Trust me, I've got a lot of experience in this area.

For almost four years, the University of Minnesota covered up findings that Dr. Barry Garfinkel knew about and participated in scientific misconduct, including fraud, in a drug study, according to a report obtained Wednesday.

As recently as last August the University said it had found no evidence of intentional wrongdoing by the psychiatrist. The University had claimed repeatedly that Garfinkel was merely negligent in supervising the research.

But a November 1989 report by the university's official investigating committee flatly stated that Garfinkel, a nationally recognized expert in teen suicide, had taken part in fabricating records about one patient, either knew or should have known about other falsification of data and failed to correct widespread misconduct in the study. 

The 65-page report, which was kept secret, was released to the Star Tribune yesterday by court order after the newspaper sued the university for access to the Garfinkel file.

 Source: Garfinkel Case at the University of Minnesota 


And who was the General Counsel at the University of Minnesota when it took a lawsuit to make the internal university report public?

University general counsel Mark Rotenberg said yesterday that "the university categorically rejects any insinuation that we covered up any of the serious problems with the Anafranil study."

 Source: Garfinkel Case at the University of Minnesota  

Trust me, I'm a lawyer...

Which leads to the obvious question: With this track record, why should we trust the office of the General Counsel to conduct a fair and impartial investigation in the Markingson case?

The General Counsel is the lawyer for the university and has an obvious conflict of interest in this matter. 

Thus it is imperative that an investigation be done that is independent of his office. 

If you are reading this and have not yet signed the petition to Governor Dayton asking for an independent investigation of the Markingson case, please consider doing so. More information and an opportunity to sign the petition may be found here. 


 

How does U lose money selling beer to Minnesota football fans?

Sigh... DJ Tice kicks our butts on the Star Tribune:

Wednesday, the first day of spring, was a cold day in a helluva fine place to live. And the sun shined bright on Minnesota’s challenges that day, to judge from the Star Tribune’s front page.

First, of course, there was the wake-up temperature predicted only too accurately for that first spring morning — an eye-opening 4 degrees. Global warming may imperil civilization, but Minnesota still seems likely to be the last cultural jewel to succumb.

Next came word that DFL leaders in the Minnesota House are proposing a temporary income tax “surcharge” on wealthy Minnesotans, which on top of a permanent “tax-the-rich” plan from DFL Gov. Mark Dayton, would apparently push the state’s top tax rate into nation-leading contention.

Only California and Hawaii, it seems, tax the well-off (and highly mobile) as heavily as Minnesota would under this proposal.

And, really, what have they got that we don’t?

Well, OK … but aren’t we still the brainpower state?

Which brings us to the deepest riddle raised by the early spring news:

Exactly how many Ph.D.s does it take to lose money selling booze to football fans?

The University of Minnesota managed this marvel last year at TCF Bank Stadium, according to a news report, dropping some $16,000 on more than $900,000 in beer and wine sales. Fortunately, research has unearthed the cause, according to the story. Their expenses grew larger than their revenues.

“Maybe we were overstaffed,” theorized one official.

It’s a possibility. Of late, the U has become something of a national symbol of overstaffing and overspending in higher education, following a Wall Street Journal story singling out our beloved flagship for what’s unappetizingly called “administrative bloat” — and after stories in this paper revealing, among other things, departing administrators enjoying lavishly paid leaves to “retool” themselves for a return to faculty jobs.

At the least, you’d think there would be somebody over there who’s had time to pursue some cutting-edge, world-class research into how to make a go of it peddling beer at $7.25 a cup. Some Distinguished Regents Chair in Integrated Intoxicant Economics maybe — or a couple of frat boys who know how to run a kegger.

To be fair, an athletic department official told the newspaper that “we knew it [the first season] wasn’t going to be profitable.” Startup costs and all. Quite reassuring.

But a bit confusing, too, since only two weeks earlier, another U spokesman had told a legislative committee that the stadium alcohol operation had actually produced a profit — of $16,000. Presumably, this windfall was a surprise (e.g., “anomalous result”) that might have caused your average world-class researcher to double-check before testifying to the Legislature.

But it seems it was only later that university officials realized the apparent profit was “a spreadsheet error.”

Some of those college kids might be able help with computer skills, too.

At any rate, the news “is raising eyebrows among legislators” — ordinarily a crowd with world-class tolerance for humbug.

One lawmaker, saying he’s taking some retooling time before pushing to expand the U’s beer business, summed up my feelings about the overall look of Minnesota this spring when he added: “It certainly seems to raise a certain concern …”

It certainly does.

------------------

D.J. Tice is the Star Tribune's commentary editor.

What do these folks know, that University of Minnesota General Counsel - above - does not?

They've signed the Markingson petition.  You should consider doing it, too.


A few examples with qualifications:

Michael Carome of Public Citizen, former deputy director of Office of Human Research Protection

Bud Relman, former editor, New England Journal of Medicine

Marcia Angel, former editor, New England Journal of Medicine

Jerry Kassirer, former editor, New England Journal of Medicine

Ron Paterson, former New Zealand Health and Disability Commissioner

Susan Reverby, the Marion Butler McLean Professor of History of Ideas at Wellesley College and the author of two widely-read books on the Tuskegee syphilis study

Plus many, many, other academics. 

