… in the Minneapolis Star Tribune notes that the most charitable description of what’s been going on at the clubby University of Minnesota medical school would be “bizarre.”
Monday, February 24, 2014
For the Record: 17 yr Old Killer Diagnosed as Risk to Society, Not Treated
INVESTIGATORS: Clerk killer diagnosed, not helped
Transcript of Channel 9 Investigative Report
The Michael Swanson people remember is laughing at the news photographer who tripped taking his picture, and it was chilling to see a 17-year-old boy arrested on murder charges acting so giddy.
"These families in Iowa deserved better," Kathy Swanson, Michael's mother, told the Fox 9 Investigators. "We deserved better. Michael deserved better. Nobody deserved this."
"I don't know if you ever get over it," Kathy Swanson said.
"I am concerned he poses a risk to society if un-medicated, and even if medicated, he is still somewhat unpredictable."
The Fox 9 Investigators began reviewing the police interview of Michael Swanson, which took place just hours after the killings. When an officer asked Swanson when he slept last, the teen replied, "Four days ago. Sometimes I can't sleep at all."
Michael Swanson also told the detective he'd been hallucinating.
"I'd be driving and I'd just keep looking out the window," he said. "I thought there was somebody there."
When asked if he'd ever hallucinated before, the teen said, "It happens when I don't sleep."
The inability to sleep for long periods of time can be a symptom for someone living with bipolar disorder, a mental illness that causes dramatic and sometimes explosive shifts in a person's mood and energy level.
A month earlier, Swanson was confined to the Hennepin County Home School, a correctional center for troubled teens. It was his last stop after years of disturbing behaviors that made him a familiar face in the juvenile justice system.
"There's like two Mikes," Kathy Swanson said. "There's my Mike, who's this nice, well-behaved young man -- and then there's this other who you just don't know what he's going to do."
There was a period just before Michael Swanson went to the Hennepin County Home School when his mother would sleep with a stick because she feared the "other Mike" might attack her in her sleep.
"We, at times, would find hammers, wrenches, knives in the house where we would wonder, 'Is this kid thinking about killing us?'" she recalled.
In fact, Michael Swanson had previously admitted to having thoughts of killing his mother and his aunt. The family tried getting him help, and although he'd be hospitalized for a time, their insurance ran out and he was released.
"We didn't know what was going on with him," Kathy Swanson said.
In the summer of 2010, a judge ordered Michael Swanson to spend up to 120 days at the Hennepin County Home School. It was punishment for stealing a car and causing a hit-and-run crash while drunk.
Records show Michael Swanson behaved himself at the school and was scheduled to get out early until staff found some bizarre writings in his room.
"All about death and violence and darkness and blood," Kathy Swanson said of her son's writings.
The teen claimed they were just lyrics from rap music, but the staff was so concerned they ordered a psychiatric evaluation.
"To be just writing and writing this weird crap tells you he was in a very weird state," Kathy Swanson said.
"He told me, 'I can't talk about the evaluation. I didn't do the evaluation,'" Kathy Swanson said.
"He did not want to answer any of our questions," Kathy Swanson said.
After the meeting, Michael Swanson was released to move back home with his parents.
Twelve days after leaving the Hennepin County Home School and while his parents were sleeping, Michael Swanson stole his mother's Jeep and took off.
Why didn't Jensen tell his concerns to the Swansons? Why didn't he write a prescription right after the evaluation? Remember, Michael Swanson remained in the home school for another three weeks prior to being released. Why did he want him enrolled in a research clinic at the university?
Kathy Swanson put that accusation in writing and sent it to the Hennepin County Attorney's Office to ask for an investigation. She got a response that the alleged conduct does not appear to violate any felony law.
The U of M told the Fox 9 Investigators that there were no trials at the time that Michael Swanson would have been eligible for, and a colleague of Jensen said the clinic was not seeking Swanson for a drug study. Instead, the colleague claims he was being offered follow-up care.
"I think the doctor should go to prison," Mary Weiss, an outspoken critic of the University of Minnesota's Department of Psychiatry, said. "I mean, her son is as good as dead to her."
Weiss sued the university after her mentally-ill adult son killed himself while enrolled in a drug study there. She claimed doctors coerced her son into the study and then benefited financially. The case was dismissed on the grounds that the university was immune from being sued.
"She's helped me," Kathy Swanson said.
Kathy Swanson reached out to Weiss after her son was arrested, and she sat with her during the murder trial.
"I felt sorry for her," Weiss said. "This wasn't her doing."
Weiss is currently recovering from a second stroke, and Swanson is haunted by a number of unanswered questions.
"Who knew what? What were they doing about it, and what happened?" she asked.
Kathy Swanson asked Fox 9 Investigator Jeff Baillon to review her son's juvenile corrections file.
"I'm hoping there's some notes between Dan Lehnherr and the probation officer," she said.
"I have this feeling Dan Lehnherr must have questioned why this kid wasn't taking this med. I questioned this."
"I'd like him to confirm what happened in that meeting that we had with Jensen," she said.
