to seriously rethink how business has been done at the legislature, especially because, for the next few years at least, the legislature will be controlled by the GOP.

Two simple things that could be done to put the discussion with the legislature on firmer ground:
.

1) Spell out what the actual cost is for the education of an undergraduate for one year at the U of M. Give an explanation of the basis for this estimate. Of course whatever is done is subject to some argument, but so be it. At least we will have a better idea of the expenses and revenues on the education side.

2) Spell out how much research at the U actually costs and the difference between outside grant income and actual expenses. Where, exactly, does this money come from?

In negotiations with the legislature, commit to tuition increases at inflationary levels, IF the legislature will make up the difference between educational expenses and tuition revenue.

Since even the GOP seems to be in favor of research, negotiate some sort of arrangement where the legislature will agree to match outside funds generated by research by some percentage. The negotiations could start at 30% and work down. If the funding is not forthcoming, then we will have to do less research...

Do not attempt to negotiate with the legislature by saying: We need this money because we are very important to the state.

The argument that has been used in the past reminds me of the old L'Oreal commercial: Give us the money, because we're worth it! This will no longer fly. There are plenty of hungry mouths out there - literally and figuratively - and we are just one of them.

Let's start playing money ball and quit banging our heads against the cement wall. The L'Oreal approach has not worked since 1997.

+++

Dan Markingson's suicide: 

U of M attorney responds [UPDATE]

Added later:

A commenter writes: 

The report of Matt McGeachy [below] refers to conflicts of interest in both the Markingson case and in the Troubled Waters case. 

The investigation of the allegation of violation of academic freedom in the latter case is compromised by the conflict of interest of the U of M general counsel, the lead investigator, who declared at the outset that he represents the president and the provost. 

You might consider adding a link in your December 9 post to your October 29 post on Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? [done] The senior administrators do not seem to recognize a conflict of interest that literally peers back at them from the mirror. 

___

Andy Mannix writes in City Pages:

University of Minnesota counsel Mark Rotenberg will meet with the Board of Regents to discuss a letter requesting an independent investigation into events surrounding Dan Markingson's 2004 suicide.

Eight U of M bioethicists sent the letter last week detailing potential ethical lapses they say may have led to Markingson taking his own life while enrolled in a clinical study at the college. Several more faculty members have since sent a subsequent letter to the Regents supporting the call for an investigation.

"The letter from the faculty is a serious letter," says Rotenberg. "We take it seriously. The issues they have raised our important to the university and we're going to respond respectfully to their letter."

In stark contrast to the utterances of our chief flack, Mr. Wolter...

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
Mouthpiece Dan Wolter
declines to make statement in
typical classless fashion...

"There isn't any additional statement at this point as there isn't really anything new beyond Professor Elliott repackaging his position in new and different formats." 

This arrogant statement was quoted on the website of Science, the AAS organ, and arguably - together with Nature - one of the most widely regarded journals in the world.  Nice job, Dan...

Rotenberg explains his meeting with the Regents will be an informal briefing, and not open to the public. He could not comment on the specifics of what will be discussed.

"The details of what I say to my clients in our conversations are not something that I disclose to the public," he says.

On a related note, the Regents will not hear a report summarizing student concerns about Markingson's suicide at this week's meeting, despite the efforts of graduate student Matt McGeachy.

McGeachy, a history of medicine student, is one of seven student representatives to the Regents. In a report to the Regents, McGeachy wrote about student concerns regarding conflicts of interest at the U of M, such as those addressed during the recent Troubled Waters fiasco. He also included several paragraphs about lingering controversy surrounding Markingson's suicide.

Wrote McGeachy:

The University was exonerated of legal wrongdoing by many various agencies and courts in the Markingson case, and the Administration continues its inquiry into the handling of the Troubled Waters controversy. Yet students are left with a nagging feeling that the discussion ends prematurely with issues of the law.

After McGeachy submitted his portion of the report, a staff member working for the Board of Regents complained that McGeachy's report contained "stylistic concerns" and seemed to summarize only McGeachy's opinion.

In an e-mail, U of M spokesman Dan Wolter explains that the student representatives are meant to advocate for the student population -- not to push a single agenda.

"These reports are intended to represent the views of the various student organizations that the student representatives represent and not necessarily any one individual," says Wolter.

McGeachy argues that questions raised in his report are indeed representative of greater student concerns.

"I guess my question is, on what do they base this idea that it's just one student who's off here on a crusade?" asks McGeachy. "I mean, this has been discussed over and over again by the Graduate Professional Student Assembly. The Student Senate has discussed all of this. It's not like this is the Matt McGeachy club interested in conflicts of interest."

Here's the report McGeachy submitted in full:

Conflict of Interest, Risk, and an Ethical Heat Map 

This year students, especially those on the Twin Cities campus, have taken a keen interest in the University's policies surrounding conflict of interest. The purpose of this section of our report to the Board of Regents is not to express a litany of woes, but rather to inform the Board that students do care deeply about the ethical conduct of the University and members of our community; to suggest strategies for communicating with students about conflict of interest; and to suggest an added emphasis on the University's ethical responsibilities in new discussions about recalibrating risk tolerance at the University of Minnesota. 