Arnold Relman, Harvard University 
Alex Capron, University of Southern California 
Peter C Gøtzsche, Nordic Cochrane Center (Denmark)
Charles Bosk, University of Pennsylvania
Trudo Lemmens, University of Toronto
Nancy King, Wake Forest University
Udo Schuklenk, Queen's University
James Edwards, Furman University
Karen-Sue Taussig, University of Minnesota
Bernard Carroll, Pacific Behavioral Research Foundation 
Lochlan Jain, Stanford University
Abby Lippman, McGill University
James Nelson, Michigan State University
Jason Robert, Arizona State University
Adriane Fugh-Berman, Georgetown University 
Hilde Lindemann, Michigan State University
Ellen Feder, American University 
Alice Dreger, Northwestern University
Kenneth DeVille, East Carolina University
Bart Moffatt, Mississippi State University
Matt Lamkin, Stanford University
Noam Zohar, Bar-Ilan University (Israel)
Mike King, University of Otago (New Zealand)
Richard Ashcroft, Queen Mary, University of London (UK)
Christian Munthe, University of Göteborg (Sweden)
Rory Kraft, York College
Kathryn Montgomery, Northwestern University
Ray DeVries, University of Michigan
Louis Charland, University of Western Ontario
Francoise Baylis, Dalhousie University
Linus Broström, Lund University (Sweden)
Michael Cholbi, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona 
Alicia Hall, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
Jesse Ballenger, Pennsylvania State University
Susan Parry, Hennepin Technical College
Emily Beitiks, San Francisco State University
Michael Yesley, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
Leonore Tiefer, New York University
Jenny Dyck Brian, Arizona State University
Leigh Turner, University of Minnesota
Carl Elliott, University of Minnesota
Howard Brody, University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston
Jing-Bao Nie, University of Otago (New Zealand)
Charlotte Paul, University of Otago (New Zealand)
Larry Churchill, Vanderbilt University
John McMillan, University of Otago (New Zealand)
Brad Partridge, University of Queensland (Australia)
Annemarie Jutel, Victoria University of Wellington (New Zealand)
Donald Light, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
Fredrik Sveneaus, Södertörn University (Sweden)
Susan Gilbert, The Hastings Center
Rebecca Dresser, Washington University
Gregory Kaebnick, The Hastings Center
Josephine Johnston, The Hastings Center
Joel Frader, Northwestern University 
Woods Nash, University of Tennessee
Jonathan Kahn, Hamline University
Alison Reihold, Southern Illinois University
George Felis, University of North Carolina at Wilmington
David Hunter, University of Birmingham (UK)
Kyle Galbraith, Carle Foundation Hospital
Joseph Davis, University of Virginia
Daniel Goldberg, East Carolina University
Susan Hawthorne. St. Catherine's University 
Greg Eghigian, Pennsylvania State University
Stacy Carter, Sydney University (Australia)
Neyyire Yasemin Yalim, University of Ankara (Turkey)
Maran Wolston, Normandale Community College
Joel Roselin, Columbia University
Monika Clark-Grill, University of Otago (New Zealand)
Jeremy Snyder, Simon-Fraser University
John H. Noble Jr, Catholic University of America (retired)
Miles Little, Sydney University(Australia)
Misha Angrist, Duke University
Christopher Jordens, Sydney University (Australia)
Jonathan Leo, Lincoln Memorial University
Jenell Johnson, University of Wisconsin – Madison
Glen Spielmans, Metro State University
Robert L. Sprague, University of Illinois
Valerie Tiberius, University of Minnesota
Barry Hoffmaster, University of Western Ontario
Donald Simeon, Caribbean Health Research Council (Trinidad and Tobago)
Shereen Cox, University of Technology (Jamaica)
Kathleen Montgomery, University of California - Riverside
Wendy Rogers, Macquarie University (Australia)
Monique Jonas, Auckland University (New Zealand)
Felicity Callard, Durham University (UK)
Russell Blackford, University of Newcastle (Australia)
Raymond Hames,University of Nebraska
Ray Vilain, University of California Los Angeles
David Gems, University College London
Abraham Schwab, Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne
James Cantor, University of Toronto
Zachary Schrag, George Mason University
David Shaner, Furman University
Stanley Crowe, Furman University 
Nathaniel Comfort, Johns Hopkins University
Aron Sousa, Michigan State University
Robert Smith, Michigan State University
Don Opitz, Depaul University
Joanna Manning, Auckland University (New Zealand)
Jon Jureidini, University of Adelaide (Australia)
Marcy Darnovsky, Center for Genetics and Society
Derrick Aarons, RedBioetica, UNESCO
Frazier Benya, National Academy of Engineering
Howard Mann, University of Utah
Claire Hooker, Sydney University (Australia)
Douglas Sipp, RIKEN Institute of Physical and Chemical Research (Japan)
Nüket Örnek Büken, Hacettepe University (Turkey) 
Cheryl Macpherson, St. George's University (Grenada)
Mark Wilson, Health Research Associates (Canada)
Ann Blake-Tracy, International Coalition for Drug Awareness
Judy Stone, Conducting Clinical Trials 
Stacey Broome,Massey University (New Zealand)
Jan Henderson, The Health Culture
Deborah Bowman, St. George's, University of London (UK)
Bonnie Steinbock, University at Albany
Roy Poses, Brown University
Tod Chambers, Northwestern University
Tom Tomlinson, Michigan State University
Helga Kuhse, Monash University (Australia)
Shira Shafir, University of California Los Angeles
Ramona Ilea, Pacific University
Stephen Latham, Yale University
Paul Menzel, Pacific Lutheran University
Alan Shapiro, University of Minnesota
Anne Tamar-Mattis, Advocates for Informed Choice
David Healy, University of Cardiff (UK)
James Harold, Mt. Holyoke College
Elizabeth Reis, University of Oregon
Mark Borrello, University of Minnesota
Donald Pollock, University of Buffalo
Donna McAlpine, University of Minnesota
Kirk Allison, University of Minnesota
Ron Giere, University of Minnesota
Alex Mauron, University of Geneva
Allan Gonzalez, National University of Costa Rica 
Jan Helge Solbakk, University of Oslo
Luis Justo, National University of Comahue (Argentina)
Tamara Piety, University of Tulsa
Jocelyn Downie, Dalhousie University
Stephen Napier, Villanova University
Heather Marek, Collins College
Tom Koch, University of British Columbia
William Harvey, University of Toronto
Arlene Davis, University of North Carolina 
Sean Philpott, Union College/Mt. Sinai
Jocalyn Clark, PLos Medicine
Adam Hedgecoe, Cardiff University (UK)

A total of almost eleven hundred people have signed so far. 



For a selection of comments left by signers, please see this earlier post.

Nice Work If You Can Get It

You're going to spend half a million dollars more to tell you something you should already know?

Rep. Gene Pelowski (chair of the House higher education committee) in the March 9, 2013 Star Tribune report (emphasis added).


The U of M administration recently announced that it will pay $495,000 to Huron Consulting of Chicago to compare the costs and operations of the University to other public and private organizations.

In 2008 and 2009 the consulting firm Bain & Co. (yes, that Bain) examined the costs of administration at UC Berkeley, Cornell University, and the University of North Carolina. In a report in July 2012 Bain observed that the operating principle for universities has been the Law of More:

Many institutions [of higher education] have operated on the assumption that the more they build, spend, diversify and expand, the more they will persist and prosper. But instead the opposite has happened: institutions have become overleveraged. Their long-term debt is increasing at an average rate of approximately 12% per year, and their average annual interest expense is growing at almost twice the rate of their instruction-related expense (see Figure 5). In addition to growing debt, administrative and student services costs are growing faster than instructional costs. And fixed costs and overhead consume a growing share of the pie (see Figure 6).

See p. 3 of The Financially Sustainable University.