She knocked on the door and he opened the blinds, looked her straight in the eyes and then closed the blinds without saying a word.
"I just have to feel that has to be driven by a lot of his own guilt. If he had nothing to hide, if he felt like he did everything he could have, he'd talk and be open," she said. "
"I just think there's been a failure somewhere," she said.
Read more: INVESTIGATORS: Clerk killer diagnosed, not helped - KMSP-TV http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/24811285/investigators-clerk-killer-diagnosed-not-helped#ixzz2uIywYUho
Thursday, February 20, 2014
For the Record: UMD Prof Open Letter to UM President Kaler
UMD Professor pens open letter to UM President Kaler
Editor's note: On Monday, Feb. 17, University of Minnesota President Eric Kaler visited the UMD campus to hold a series of open meetings on the university's current budget situation. UMD History professor Scott Laderman wrote the following open letter to Kaler in response to that visit.
February 20, 2014
Eric W. Kaler, President
University of Minnesota
Dear President Kaler,
I want to thank you for taking the time to visit us at UMD. The faculty here had for months been anxious to meet with you, so we appreciate that you accepted the invitation. We trust that we will be seeing you again shortly.
As I assume was made clear during your brief visit, too many of us at UMD – both faculty and staff – are feeling demoralized. This is in part because of the budget situation in which the campus finds Ladermanitself. But it is also because we often feel disrespected and devalued within the University of Minnesota system. You are our president, and we expect you to listen to and represent us. You assured us on Monday that you are able to separate your responsibilities as the system president and the head of the Twin Cities campus. With all due respect, I remain unconvinced.
I’m sure I was not alone, for example, in finding it disconcerting when you told us that UMD faculty had regular opportunities to communicate our concerns because we were connected by ITV (or some other virtual method) to your meetings in the Twin Cities with the Faculty Consultative Committee. As we had to inform you, we are not. We were removed decades ago by the Regents from that governance system. We have now created our own shared governance system at UMD. You are part of it, and I hope you will participate as meaningfully in our system as you do in the other. I also think it is important to have Vice President Pfutzenreuter more regularly participate in our campus budget committee meetings. He does, after all, work for all of us.
While I cannot speak for the UMD faculty as a whole, I can tell you that every faculty member with whom I have spoken did not feel appreciably better after your visit than they did before it. Please allow me to explain why. As you no doubt gathered from our questions, the budget situation we confront is a matter of tremendous and ongoing concern. While I appreciate your assurance that you will be working with our local administrators to help the campus move toward long-term stability, the vagueness of your assurance left many of us uneasy.
At the root of many of our concerns is the fact that UMD does not receive the same level of support from the University’s state appropriation as does the Twin Cities campus (or Morris, for that matter). You are right, as you insisted in the Faculty Assembly, that we must not compare apples to oranges. But the fact that you followed up that statement by comparing UMD to the College of Liberal Arts in the Twin Cities did not demonstrate a willingness to abide by your own counsel. Put simply, UMD and the College of Liberal Arts are not both apples. One is a comprehensive university, with the many functions, programs, and services that implies; the other is a collegiate unit. Even if, as you told us, seventy-seven percent of both rely on tuition to cover their operating expenses, that is not a compelling demonstration of geographical parity, as you seemed to want us to believe. Given the myriad things funded by the UMD budget, many of which are funded centrally for the College of Liberal Arts, our students in Duluth are – whatever the actual numbers – receiving less state support than are students elsewhere. This must change.
And please provide us with accurate numbers. You mentioned several times – as has Mr. Pfutzenreuter in various venues – that some of the figures being disseminated about UMD are wrong, even “inflammatory.” I am thus requesting the correct numbers. We all recognize that there are differences between the campuses, but there must nevertheless be some common units of analysis. It is frustrating to hear “your figures are wrong” while being denied the provision of allegedly more accurate figures.
Some of us were also unsettled on Monday by your administration’s response (or nonresponse) to a comment by one of our colleagues. When that colleague suggested that UMD was not being reimbursed by the system for certain expenses it covers that benefit the Duluth branches of the Medical School and College of Pharmacy, both of which are, administratively speaking, Twin Cities programs, you agreed that this sounded like a problem that should be examined and addressed. I appreciate your encouraging response. However, after the Faculty Assembly ended, it came to my attention that the Medical School and College of Pharmacy have in fact been trying to accomplish for some years this payment to UMD for services rendered by UMD (SPA, ITSS, et cetera), and some of those on the stage with you knew this. What is unsettling to me is that they did not respond to this direct question, leaving most of us in the room with the impression that the administration was learning of this situation for the first time. I worry that this negatively affected my colleagues in the Medical School and College of Pharmacy, as some of us may have concluded that our colleagues with Twin Cities appointments were not willing to contribute their fair share to the costs incurred by UMD. This is not true. If the purpose of your visit was to field our questions and provide us with candid responses, there was an obvious failure in this instance. Why?