Two examples of recent COI controversies that have prompted student interest and media response are the University's handling of the Troubled Waters documentary and the case of Dan Markingson. Troubled Waters and the controversy surrounding its initial suppression and subsequent release received extensive coverage in the Minnesota Daily and the Markingson case was brought to light once again by U faculty member Dr. Carl Elliott of the Center for Bioethics. 

Though space constraints preclude in-depth review of these cases, they are no doubt familiar to members of this Board and the Administration. Questions linger unanswered about the University's handling of the Troubled Waters affair, largely because the University's relationship, financial and otherwise, with the agricultural industry in this state remains unarticulated to students. Likewise, University officials' outside interests, where they exist, are not easily and transparently available to the University community. Thus, when they are found to exist, outside interests carry the air of secrecy -- a situation which might be changed in the future with greater transparency, particularly on the web, where students (and others) first turn for information.

The Markingson case is particularly troubling, resulting in 2004 in the tragic suicide of a patient enrolled in a clinical trial of atypical antipsychotics at the University funded by pharmaceutical firm AstraZeneca, manufacturer of Seroquel (quetiapine), a frequently used atypical. Dan Markingson came to the University for psychiatric treatment and ended up in the clinical trial under the care of his physician, Dr. Stephen Olson. 

He did not appear to get any better while enrolled in the trial. Despite the protestations of his mother, Mary Weiss, who repeatedly wrote to the Department of Psychiatry seeking his removal from the trial, Dan was continued in the trial, and ultimately committed suicide. 

While there is no way to know whether he would have taken his own life even had he been removed from the trial, it was disturbing to discover that both his psychiatrist, Dr. Olson, and the head of the Department, Dr. Charles Schulz, received large sums of money from AstraZeneca, who had also funded the study. Additionally, the U received money for maintaining Dan Markingson's participation in the study.

While this does not imply anything nefarious on the part of either Drs. Olson or Schulz, it does raise questions that need to be addressed in the continuing discussions surrounding conflict of interest and the University's tolerance for risk. 

The newly adopted administrative conflict of interest policies at the University begin to take steps, but students' understanding of these policies, and how they might address the problems in the two examples recently in students' minds, needs to be broadened. At what point, for example, might greater scrutiny need to be placed on industry-funded trials? From what companies does the University received money to conduct these trials? One possible step would be to centralize this information and make it more easily accessible online, perhaps in a searchable database. 

The University was exonerated of legal wrongdoing by many various agencies and courts in the Markingson case, and the Administration continues its inquiry into the handling of the Troubled Waters controversy. Yet students are left with a nagging feeling that the discussion ends prematurely with issues of the law. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn commented in his 1978 commencement address at Harvard University: Western society has given itself the organization best suited to its purposes, based, I would say, on the letter of the law. ... If one is right from a legal point of view, nothing more is required, nobody may mention that one could still not be entirely right, and urge self-restraint, a willingness to renounce such legal rights, sacrifice and selfless risk: it would sound simply absurd. One almost never sees voluntary self-restraint. Everybody operates at the extreme limit of those legal frames. An oil company is legally blameless when it purchases an invention of a new type of energy in order to prevent its use. A food product manufacturer is legally blameless when he poisons his produce to make it last longer: after all, people are free not to buy it.

I have spent all my life under a communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either. A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities. The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man's noblest impulses. 

And it will be simply impossible to stand through the trials of this threatening century with only the support of a legalistic structure.

Therefore, as the University continues to examine issues related to risk and conflict of interest, it seems prudent that discussions not only of the legal and institutional consequences of risk and COI occur, but that ethical issues play a central role. The Board of Regents may wish to consider inviting ethicists from the University community to present an Ethical Heat Map to begin this crucial conversation at the highest level.

Why does this matter to students? Aside from the natural concern that students have for the good conduct of their University, it matters because the University of Minnesota is a brand -- one that stands for a myriad of experiences and expectations, and one that carries itself well beyond the years that students spend here. 

As in so many other fields, the University has an opportunity here to take the lead by beginning an ethical conversation that could potentially change the tone of discussions of risk and conflict of interest across the nation.

This report offers two concrete suggestions related to student concerns about risk and conflict of interest. First, it suggests a centralized and transparent website that lists known conflicts for University personnel as well as the amount of industry money that comes to the U for trials and research.  

Second, it suggests that the Board of Regents consider including an ethical dimension to the continuing discussions of risk tolerance and conflict of interest. The University has begun a process of deep thinking on these issues, and the students of the University of Minnesota hope that these crucial issues remain at the front of the Board's collective mind as we continue our collective quest for excellence.

Sad, indeed, when the students have to remind the administration and the Board of Regents about ethical considerations.  Sad, indeed, when they need to be reminded that just because something is legal does not mean that it is either ethical or moral. 

For an another example of a demagnetized moral compass, please see:

"We're not violating a legal statute"

+++