So it will not be a saving grace if a report from Huron shows that the U of M costs of administration are comparable to those at other large universities. Until recently no one has been watching the store anywhere. See State (and) University Part II. We should not spend half a million dollars simply to confirm that the U of M administration is no worse than its profligate counterparts in Big Education.

Instead we should compile the information we already have and then review the increase in administration over the past 40 years. For each campus we should determine any increase in the number of students, in the number of administrators (and administrative staff), in the level of research, and in the compensation of administrators (in constant dollars). If there has been an increase in the number of administrators that is disproportionate to any increase in the number of students or in the level of research, we should ask why. If there has been a substantial increase in the compensation of any administrator, we should ask why.

This historical analysis could be prepared at no additional cost to the University. A couple of administrators in the Office of Budget & Finance with the assistance of a couple of students from the business school (who would receive credit) could complete such a project in 30 to 60 days.

The results could then be used together with the recommendation developed by Bain from its evaluations in 2008 and 2009. Bain reported that:

Berkeley had average spans of control (the number of employees reporting directly to a manager) of around four compared with more than six for average companies and closer to 10 for best practice companies.

See p. 5 of the July 2012 Bain report.

Sibson Consulting is in the process of conducting a "spans and layers" analysis at the U of M. Its initial report covers four administrative offices at the University. Two of the offices had a span control of less than four and one had a span control of five. So three of the first four offices examined have a failing grade according to the Bain standard (also used by Sibson). See the March 9, 2013 Pioneer Press report.

But the issue is about more than simply counting the number of levels of management and the number of persons reporting to a manager. It is at least as much about counting the compensation of the scores of senior administrators at the top. See On The Cost of Administration and On The Cost of Administration Part III. 

After we finish counting we must act:

Boards of trustees and presidents need to put their collective foot down on the growth of support and administrative costs. Those costs have grown faster than the cost of instruction across most campuses. In no other industry would overhead costs be allowed to grow at this rate--executives would lose their jobs.  

As colleges and universities look to areas where they can make cuts and achieve efficiencies, they should start farthest from the core of teaching and research. Cut from the outside in, and build from the inside out.

See p. 5 of the July 2012 Bain report (emphasis added).

Postscript

To the best of my knowledge, no great scientific discoveries, no insightful social service tracts, and no novels have been produced in Morrill Hall. No classes are taught in Morrill Hall. No patients are made well in Morrill Hall. . . . Without authority invested where the real work of this University is done, the light of excellence will only grow dimmer.

Inauguration address of U of M President Mark Yudof (1997). See Tenth Anniversary of Inauguration.

Michael W. McNabb

University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974

University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member

Message from Purdue President 

on Two Year Tuition Freeze

March 18, 2013

Dear colleagues:

Earlier this month we announced Purdue’s intention to break a 37-year string of increases and to hold tuition constant for the next two school years.  From discussions with faculty, staff, alumni and students themselves, it’s my clear impression that actions to ensure the accessibility of a Purdue education have very broad support across our community, and the initial response to our announcement seems to confirm this view.

Putting students and their families first is always the right principle, but especially during a time of continued economic and income stagnation.   As I wrote in my first message as president, we must never forget that the dollars we are privileged to spend at our university come for the most part from either a student’s family or a taxpayer.  Any unnecessary expenditure by definition either limits our ability to invest in the excellence of our teaching and research or, if paid for by higher tuition charges, makes coming to Purdue more of a financial burden.

It has been too easy in higher education for institutions to decide first what they would like to spend, and then raise student bills to produce the desired funds.  That approach has run its course.  At Purdue, we will make our first goal affordability, accommodating our spending to students’ budgets and not the other way around.

Over the next weeks and months, we will assess current practices and expenditures across all central university units.  I am asking every college, administrative and auxiliary unit to look closely at all its activities and do the same.  This is not just a task for supervisors: Everyone can play a part.

We should all be asking each other questions like: What are we doing that once made sense but no longer does?  What are we doing in multiple places that could be done less expensively in one?  Most important, what are we doing that does not in any clear and meaningful sense further our core missions:  teaching, research, engagement and affordable access?

Is this publication really essential?  That subscription?  That committee?  That trip? If a trip really is necessary, do five of us have to make it?  Purdue has a reputation for “showing up in force”; maybe we can start thinking twice before booking that next group excursion.

To offset the foregone revenue from the previously anticipated tuition increase will require us to find about $40 million over the next two years.  Since Purdue is scheduled to spend some $4 billion during that time frame, half of it in what is termed “general fund” expenditures, this amounts to 1-2 percent of the base.  Surely it is not beyond our collective ability to find savings of 1-2 percent.  In fact, I believe we should set our sights higher and work to create savings beyond $40 million that can be used to augment our inadequate funds for scholarships and/or to extend the tuition freeze further.

I have asked the Treasurer to establish a new Student Affordability and Accessibility Account.  As provable savings are identified, the budget for the relevant activity will be reduced and the saved amount credited directly and solely to the SA&A Account (with a big public thanks to the contributing unit!).  As a first step, we will eliminate merit pay raises for all senior administrators, deans, and administrative and professional staff with salaries above $50,000 for the next two years. This will result in an expected savings of $5 million for the biennium. Expect additional such decisions in the next few weeks.

By many measures, a Purdue degree is today one of the best buys in American higher education.  Purdue has been ranked #8 by Wall Street Journal's SmartMoney for our students' return on their investment, #4 by the Wall Street Journal’s recruiter survey for the employability of our graduates, and #33 among public universities for the success of our alumni. All of these point to the value of a Purdue degree, and we expect that value to grow. I hope I am not the only one excited by the opportunity to cement and stretch this critical advantage.

With everyone’s support and cooperation, we can assert boldly that, regardless of what others may do, Purdue will stay true to its land-grant mission, delivering the education our state and nation needs most to students from any income level or background.  Please join us in honoring this pledge. 

Mitchell E. Daniels Jr.


President

(March 15, 2013)

- Updated as of August 10, 2013 - 

Sainfort and Jacko still listed in U of M Directory

Julie Jacko and Francois Sainfort

Back at

University of Minnesota

As Adjuncts

While running around the Internet this morning I was surprised to stumble upon Julie Jacko and Francois Sainfort listed in the University of Minnesota Directory as adjunct faculty.

Will the U of M administration ever learn? 

$$$

$$

$
(may well be the answer)

Some background from a recent Star-Tribune article:

In a quiet finale to a troubled tenure, the University of Minnesota is parting ways with Francois Sainfort and Julie Jacko, the star faculty couple investigated for double-dipping salaries in Minnesota and Georgia.

The pair's resignations were announced by e-mail inside the School of Public Health and confirmed Tuesday by university officials.