I read in this morning’s U of M Brief that the Regents just supported a $4.1 million investment in safety enhancements on the Twin Cities campus. Whatever the source of those funds, this is wonderful. Students, faculty, and staff throughout the University of Minnesota system must be made to feel safe, and as someone with many friends and a spouse at the Twin Cities campus, I am heartened to see the administration taking seriously the safety concerns that have been expressed by many people there. Yet I cannot help but notice that we have not enjoyed a similar responsiveness in finding funds to address the crisis at UMD. We have safety concerns as well – if you have not already done so, I urge you to consult our local administrators about these – but more broadly we face the possible elimination of academic programs and services and the termination or nonrenewal of faculty and staff. Our students will suffer. Where is the urgency in finding several million dollars to address our crisis?
The faculty at UMD would like an explicit assurance from you that the system will treat the budget situation at UMD like the crisis it is and do more than the bare minimum in helping us to resolve it. If the system provided UMD with less money in recent years because our admissions and tuition revenue were increasing, fairness dictates that the system now come to UMD’s aid as our admissions and tuition revenue have dropped. After all, our earlier success benefited the system’s coffers. Now it is time for the system’s coffers to benefit us.
In sum, I am asking that you please do more to fully represent us as our system leader. When you told us on Monday that “[y]ou stubbed your toe on undergraduate enrollment a couple of years ago and that has cost you continuing ongoing tuition revenue,” one of our colleagues could not have been more appropriate in his response. If you were truly our system leader, he replied, you would have said that “we stubbed our toe” and that it has cost “us” tuition revenue. UMD is the second largest research university in the state of Minnesota, and our faculty are working tirelessly to educate our students while making significant contributions to the arts, humanities, and natural and social sciences. We at UMD are also the University of Minnesota, and our ability to continue with this success should not be in jeopardy.
Sincerely,
Scott Laderman
Assoc Professor of History
Thursday, January 2, 2014
For the Record: Leigh Turner letter to Governor Dayton #markingson
December 20, 2013
Governor Mark Dayton
Office of the Governor
130 State Capitol
75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155
Re: An Open Letter Concerning Mary Weiss and Mike Howard’s Petition Requesting an Independent Investigation of Possible Psychiatric Research Misconduct at the University of Minnesota
Dear Governor Dayton:
On December 5, you were presented with a petition asking you to initiate an investigation of the death of Dan Markingson and additional reports of possible psychiatric research misconduct at the University of Minnesota. Dan Markingson’s mother, Mary Weiss, and Mike Howard launched the petition earlier this year. I am an Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Bioethics and School of Public Health. I am one of the 3495 individuals that signed the petition. With the other signatories, I hope that you will play a leadership role in ordering an independent, external investigation of allegations of psychiatric research misconduct at the University.
Repeated efforts to persuade senior university administrators of the urgent need for an independent investigation of possible psychiatric research misconduct have all failed. While the University of Minnesota’s Faculty Senate recently passed a resolution calling for an inquiry into the Markingson case, President Kaler has already indicated that whatever panel is established will not investigate Dan Markingson’s death. Furthermore, it appears that President Kaler envisions himself playing an active role in selecting panel members. Individuals appointed to an independent, external inquiry must not be chosen by individuals whose conduct will have to be examined by the investigation.
As Governor, you have the authority to establish an independent investigation. Unlike President Kaler, you have no conflicts-of-interest that might prompt questions about the independence and integrity of such an investigative panel. Should you establish a body responsible for investigating reports of psychiatric research misconduct at the University, I urge you to mandate that this panel address Dan Markingson’s death and additional reports of alleged research misconduct.
Last May, I wrote to President Kaler and urged him to support Mary Weiss and Mike Howard’s petition. He refused. I was subsequently contacted by several individuals who reported that their loved ones suffered serious harm while enrolled in psychiatric clinical trials conducted by faculty members in the University’s Department of Psychiatry. They indicated that what happened to Dan Markingson was very similar to what their relatives endured. Professor Carl Elliott, a colleague of mine at the Center for Bioethics, has been contacted by an even larger number of individuals describing incidents that raise serious questions about the adequacy of protections for psychiatric research subjects at the University. These citizens need to be given an opportunity to bring their reports of mistreatment and abuse to an independent body authorized and empowered to investigate their claims.
Given university administrators’ repeated refusals to investigate reports of psychiatric research misconduct, the conduct of senior university officials must be scrutinized as part of any legitimate inquiry. President Kaler, Vice President and Dean Aaron Friedman, General Counsel William Donohue, former General Counsel Mark Rotenberg, other senior administrators at the University of Minnesota, and Regents have repeatedly failed to make reasonable inquiries in response to reports of possible violations of rights of research subjects.
As both a faculty member at the University and a resident of the state of Minnesota, in the strongest possible terms I urge you to initiate a thorough, independent, external investigation into reports that psychiatric research misconduct has occurred at the University of Minnesota. I have no confidence that senior officials at the University of Minnesota are fulfilling their moral and legal duties and addressing these reports with the urgency and attentiveness that they require.
Yours sincerely,
Leigh Turner, PhD
Associate Professor
University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics
N520 Boynton, 410 Church Street SE
Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55455
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
A Question of Accountability
Accountability: The obligation of an individual or institution to account for its activities, accept responsibility for them, and to disclose the results in a transparent manner
A Question of Accountability
Each year the administration presents to the Regents the University Plan, Performance, and Accountability Report. Here are some excerpts from the September 2013 Report:
1. Compensation
Sibson also found that employee compensation in these four areas [human resources, budget & finance, information technology, and purchasing services] is at market rates for higher education and slightly lower than in the private sector.
See p. 73 of the 2013 Accountability Report.
The Sibson Consulting report on "spans and layers" does not even use the word "compensation" much less make any finding about market rates for higher education. See the August 2013 Sibson report.
Nor does the Huron Consulting report on administrative services benchmarking make any such finding. Huron refers to compensation simply to note that the U of M Office of Human Resources is preparing a compensation study. See p. 101 of the June 2013 Huron report.
For a report that does have information on the compensation of U of M senior administrators see On The Cost of Administration Part IV.
2. Facilities Management
Focusing on service [for Facilities Management] represents a shift away from taking care of the University's buildings and toward caring for the needs of the people and programs in them. This includes focusing on a culture that enhances productivity, demands accountability, and places a premium on clear communication.
See p. 86 of the 2013 Accountability Report.
On November 26, 2013 the U of M vice president for university services appeared at the meeting of the faculty Senate Committee on Finance & Planning. The minutes of the meeting record the following:
See p. 5 of the November 26, 2013 SCFP report (emphasis added).
On that same day KMSP reported:
KMSP report of November 26, 2013 quoted in A Cover Up Culture.
3. Costs of Administration
See p. 4 of the 2013 Accountability Report.
The administration did reduce certain costs in mission support and facilities and in leadership, but there were increases in other expenditures in those two categories that were even greater. There was a net increase of $41.7 million in expenditures for mission support & facilities. There was a net increase of $7.9 million in expenditures for leadership. The 2013 Accountability Report fails to mention these net increases. See A Complete Accounting.
4. Medical School.
See p. 8 of the 2013 Accountability Report.
The "integrated structure" is just the beginning of the long term efforts necessary to restore the Medical School. In its June 2013 report the Strategic Planning Committee described numerous "key initiatives" that must be implemented to enable the Medical School "to regain its position of excellence" by 2025. The Medical School Faculty Advisory Council released its own report describing major obstacles to achieving the "key initiatives." See An Institution Adrift Part II. The 175 page 2013 Accountability Report fails to even mention these reports much less review their analyses of the problems facing the Medical School.
5. Clinical Research Trials.
On November 26, 2013 the U of M vice president for university services appeared at the meeting of the faculty Senate Committee on Finance & Planning. The minutes of the meeting record the following:
He [Professor Luepker] noted that he had been informed that most of the construction work done on campus is by private contractors; Vice President Wheelock affirmed that almost all of it is done through competitive bids and that University staff only do small projects.
See p. 5 of the November 26, 2013 SCFP report (emphasis added).
On that same day KMSP reported:
University investigators dismissed a complaint that Louden appeared to organize the bidding process to minimize the competition for Skyline, but according to e-mails, it appears that she and her staff did just that.
Instead of considering the inspection of several buildings as one project, which would have to be put out for bidding, she told them to break up the inspections building by building. That kept prices low enough that Skyline would be given the work without bidding for it.
A pile of purchase orders show Skyline pulled in hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past 5 years.
KMSP report of November 26, 2013 quoted in A Cover Up Culture.
3. Costs of Administration
[The administration] reduced administrative costs by $32.6 million, eliminating and consolidating administrative offices and processes.
See p. 4 of the 2013 Accountability Report.
The administration did reduce certain costs in mission support and facilities and in leadership, but there were increases in other expenditures in those two categories that were even greater. There was a net increase of $41.7 million in expenditures for mission support & facilities. There was a net increase of $7.9 million in expenditures for leadership. The 2013 Accountability Report fails to mention these net increases. See A Complete Accounting.
4. Medical School.
Tackling another priority to return the Medical School to national prominence, the University, University of Minnesota Physicians, and Fairview agreed on a new "integrated structure" to better serve patients, increase funding for the Medical School, and enhance the University health sciences training and research.
See p. 8 of the 2013 Accountability Report.
The "integrated structure" is just the beginning of the long term efforts necessary to restore the Medical School. In its June 2013 report the Strategic Planning Committee described numerous "key initiatives" that must be implemented to enable the Medical School "to regain its position of excellence" by 2025. The Medical School Faculty Advisory Council released its own report describing major obstacles to achieving the "key initiatives." See An Institution Adrift Part II. The 175 page 2013 Accountability Report fails to even mention these reports much less review their analyses of the problems facing the Medical School.
5. Clinical Research Trials.
Key steps taken in 2012 [to translate scientific breakthroughs into improved health] include:
Initiated new resources and consultative services for research teams, including the Clinical Research Ethics Consultation Service . . .