The professors faced pending disciplinary charges at the time of their departure, said General Counsel Mark Rotenberg. He said he couldn't give details about the university's charges because the two are no longer employees.

[Just turn them into adjuncts?  Problem solved!] 

Sainfort and Jacko declined to comment on what precipitated their leaving and what they will do next.

[Wait until the dust clears and become adjuncts?]

The two professors were hotly recruited by the U more than five years ago for their potential to attract millions of dollars in research funding. Within three months of their arrival, however, they became suspects in a drama that evolved into grand jury indictments in Georgia, reprimands and demotions at the U, restitution payments and the conviction of Sainfort last year under a plea agreement.

In an e-mail to faculty colleagues Friday, Jacko's supervisor said that the professor had "decided to leave the University of Minnesota to pursue other professional endeavors." On Monday, Sainfort's co-workers learned that he, too, had "resigned from our faculty effective January 4, 2013, to pursue other professional endeavors.''

[Other professional endeavors?  Adjuncting at U of M?] 

The e-mail announcing Sainfort's departure was unceremonious, but Jacko's supervisor lauded her work. "Julie has made stellar contributions ... during her time here, always demonstrating exceptional leadership across her many projects and endeavors," wrote Prof. William Toscano, head of the Division of Environmental Health Sciences.

The e-mails said Sainfort and Jacko will remain affiliated with the U as adjunct professors. But Rotenberg said that "to my knowledge, that temporary employment possibility has not been finalized.''Rotenberg said he is under the belief that neither professor received or will receive severance pay. That could not be confirmed late Tuesday.

 [Obvious questions: 

What are the terms of "temporary employment"?  

Are they being paid from their government grants by the U of M?  

Is the U of M getting overhead from the grants? 

Will Counsel Rotenberg now please confirm his "belief" that neither professor received or will receive severance?]

A Northrop reception

Sainfort and Jacko came to the U in 2007, after Minnesota outbid Georgia Tech for the two Ph.D.s by offering a package of high salaries, leadership positions, tenure and moving expenses. Sainfort was the prized recruit of School of Public Health Dean John Finnegan, who partnered with Nursing Dean Connie Delaney to also recruit Jacko.

Jacko was known for her work in "health informatics,'' a field that uses electronic medical records to improve and streamline patient care, and would later bring the U more than $5 million in federal research funds in the field. Sainfort was an expert on health care decision-making, and eventually served as principal investigator on more than $13 million in contracts and grants, according to his U biography.

The husband-and-wife team were officially welcomed to the U at a formal reception held Jan. 14, 2008, in the lobby of Northrop Auditorium.

But documents would later show that Sainfort also was committed to a contract worth $245,795 at Georgia Tech to work through June 30, 2008. His Minnesota contract, agreed to in August 2007, paid him $285,000 a year and made him head of the Division of Health Policy and Management.

Jacko's salary increase was even greater. She had accepted a $127,442 contract at Georgia Tech to work through May 15, 2008.When she arrived in Minneapolis in late January of that year -- still on the payroll at Georgia Tech -- she stepped into a $216,000-a-year job as director of the Institute of Health Informatics, with tenure as a full professor.

Within three months of the Northrop reception, newspapers were writing about a criminal investigation by Georgia authorities into possible double-dipping. Sainfort and Jacko both took leaves to address the conflict, and the U later reprimanded them and imposed $59,000 in fines for fringe benefits and travel expenses also reimbursed by Georgia Tech.

Sainfort was fined $44,024 of that, reflecting the fact that the U's investigation found Sainfort "largely responsible" for issues during Jacko's transition.

Still, the couple continued to work at the U even as Georgia began its criminal prosecution in March 2011. That's when a Georgia grand jury indicted Sainfort and Jacko on multiple felony counts. The indictment alleged that Sainfort and Jacko "conspired to be employed full time and receive salary from Georgia Tech while simultaneously being employed full time and collecting salary from the University of Minnesota.'' That indictment was later dismissed in favor of narrower charges.

Georgia case closed

Last spring, the Georgia case concluded with the dropping of all charges against Jacko in exchange for an Alford plea by Sainfort, in which he maintained his innocence but acknowledged that there was sufficient evidence to convict him. The last remaining count referred to an e-mail Sainfort sent to a Georgia Tech dean in February 2008 -- four months after he signed a contract with the U.

"As a matter of fact, Julie and I have not even signed an employment contract yet with Minnesota," his e-mail said. "We have only agreed to unofficially start this semester with full residence starting in May ...'' He was ordered to pay $43,578 in restitution and sentenced to five years' probation, after which his record could be cleared.When the Georgia case closed, the U said its administration would "carefully consider the facts associated with the case and determine how best to proceed.''

But they did nothing, because Sainfort and Jacko are no longer officially University of Minnesota employees. But they are adjuncts. Nice sleight of hand, counselor.

(The Empire Strikes Back...)

Minnesota Lawmakers 

Consider Funds for College

From the Wall Street Journal

By DOUGLAS BELKIN

Minnesota lawmakers are weighing a request for more money to hold the line on tuition at the University of Minnesota, in the wake of an independent staffing analysis that found some inefficiencies within the school's administrative structure.

The analysis was ordered by lawmakers in January after a Wall Street Journal investigation into administrative costs at the school. The analysis was presented during public hearings this week and concluded that the university had an appropriate number of management layers in four departments examined but that many managers oversaw fewer employees than is considered optimal.

Earlier

• Deans List: Hiring Spree Fattens College Bureaucracy—And Tuition 12/29/2012

Each manager should ideally supervise at least seven employees, according to one industry benchmark cited in the report. Analysts determined that in the university's procurement department the ratio is 3.6 to 1, in the finance department it is 3.9 to 1, and in human resources it is 4.9 to 1. Only in the office of information technology, where the ratio is 9.5 to 1, was the administration found to be efficient.

"I think the audit showed there is a lot of room for improvement," said state Sen. Terri Bonoff, the Democratic chairwoman of the Higher Education and Workforce Development Committee and one of the legislators who asked for the analysis. "Corporate America had to tackle this five years ago in order to be cost-effective. In today's economy to compete globally, you have to have your costs organized."

University of Minnesota President Eric Kaler, who has contended that the Journal article overstated the problem in part because of faulty data provided by the school, said in testimony before lawmakers this week that the audit revealed "a good organization with room to do better." A second, more in-depth report—which will cost the school $495,000—is due by the end of May and will compare the school to other comparable universities.

"The university will use data from these reports to reduce costs and improve operations," Mr. Kaler said. "We expect that changing some of these alignments will require tough decisions. We will make those changes." The result, he said, will be to move money spent on administration into "core missions."