Added expert staff members to guide, serve, and collaborate with research teams, including an Institutional Review Board specialist . . . .
See p. 60 of the 2013 Accountability Report.
The Institutional Review Board reviews research projects to ensure that human subjects are not placed at undue risk and that they give uncoerced, informed consent to their participation. See the IRB description.
In May 2004 Dan Markingson committed suicide while he was a participant in a U of M clinical trial. His psychiatrist recruited him for the trial as an alternative to a civil commitment as a mentally ill person likely to do harm to himself or others. An FDA investigation in 2005 concluded that there was no misconduct.
The U of M administration uses this 2005 FDA conclusion as a primary reason to reject calls for 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 findings were these:
See pp. 3--4 of the report of the Minnesota Board of Social Work (emphasis added).
Yet the U of M president still refuses to conduct a new and independent investigation of the Markingson case. Is this being true to the principle of accountability? See Time To Do The Right Thing.
Michael W. McNabb
University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974
University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member
2(g)(1) Despite the large amount of data gathered as part of the CAFE study, the records are devoid of any evidence that the data was critically analyzed or used in the treatment planning process. . .
2 (g)(4) There were critical omissions in Licensee's [U of M study coordinator] documentation that were relevant to suicide prevention and chemical dependency treatment. . .
2(h) On March 17, 2004 Licensee received an e-mail message from the CAFE study sponsor warning of a new risk of hyperglycemia and diabetes for patients taking medications used in the CAFE study. This new information effectively invalidated client #1's [Dan Markingson's] original informed consent.
See pp. 3--4 of the report of the Minnesota Board of Social Work (emphasis added).
Yet the U of M president still refuses to conduct a new and independent investigation of the Markingson case. Is this being true to the principle of accountability? See Time To Do The Right Thing.
Michael W. McNabb
University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974
University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member
Thursday, December 19, 2013
For the Record: More #umn alums blast admin for #markingson denial
From the Star-Tribune:
Will the U review or whitewash a research subject's death?
As scholars of medical ethics and proud alumni of the University of Minnesota, we have been pained by the cloud that has hung over our alma mater in the decade since Dan Markingson killed himself while enrolled in a university-sponsored drug trial.
Many prominent voices have called for an independent investigation into Markingson’s death, including editors of the world’s most prestigious medical journals and more than 250 other ethicists, physicians and scholars.
Unfortunately, rather than working to be accountable and transparent, the university administration has taken a relentlessly defensive posture — hiding behind its lawyers, targeting its critics and distorting the facts.
Most notably, the administration has dismissed the need for an independent investigation by claiming that the university’s treatment of Markingson “has been exhaustively reviewed by federal, state and academic bodies since 2004,” in the words of the university’s general counsel. However, some of these claimed reviews simply did not occur, while others did not examine the most troubling aspects of the Markingson case. For example, the administration has repeatedly claimed that the Hennepin County District Court exonerated the university in a lawsuit brought by Markingson’s mother. In fact, the university convinced the court that it had legal immunity from the suit and could not be held liable no matter how badly it may have treated Markingson.
The administration’s refusal to commission an independent investigation of the Markingson case has tainted the university for far too long. That began to change recently when the Faculty Senate responded to a letter signed by more than 175 scholars asking for an external, independent investigation into the Markingson case. By an overwhelming margin, the Faculty Senate voted to approve a “Resolution on the Matter of the Markingson case” and endorse an inquiry into clinical research practices at the university.
Yet University of Minnesota President Eric Kaler appears intent on continuing the university’s efforts to avoid scrutiny. In a recent interview with the Minnesota Daily, Kaler said that the inquiry will not look at Markingson’s death at all, but rather will focus solely on “what we are doing now and what we’re going to do moving forward.”
Such a limited inquiry would defeat the purposes of the Senate’s action. Although the resolution does call for an inquiry into the university’s current practices, the Senate left no doubt that the aims of that investigation included resolving “questions [that] continue to be raised about the policies and procedures followed in the Markingson case” and addressing the harm to the university’s reputation “in consequence of this tragic case and its aftermath.”
Any inquiry that merely considers the university’s forms and policies without examining the experiences of actual research subjects would only further erode confidence in the institution and compound the harm to its reputation.
In addition to seeking to limit the scope of the investigation, Kaler seems intent on handpicking the investigators. Any involvement by the administration in selecting the members of the investigative panel would destroy the body’s credibility. The offices of the president, the general counsel and the Academic Health Center are all important players in the Markingson controversy whose roles must be examined by the investigative panel. It would be a clear conflict of interest for the targets of this inquiry to select their own investigators.
Finally, the investigative body must be given the legal authority it needs to conduct a thorough investigation. It must be empowered to look at financial records, to obtain internal e-mails and communications, to give legal protection to whistleblowers, and to interview former patients and research subjects and protect them from retaliation. For example, the panel should have the authority to waive confidentiality agreements that former patients and their family members may have signed as part of legal settlements with the university.
The Faculty Senate’s resolution presents an excellent opportunity to bring closure to a tragic case that has sullied our university for far too long. But this can only happen if the investigation is thorough, broad and independent, rather than carefully managed by the administration.
Matt Lamkin is an assistant professor at the University of Tulsa College of Law.
This article was also submitted on behalf of
Emily Smith Beitiks, deputy director of the Longmore Institute on Disability at San Francisco State University;
Joseph E. Davis, director of research at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture, University of Virginia;
Alicia Hall, assistant professor of philosophy, University of Alaska, Fairbanks;
Susan Hawthorne, assistant professor of philosophy, St. Catherine University;
James Harold, associate professor of philosophy at Mount Holyoke College;
Ramona Illea, associate professor and chair, Department of Philosophy, Pacific University;
Monica Greenwell Janzen, faculty member, Hennepin Technical College;
Greg Kaebnick, editor, The Hastings Center Report;
Barton Moffatt, assistant professor of philosophy, Mississippi State University;
Susan Parry, philosophy instructor, Hennepin Technical College;
Elita Poplavska, assistant professor, Riga Stradins University,
and Maran Wolston, Philosophy Department faculty member, Minneapolis Community and Technical College.
From comments posted on this piece:
Excellent article. If Kaler actually thinks the Markingson case was simply a one-of-kind tragedy at the U-MN he's beyond help. Wake-up Mr. Kaler, your psychiatry department has ruined many lives.
This egregious and disgusting behavior by the University's president has to come to a halt. This man and his ideas and morals are certainly part of the problem not part of the solution. We have lost all respect for the University over this scandal and the others that have been kept in the dark. Shame on Mr. Kaler and either do the right and ethical thing and step aside, or resign. It's apparent you are not able to lead this university with integrity and truthfulness.
At the very least, everyone involved at the U of M in the epic and continuous fumbling of the PR on this episode should be fired.
It seems that the University must be afraid that many more Markingson's will appear if such an investigation takes place. There is no other logical explanation for all the repeated statements of no-wrongdoing from the administration. Had this been case, the University would simply have produced all the documents that prove their claims and this case would have ended. That has never happened and agree with the fact that the PR representatives at the U that have been allowed to speak or answer inquires are some of the worst in their field.
I can appreciate the fact that many years have past since this young mans death, what I don't understand though is why the UMN has repeatedly offered up the same excuses time after time trying to defend themselves. And they are just that, excuses, not credible documentation that they looked into this death and how and why it happened, and any steps they've taken to prevent something as tragic as this from happening again. It isn't so much the act of suicide here from an obviously unbalanced young man, but the enabling to cover it's tracks afterwards by the University's top officials and legal team of any violations of human rights or human subject's protection. A totally independent investigation is long overdue, and if/when other such cases surface, the University has to be transparent in their handling of such tragedy's. Until that happens, I have lost all respect for research at the UMN.
It would be fitting of President Kaler to demonstrate the same amount of enthusiasm for seeking the truth about not only the Markingson case, but for the others the University is aware of or have taken great pains to avoid, as he displays on the football sidelines during gophers games. To have ignored this scandal for so long is such an embarrassment for the University as well as the state.
We are witnessing an abdication of responsibility on the part of University President Kaler. He has positioned himself as an executive unaccountable to anyone but himself. He must have been made fully aware of the Markingson scandal and agreed beforehand to staying on the University’s road of denial as a condition of his employment. It’s not rocket science folks, the University simply cannot allow a totally independent investigation conducted by qualified unattached investigators, knowing full-well what that investigation will reveal. How many more abused human subjects are there that the University knows about and have also tried to stifle? Hint: There are numerous. I’m old enough to recall Nixon raising his two fingers above his head and claiming that he’s not a crook following Watergate…The University by their denials are simply mimicking that disgusting behavior.As a U-alum I am ashamed of this total disregard of responsibility from President Kaler. This scandal has hung like a cloud over the university for years and finally Kaler was given an opportunity to save face and claim he was just acting on the vote from the Faculty Senate and appoint an independent investigation of not only the Markingson case, but of the others that exist. President Kaler has a responsibility to answer to everyone and not just his immediate conspirators in cover-up mode. I was once proud of the reputation of the University of Minnesota's Medical School, and all of it's accomplishments. That pride has really taken a hit over this episode.
Agree with almost all of the posts. For Dr. Kaler to not recognize the fact that there are more human subjects and their families that have had research violation issues with the department of psychiatry is just ludicrous. The recent Fox News report showed another individual, and it's 100% guaranteed that there are many more such patients that were taken advantaged of, or had their rights abused by researchers at the University's psychiatry clinic's and hospital wards. I know personally of three such individuals.
It's quite amusing to think that the state's Attorney General's Office prosecuted Accretive for violating 100's if not thousands of patients protective health records at Fairview, and yet Kaler and University want everyone to accept and believe that nothing like that occurred with mentally ill patients within the two University controlled wards at Fairview? Having had a family member that worked on those and other mental health wards at Fairview, she was disgusted and alarmed on a regular basis over the violations occurring by research psychiatrists or their staff. For Kaler to insinuate that those incidents didn't take place on a regular basis is just ridiculous. To claim that all is 'today' without recognizing and admitting the the wrongs from the past just invites more of the same in the future.