In outlining the school's efforts to become more efficient, Mr. Kaler is lobbying the Legislature for an 8.4% increase in funding. Lawmakers have suggested the report could affect their attitude toward funding. That additional money would enable the school to keep tuition flat for the first time in decades. In the past decade, tuition and fees have more than doubled to $13,524. That far exceeds the average at four-year public colleges of $8,655. Mr. Kaler has argued that cuts in state aid to the school have been deeper in Minnesota than in other states.

The Journal article in December examined 11 years of payroll data and determined that the university had hired more than 1,000 administrators between 2001 and 2012. Mr. Kaler told lawmakers this week that the data the school provided the Journal last year was inaccurate and the number of administrators hired was smaller than that.

The audit has been much anticipated in the state's capital and Ms. Bonoff said she was pleased with the result because it gave lawmakers a starting point measure the school's progress.

"I'm satisfied not because the audit says they're efficient but because they're willing to identify where they are not and that's the issue," she said. "Without data you're really flying blind."

Former Republican Gov. Arne Carlson has been an outspoken critic of the university's tuition increases and said the audit made it clear the administration needed to be cut back "today. Not tomorrow, today."

Write to Douglas Belkin at doug.belkin@wsj.com

An abomination

 

Robert Katz, Wilson Library assistant

 (from the Minnesota Daily)

A Dec. 28, 2012, Wall Street Journal article reported on the large increase in the number of administrators at the University of Minnesota — 1,000 added in the last 10 years. The Minnesota Legislature has given the University until March 15 to explain this expansion in its bureaucratic waistline. While for some time there has been a sense among members of the University community that something is fundamentally wrong in the course that the University has been pursuing, this hunt for excessive numbers of excessively paid administrators is a distraction from the growing darkness that lies at the core of the University’s present condition.

A dislike of bureaucrats is an inherent feature of the American character. It would be deeply satisfying for many to see administrators at the University being chivvied out of their snug burrows, forced into the light of day — squinting and mewling — and finally made to account for themselves. Higher education only makes up about 8 percent of the state tax dollar. The University receives about half of this. Administrators’ salaries are probably less than 2 percent of the University’s total budget. So even if administration costs were cut in half, this would only amount to pocket change for the average taxpayer. Targeting administrators is aesthetically satisfying but economically insignificant.

The typical student does suffer real economic ill-effects from the way the University is administered. Administrators, besides needing salaries, require staff, budgets and projects. Their staff also need salaries, staff, budgets and projects. And so it goes. The result is that operating expenditures at the University have gone from $2 billion in 2002 to nearly $3 billion in 2012. Tuition has more than doubled during this period. It seems likely that students could get the same quality education if the University trimmed its budget by 5 percent. This would be a savings of $150 million, which is 20 percent of the annual tuition revenue taken in by the University. What this means is that over the course of four years, the University is overcharging each student by at least $10,000.

However, if we view the situation of the average student from the standpoint of social justice, the consequences of this state of affairs is of little moral significance. The typical student will graduate with student loans of $27,000 or less, and they can eventually expect to earn over $45,000 a year, on average.

Whether that $10,000 overcharge finally ends up in the pocket of a group of relatively well-off people — these University graduates — or another — University administrators and their colleagues — hardly matters as a moral issue.

But not everyone is typical. Several thousand students currently attending the University will suffer significant moral damage. These students will leave the University owing $27,000 or more and will be earning $35,000 or less. College student debt nationally has been steadily increasing over the last decade; already 20 percent of outstanding student loans are delinquent, and 115,000 recipients of Social Security so far — such as parents and grandparents who cosigned loans — are having their benefits garnished to pay for student loans in default. Because of this burden of debt, many University graduates will likely never own a home or start their own business. They will think twice before having children. All of their life choices will be constrained by an aversion to risk imposed by their level of indebtedness. These economic consequences will lead to moral consequences. The limitation of possibilities together with the constant threat of insolvency will lead to constrained, illiberal habits of thought — the exact opposite of what a liberal education is meant to provide. These University students will become debt slaves and as Homer observed, “on the day of their enslavement they will lose half their souls.”

For these students, their alma mater will be the exact opposite of a nourishing mother. The sense of foreboding many of us have felt concerning the course the University has been taking can be ascribed to a growing realization that it has evolved into a creature that devours its young.

The Lady or the Tiger?

New Research Projects or Tuition?

Today's session at the State Legislature featured a committee meeting of the House Higher Education Committee and President Kaler. 

An exchange occurred during that meeting that I believe is very instructive:

For many years I have believed that a big problem at the University of Minnesota has been one of priorities. Instead of setting as our most important priority attempting to keep tuition as low as is possible, we have treated tuition as an adjustable parameter that will make up for the difference between what we want and what the legislature give us.

Here chair Pelowski asks a Lady or the Tiger type question. President Kaler's answer seems - to me at least - to be finally heading in the right direction. And that is to make keeping tuition down as our first priority, even sometimes of more importance than new research related projects.

Call me stupid, but I take this as an encouraging development. 

Michelangelo's Pietà in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican.

(Source)

Online petition requesting Governor Dayton 

to investigate Markingson case 

at the University of Minnesota

Some Background: The Markingson Case at the University of Minnesota - Follow the Money

Mike Howard has posted an online petition to Governor Mark Dayton asking him to investigate possible psychiatric research misconduct at the University of Minnesota.

[Update, March 29: 1570 people have now signed the petition. Anyone who has not done so should give a signature serious consideration.]


Those who signed the petition were asked to give some reasons for signing. What follows are selected responses:

I have a Ph.D. from the U. and regularly conduct research in the US and internationally. This type of activity is not only a potentially a gross violation of the rights of the victim, here, it also sends the message that the U of MN, Minnesota, and people associated with either come from a place where we don't hold our researchers to bare minimum ethical and legal standards.

As a faculty member at the University of Minnesota and a citizen of Minnesota I think this it is important to learn what went wrong and how we can ensure it does not happen in the future.

I was trained as a lawyer at the U of M and have practiced as a psychotherapist. I am simply appalled at this story and I want the Governor to get to the bottom of it.

The U of M has lost its way. It has come loose from its moorings in being a highly respected research institution. It is time for the citizens of Minnesota to guide it back to its former glory.

This petition is important for more reasons than space will allow to list. Having known another participant in the Cafe study and how he and his family were treated by the researcher and the coordinator is disgusting. It was stay in the study at all costs, no recommendation for a second opinion, and no referral for any psychiatric help if he didn't stay in the study. For the University of Minnesota to have conducted this charade for so long that they were not responsible is incomprehensible. If Governor Dayton will not listen then this petition needs to go to Washington DC.

As a U of Minn faculty member, I want a a thorough investigation by experts from outside the university.

I am a proud UM alumna (PhD 2004). The actions of a few can do seemingly irreparable harm to an institution that otherwise has made and continues to make honorable and significant contributions to the state and beyond. Please do not allow a powerful few at UM commit violations of BASIC ethics and academic standards unchecked! Please do not allow this harm to the reputation of our university, as has the Board of Trustees and other powerful players allowed at Penn State. 

The University's behavior in this case calls into question its ability to ethically and responsibly manage any human subject research. Not only is this a personal tragedy crying out for accountability, it is shameful, unforgivable and a bruising black eye on the integrity of the U of MN. If this is what counts for oversight at the U of MN, if injured parties will be subjected in response to their efforts to get answers and seek relief, it is clearly necessary and imperative for the governor and state legislature to step in on behalf of all Minnesota citizens who may be future subjects of research.

I earned my master's degree at the University's School of Public Health. I will not give money to this institution unless and until they investigate this potential misconduct.

As an alum, I am concerned about the U's whitewash on this issue.

I am a clinical social worker with 18yrs experience. This is an appalling incidence of psychological abuse and neglect perpetrated by mental health professionals. It must be investigated. Minnesota is better than this.

This is an absolute outrage! I heard about it years ago and am completely flabbergasted that it still has not been investigated. Governor Dayton, it's up to you to hold the U of M researchers accountable for their actions.

Trying to get an adult child the mental health care they need is already difficult for parents, and in this case, the actions of the U of M are egregious. As a U of M alumni, as well as a parent who has had to deal with behaviorial health issues with family and friends, I urge Gov. Dayton to please appoint the independent committee and spare other families the grief Dan Markingson's family has experienced. The University's legal team should also be ashamed of their behavior in further victimizing this family.

Dan Markingson was a vulnerable patient made more vulnerable by this drug trial. Significant concerns raised have not been adequately addressed by the University. A number of issues were newly identified in a recent corrective action by the State Board of Social Work, which concluded that Dan Markingson's (already disputed) informed consent (functionally coerced consent?), was also subsequently invalidated (http://www.socialwork.state.mn.us/Portals/0/SO-ACA/ACA_Kenney-13622-11082012.pdf). This also implies a failure in the IRB system concerning adequate monitoring in this case. While signing in my private capacity I direct the Program in Human Rights and Health at the University of Minnesota the concern of which is vulnerable patient populations.

As a faculty member at the University of Minnesota who teaches mental health, I am ashamed my University has not investigated. We expect more.

There appears to have been a clear breach of the duty of clinical care here for the sake of making money for the department of psychiatry - the exercise involved does not deserve the name study. 

As a professor of bioethics with a pragmatic and fundamentally positive outlook on biomedical research, I am appalled at the University authorities arrogant and obstinately irresponsible handling of this tragedy.

As a medical social scientist and as an alum of the U-Minn (1972), I am concerned about the appropriate protection of research subjects as well as supporting the integrity of colleagues who raise serious questions about possible ethical lapses in research.

As former Health Ombudsman in New Zealand (Health and Disability Commissioner, 2000-10) I am deeply disturbed to read of unethical behaviour by researchers and psychiatrists who enrolled Dan Markinson in a trial of antipsychotic drugs, when he was not competent to consent. It appears that evidence about potential harmful side effects of the prescribed drugs was suppressed. Dan's suicide may well be linked to the effect of the drugs he was prescribed, yet no one listened to his mother's cries for help to prevent the harm that ultimately ensued. It is now too late for Dan, but the University of Minnesota owes it to him and his mother to investigate what happened and put safeguards in places to prevent a similar tragedy happening again. 

As an ethicist and University of Minnesota Faculty member, I believe it is important that my institution holds itself to the highest ethical standards. It does not seem like those standards were met in this case, with tragic results.

Because when I was obtaining the clinical experience a bioethicist needs, I spent a lot of time with people who were mentally challenged, and I learned that their vulnerabilities need to be redressed, not exploited.
And because I have two graduate degrees from the University of Minnesota, I would like to be proud of the institution that granted those degrees.

As a Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at a Big Ten medical school and a practicing physician, I think medical researchers and their sponsoring institutions should be held to a high standard of ethical behavior and transparency.

If there is a question of ethics among those who work with some of the most vulnerable, then it is well worth a close look. Please support this petition.

Whilst research misconduct is unacceptable, the behaviours of this institution & its representatives is even more deplorable. Their actions effectively reduce the rights of research participants to a status lower than the commercial & self-interests of those involved. An absolute disgrace!

As the leading institution for higher learning in the state, the University of Minnesota can, and should, do better.

When a tragedy this horrific is not investigated, but rather minimized and covered up by psychiatrists and a university which should know better, you have another tragedy.

Allegations have been raised by responsible people; they should be followed up.

I am troubled by the conflicts of interest between the drug industry and medical researchers and the harm it can do. And I am equally troubled by the University of Minnesota's apparent lack of willingness to investigate evidence of wrong-doing on the part of its researchers.

The coverage of this case in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and elsewhere generates reason to be deeply worried about possible research misconduct at the University of Minnesota. The potential misconduct appears to be serious enough that an independent investigation, located outside the university, is necessary.

As a clinical researcher I am deeply troubled by this case. An investigation is needed to shed further light on what transpired, so that safety of future research partners can be assured.

Because I have worked in Psychiatric Research for close to 30 years and I find the response from UM and the sponsor to be unacceptable.

I have followed this particular case since it piqued my interested back a few years ago with an article in the Pioneer Press from St Paul. I have tried to keep an open mind and understand the University's denials of any wrongdoing. From everything I have been able to gather researching this I've come to the same conclusion over and over again. The UMN is wrong and they know it. Their repeated steps to block any type of independent investigation is disgusting. The University is acting exactly like the pharmaceutical company, if we can control the data then we can control the outcome. As I see it, Governor Dayton has no option but to order an investigation.

I teach biomedical ethics, and every student ever to take my class could tell you why this study design was profoundly immoral.

As someone with a keen interest in research ethics this appears to be a horrible case of ongoing Ostrich like behaviour from the institution involved. The treatment of Mary Weiss has been disgraceful, and at the minimum an external investigation is warranted. A well administered institution would be requesting one themselves to demonstrate that they had nothing to hide.

An investigation into these allegations is a matter of integrity, not just for clinical trial data, but for the integrity of U of M, its leadership, and the very structure of research protections in the US. Please do the right thing and investigate.