Saturday, December 14, 2013
Latest #markingson post on Star-Tribune Community Voices
Latest #markingson post on Star-Tribune site:
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Time to do the right thing at the University of Minnesota? #Markingson
The time is always right to do the right thing. Martin Luther King
Do the right thing, even when it is hard. Joel Osteeen
Do the right thing because it is right. W. Clement Stone
Sometimes it is better to lose, and do the right thing... Tony Blair
Leaders are people who do the right thing. Warren Bennis
In plain Texas talk: It's do the right thing. Ross Perot
You do the right thing, even if it makes you feel bad. The purpose of life is not to be happy but to be worthy of happiness. Tracy Kidder
Or, as Mark Yudof said in his inaugural address as president of the University of Minnesota:
"Minnesotans expect us to be fair in providing access to the University for their sons and daughters. If we do not provide reasonable access--including access for those who are underprepared and historically underrepresented in higher education and in the upper levels of our socioeconomic life, the taxpayers and state government of Minnesota will turn their backs on our graduate, research, and outreach functions. Simply stated, it is imperative that we continue to embrace our land-grant roots if we are to thrive."
"The need for integrity permeates every aspect of the University. The education mission of the University must be taken seriously--not just the way to get state funding."
"Administrators should tell the truth, keep their word, implement what they promise, and not dissemble. My point is plain enough: Without integrity, the phrase higher education is an oxymoron."
"When making decisions, I view shared governance and consultation with constituent groups as only fair because of the enormous stake they have in the University. Without fairness there is no legitimacy and no buy in to the institutional vision."
"At the crossroads of expectation and reality, human fallibility and aspiration, individual will and institutional inertia, I hope that you will forgive my inevitable lapses, take joint responsibility for the nurturing of values and goals, and find comfort in the progress we make together."
"God bless all of you and God bless the University of Minnesota."
Mark Yudof handled a horrible scandal in the athletic department with grace and dignity, with no excuses and no dissembling. I have been very disappointed with the University of Minnesota administration since his presidency. Yudof fired people (the athletic director as well as coaches and support staff) and had Tonya Moten Brown essentially take over the athletic department. And his humility was not false.
The time for stonewalling has passed. Trying to dodge the issues inherent in the Markingson case is a fool's game. A university without integrity is not really a university. Bread and circuses do not a great university make, nor idle chatter about the infamous third greatest public research university in the world.
Time to walk the talk, President Kaler. Otherwise, disappointed University of Minnesota alums will have to take a hike from their alma mater. In the Twin Cities alone there are plenty of places for higher education philanthropy besides the University of Minnesota - Augsburg and Macalester colleges being two examples. Note that at these two schools the student debt at graduation is lower than that at the public University of Minnesota, to our everlasting disgrace. I hope not.
One might whine that Mac is a school for the rich, a terrible and untrue argument, but such a charge is obviously not credible for Augsburg College with its much more modest endowment. When Auggie, as it is familiarly known, got donor money of questionable provenance, they gave it back. This is what doing the right thing means. And the education available at Auggie is hardly for chumps. An Auggie, Peter Agre, recently won a Nobel Prize in chemistry. Nice ROI on that, I'd say. Kudos, Auggie, a Minnesota school that makes me proud. Macalester is also in this category as well as many other fine Minnesota small liberal arts colleges, or SLACs to use au courant higher ed jargon.
Our recent University of Minnestoa debt-saddled alums and their parents are none too happy with the performance of our university. Nor are our state legislators who are heartsick and bewildered by the fact that we are one of the leaders in the country - for student debt. Perhaps the plan is to salvage our position with sports dollars? I understand that Louie Nanne has been charged with raising two hundred million dollars for our athletics program. Under the present circumstances of crushing debt for our students, this is pathetic.
And of course if one desires to contribute money for medical research, there is always the Mayo. What's been going on at Fairview-University hospital lately does not exactly inspire warm and fuzzy feelings in the hearts of the populace. People will vote on the University's performance with their feet and their checkbooks. This goes also for the people in the state legislature.
If the University wants to see private philanthropic support, perhaps they should give us something to be proud of? Manufactured hash tags like #umnproud will not suffice.
Is it finally time to do the right thing in the Markingson matter? More evasion will only serve to further erode our reputation in the real world. Out there where recent University of Minnesota administrations apparently would prefer not to go.
$$$$$
$$$
$
Latest Carl Elliot post about #markingson
Yesterday I put up a "for the record" post on an interview with President Kaler that appeared in the Minnesota Daily.
When I use this phrase, I try to put up the original material without highlights, emphasis change, or comments so that the readers may decide for themselves what they think about the document or statement.