I am a graduate (CLA, 1981) and ashamed of the way the University continues to handle this tragic case. According to the Board of Regents, Minnesota is committed “to the advancement of learning and the search for truth...." Let the whole story about Dan Markingson and the clinical trial come to light. The protection of research subjects is a matter of great public import that demands public accountability.

As an academic psychiatrist and a director of a psychiatry residency program, I am appalled by the circumstances surrounding this case. While I was deeply concerned about the recruitment and management of this particular study and the death of this patient, I am perhaps even more alarmed by the attempts to avoid and/or distort an appropriate and objective inquiry. When there is morbidity and mortality associated with any clinical interaction, we are obligated to make sure that we do anything and everything to make sure it doesn't happen again. Many times this means asking for help and accepting constructive criticism. I urge the University of Minnesota to do the right thing: appoint an external panel to conduct a thorough, independent and transparent investigation.

I am an academic in a medical ethics center. Dan Markington's recruitment and retention in this study appears to have violated the most basic principles of research ethics. There must be an independent investigation.

The UMN handling of this whole affair from day one has been nothing short of appalling. Having a family member dealing with similar issues that plagued Mr. Markingson we have followed the course of this case since first hearing about it a number of years back. My wife and I were actually sitting in the conference room at the Capital the morning that Mary Weiss and Professor Elliott gave comments on what became Dan's Law and so sickened by what happened to this young man and the apparent lack of respect and callous disregard shown by the University. We were just as appalled by the testimony of Minnesota NAMI, it was as if their goal wasn't family oriented, but instead preferred to be look out for their financial partner the UMN psychiatry department. This petition is so long overdue.

The basic facts in this case and the concerns of bioethicists at the University of Minnesota warrant a serious independent investigation into this matter.

My condolences to this man's mother. We have mental illness in our family and no one should ever be treated this way. This case is appalling and the university should be taking steps to prevent its re-occurrence.

Earlier investigations into this case dismissed it on technicalities. I believe it is crucial to investigate the actual issues at stake in this case, especially as increasing numbers of people are being asked to participate in a wide range of clinical trials, thereby blurring boundaries between treatment and research. [U of M faculty]

As a journalist who has reported for national consumer magazines on the problems in clinical trials of pharmaceuticals, conflicts of interest in clinical trials, and the special problems in the research on atypical antipsychotics, I find the unwillingness of the University to investigate the circumstances in this case to be unprofessional and unbecoming of an academic institution. As a citizen of Minnesota I find the administration's intransigence a blight on our state.

As a bioethicist, I am deeply concerned about the failure in this case to investigate a failure to protect the most vulnerable among us.

Quite a number of members of my family rely on psychiatric medications to help their daily functioning. As a parent who has had to assist both of our children through neurological issues that arose as they grew up, I find the lack of oversight in how the study at U of MN was conducted appalling. This has to stop.

Misconduct in science can lead to horrible results. Being a scientist myself, I must (just like the bioethicists at the U of Minnesota) insist on a full investigation of this case.

I have just retired as a Professor of English at Furman in Greenville, SC. Matters such as this should be the concern of faculty members everywhere.

Having a family member suffering from schizophrenia and made the regrettable decision to seek treatment at the University of Minnesota. He was viewed as nothing more than a lab-rat by the principal investigator who left no doubt as to where his pay check was coming from, the drug sponsor. This behavior from the University is nothing new, it's just taken the courage and determination of a select few patriots to say never again.

Being a UMN grad and having worked at Riverside years ago I have very vivid recall on how patients were being recruited for clinical studies no matter what their current situation was or diagnosis. I witnessed first hand what so-called psychiatric research was all about. There is no way that the data collected in some of those studies had any scientific validity. From what I've heard and read about the Markingson case it was business as usual at the UMN department of psychiatry.

Attended U of MN Medical School. then U of MN Psychiatry Residency - ashamed of the Psychiatry Department - have been in private practice since 1977 - Have seen first hand the hijacking of Psychiatry by BigPharma.

As an alumnus of the University of Minnesota and a former Student Representative to the Board of Regents, I believe strongly that the University has an obligation to conduct itself in the most ethical way possible. My own investigations into the matter of the Markingson case and the CAFE trial indicate that there were serious ethical lapses on the part of the University and especially the Department of Psychiatry. Further documentation by my friend Carl Elliott, one of the premier bioethicists in America, have convinced me that an outside investigation is necessary to remedy serious structural problems with the relationship between the University and industry in conducting scientific research. A man has died; a mother grieves; and I cannot sit idly by and do nothing as a community I care about - the University of Minnesota - does nothing to make this right. I urge Governor Dayton to launch and investigation to help bring this matter to an ethical conclusion.

The University uses the FDA investigation in 2005 as a primary reason to reject another investigation. But in 2012 the Minnesota Board of Social Work took corrective action against the social worker who was the study coordinator.Perhaps the most damning finding was that "there were critical omissions in [the social worker's] documentation that were relevant to suicide prevention." See Corrective Action at http://ptable.blogspot.com/2012/11/corrective-action-in-markingson-trial.html#links.The response from the U of M General Counsel was that the social worker is no longer an employee of the University. This is the response of an institution that places the protection of its reputation ahead of protection of the patient. [U of M alum]

An independent investiagation has now become absolutely necessary. The scandal is shameful. The response of the administration of the University of Minnesota has been even more shameful. By the way, I did my postdoctoral fellowship in bioethics at the University of Minnesota.

As a faculty member at a University (Penn State) now notorious for failing to investigate abuses, I find the refusal of the University of Minnesota to confront this scandal sadly familiar. Granted that the abuses that occurred here were of a very different nature unfolding in very different circumstances, our experience should nonetheless be evidence enough for any institution that the only way forward when abuses have occurred is a thorough, transparent investigation conducted by an independent authority.

I'm saddened to say that I've lost faith in the University of Minnesota hospital system. Stories of physician conflict of interest impacting patient care, physician negligence, corrupt clinical trials, and nonexistent accountability for unjust practices make me nervous whenever I hear that someone I care about is or will be seeking critical medical care at the UofM. Quite certainly, not every physician or clinic at the UofM is guilty of immoral and illegal practices. But something needs to be done to convince patients that we will receive the best care possible at the UofM if we seek medical attention there. Patients need to be able to trust their physicians, not worry as to whether our lives are in greater jeopardy seeking medical care from them than elsewhere. What if Dan hadn’t first been turned away from another full hospital before going to the UofM? I suspect that he would be alive and well today. It’s important to me that the UofM's Department of Psychiatry is investigated because, speaking as a patient, an ethicist, and an advocate of patients’ rights, it is beyond frightening that what happened to Dan was and continues to be dismissed and discarded by an institution that should be fighting for patients and their families, not against them.

I am a professional bioethicist and expert on research ethics, and am deeply concerned by the apparent misconduct, and the failure to investigate appropriately.

As a mental health consumer, I find this unethical research appalling.


My Dad was a mental health professional who spent his life helping those in the most need. And the idea of taking advantage of a mentally ill person is, obviously, reprehensible. So let's investigate, open our eyes, and see what happened here.


I am against psychiatric coercion in all its forms, I am against the pharmaceutical industry's culture of greed, and I am against any institution that decides the best practice involves circling the wagons.There are clear grounds for an investigation here. Conducting an independent investigation is both prudent and moral.

I'm a University of Minnesota alum and I'm outraged by the school's response to this scandal. UMN researchers effectively forced a mentally ill and dangerous young man into a clinical trial -- over his mother's objections -- and he then killed himself, just as his mother had warned. There is substantial evidence of multiple forms of misconduct, some of which are felonies. The trial's coordinator has been censured. The Minnesota legislature passed a law to avoid some of these exploitative practices in the future. Yet when called upon to investigate the conduct of its own employees, the University's response amounts to "Why would we do that? We've already gotten away with this!"

Published reports regarding the Markingson case are very disturbing. This is not how we should care for vulnerable people suffering from mental illness.

As a bioethics and law professor, I have been profoundly disappointed and dismayed by the lack of serious investigation by the University of Minnesota and various US agencies mandated to protect human research subjects into what happened in the Dan Markingson case and in other cases of alleged breaches of research ethics and research subject protection standards at the University of Minnesota. There clearly are sufficient indicia to warrant a full fledged investigation, yet the University and other agencies seem to be hiding behind formal procedural rules to avoid any further inquiry. This is unacceptable for any academic institution, let alone a publicly funded institution.

As a bioethicist who teaches research ethics, I constantly preach the importance of protecting vulnerable research subjects. In the face of possible misconduct, it is critical that there is full transparency and accountability.

To call this merely shameful would be wholly inadequate. There must be a thorough and independent investigation of the University's treatment of Dan Markingson, its conduct in related litigation, and its attempts to intimidate critics into silence. 

The academic community must practice what its preaches: transparency, integrity, and respect for the rights of all. I urge other ethicists to join me calling for the university to investigate the Markingson case and to review its procedures for protecting research subjects.



The ethical issues here are severe, and are a public health concern, not only for citizens of Minnesota, but any citizen anywhere whose life, be it theirs, family, or friends, is touched by use of anti-depressants.

I am a University of Minnesota alum, and I am ashamed of my alma mater right now.

As a philosopher, bioethicist, and scholar I continue to be saddened by the failure to have this situation appropriately investigated. Clearly there is wrongdoing occuring here. The sources of it need to be determined and steps taken to ensure the problems do not occur again.

Correcting this flagrant disregard for the expressed wishes of the person under care and his mother cannot be tolerated. This is exactly why the Nuremberg Code was developed and why the principle of informed consent is #1 on the list of 10 standards.

I am a professional bioethicist, and to me the attitude of the university to bend any rule to forestall an investigation is appalling.

There is substantial corruption in psychiatry, which I have witnessed again and again during my own psychiatry training and career. This needs to be further investigated.

I have worked as a lab assistant according to IRB rules, obtained informed consent and cared for the patients in our clinical trials. Dan's case is preposterous and deserves investigation.

The reputation of academic research - particularly at U of Minnesota - has been irreparably tarnished by this tragic case. Not too late to do the right thing.

It is essential that clinical trial participants be protected and that investigators be accountable for their actions. Lives are at stake - not just the lives of trial participants, but also the lives of potential users of pharmaceuticals.

As an American academic residing and teaching ethics in Israel, I am concerned about the possibility of such serious miscounduct and suspected cover-up in a respected American university, especially one supported by the state!

This petition is important to my family for every single reason already stated by signers. I don't believe for a moment that the University has any idea just how many more families could put themselves in Mary Weiss's shoes. Shame on the University and shame on them for allowing the exploitation of vulnerable mentally ill people for the sake of padding the coffers of the department of psychiatry.

The CAFE study has actually been used in my classes to demonstrate how NOT to do research and provide care ethically.

Mary Weiss’ lawsuit against the University of Minnesota was dismissed on a technicality. The University used a financial threat to intimidate Weiss into giving up her right to appeal. Why would the University prevent Weiss from proceeding with this case unless it had something to hide? Threatening the victim is surely bad publicity for the University. There’s something here that doesn’t make sense. The accumulated discrepancies – unsigned and illegal HIPAA forms, duplicate consent forms -- demand an independent investigation.

This situation represents not only a violation of civil rights but total disregard for human life. As a researcher myself I appreciate the need to maintain the highest standards and most stringent safeguards protecting the well-being of research subjects. This kind of thing is a crime and a disgrace to us all.

Something is rotten in the State of Minnesota.

I am a graduate of the University of Minnesota and want to be proud of my school, but following this case has made me deeply ashamed.

Minnesota owes much more to Mary Weiss than this investigation, but for now, it's the least we can do.

Please investigate (U of MN alumna)

The UMN has had 9 years to make this right and they have taken 9 years to perfect the deniable attitude and their refusal isn't based on exonerated facts its based on the fear of the data that might become public. This University sickens me.

It's so apparent that the University cannot regulate itself nor honestly investigate any issues regarding the department of psychiatry or the out-patient psychiatry clinic. Their behavior has so tarnished their reputation.  I seriously doubt it will ever recover.

As a University of Minnesota faculty member and alum, I consider this situation to be disgraceful. We must look into the matter fairly and expeditiously. And then we must assure that it never happens again.The behavior of the University of Minnesota regarding the Markingson case is disgusting and shameful.

Unethical experiments on people should cease.

It is critical to maintain the integrity of clinical trials. This case needs to be thoroughly investigated in order to insure that all precautions and protections were in place for the protection of research subjects.
 

I have written about this case for Scientific American ("Molecules to Medicine" blog. The University has been asked repeatedly to have an outside investigation, and have not agreed to do so.
As a clinical researcher, I believe the evidence presented about this case raises many important questions that are, as yet, unresolved.
I support this petition as a way to get answers, particularly to the new evidence that has emerged that raises more concerns not only about the CAFE trial, but about other trials involving the department and NIH research.

We need transparency to resolve these concerns, and this now requires an outside investigation.

The University may have violated the trust of the public when it took money from a drug company and signed up Minnesota's most vulnerable citizens to participate in a trial. Please investigate.