Usually I intend to follow up with a reaction to the "for the record" post. But in this case, Dr. Carl Elliot has already done the job and I re-post his comments (with permission):
Kaler on Faculty Senate resolution: "It’s not a review of the Markingson case"
I think we're getting a pretty good idea of where the University of Minnesota administration plans to take the "independent review" endorsed by the Faculty Senate last week. This interview with President Kaler appears in today's Minnesota Daily:
The Faculty Senate just passed its resolution to create an independent, external panel to investigate how the institution conducts clinical research on human subjects. What do you think of the most recent developments in the Dan Markingson case?
I’m a big believer in shared governance, and so I’m willing to take the advice of the Senate and the panel. ... I think they will find that our review processes are robust and that we do, in fact, protect patients in clinical trials, but there’s been concern raised in how we do that, and so our goal is to air out clearly and very publicly what we do and have a panel of external experts validate that and be sure we are doing this absolutely as well as can be done.
It’s certainly resulted as a consequence of a lot of repetitive publicity about the Markingson case, but it’s not a review of the Markingson case; it’s a review of what we are doing now and what we’re going to do moving forward.
This is something that began before you were president. What do you see as your role?
My role is to look forward, and as I said, that will be the charge of the panel.
And just to reinforce the point, the Daily editorial staff writes:
Though some, including University bioethicists and professors, may want more answers involving Markingson’s death, we should focus on avoiding potential tragedies and unethical behavior in the future.
The resolution passed by the Faculty Senate responded to an international call for an investigation into the death of Dan Markingson. How would an investigation that avoids the Markingson case do anything to restore confidence in the university?
$$$$$
$$$
$
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
For the Record: Kaler talks external review - not a review of #Markingson case
Kaler talks Markingson case
From the Minnesota Daily:
The Faculty Senate just passed its resolution to create an independent, external panel to investigate how the institution conducts clinical research on human subjects. What do you think of the most recent developments in the Dan Markingson case?
I’m a big believer in shared governance, and so I’m willing to take the advice of the Senate and the panel. ... I think they will find that our review processes are robust and that we do, in fact, protect patients in clinical trials, but there’s been concern raised in how we do that, and so our goal is to air out clearly and very publicly what we do and have a panel of external experts validate that and be sure we are doing this absolutely as well as can be done.
It’s certainly resulted as a consequence of a lot of repetitive publicity about the Markingson case, but it’s not a review of the Markingson case; it’s a review of what we are doing now and what we’re going to do moving forward.
This is something that began before you were president. What do you see as your role?
My role is to look forward, and as I said, that will be the charge of the panel.
Monday, December 9, 2013
The Daily weighs in on the #Markingson "investigation"
My question: Will the University of Minnesota Face Up To Ethical Responsibilities or Continue In Denial and Evasion?
The Faculty Senate wants an outside panel to examine clinical trials.
By Kia Farhang Marion Renault December 09, 2013
The University of Minnesota Faculty Senate is calling for an independent, external panel to examine how the University does clinical research on human subjects.
The measure passed in a 67-23 vote Thursday after renewed calls from scholars and bioethicists to re-examine the 2004 suicide of Dan Markingson, a 26-year-old who participated in a clinical drug trial 10 years ago at the University of Minnesota Medical Center, Fairview.
Since Markingson’s suicide, many within and outside the University have raised questions about the CAFE study, the psychiatric drug trial he participated in and the University’s standards for ethical research.
An international group of bioethicists wrote to University President Eric Kaler and the Faculty Senate in October asking for an independent investigation of issues arising from the CAFE study.
The measure calls for a look at current human research practices at the University, not an investigation of the Markingson case.
The resolution that passed Thursday isn’t binding, said Eva von Dassow, Faculty Senate vice chair and associate classical and near Eastern studies professor.
But Kaler, who chairs the Faculty Senate, told reporters after the meeting that he’s moving forward with the recommendation.
University officials will begin scouting nationwide early next year for experts to conduct the review, Kaler said, but no timeline is set for when the evaluation would be completed.
Kaler said he thinks the investigation will show that the University’s current research policies are “in very good shape.”
The Faculty Senate made three amendments to the original proposal, including one that requires the results of the inquiry to be reported back to the Senate for discussion.
The other two amendments added more details about Markingson to the resolution and struck the word “investigative” from the panel’s definition.
Markingson case lingers
While Thursday’s resolution doesn’t call for an investigation into the Markingson case, several faculty members said lingering questions from the incident have clouded the University’s reputation as a premier research institution.
Multiple reviews of the Markingson case at the University, state and national levels found no wrongdoing in the CAFE study. The only official finding of wrongdoing was a corrective action agreement for a study coordinator from a Minnesota Board of Social Work investigation last fall.
But several prominent scholars don’t believe past inquiries into the case were credible, said philosophy professor Naomi Scheman.
“We do have a good reputation, and we’ve worked hard to earn that reputation,” she said, “but it’s crumbling before our eyes.”
Others, like public health professor Dr. Russell Luepker, said at the meeting that the investigations into the Markingson case have been sufficient. He said documents questioning those past investigations contain a “number of half-truths and distortions.”
But Luepker said he supports a review of the University’s ethics procedures and practices despite his qualms about the proposal’s origins.
“The issue here, I think, is not a 10-year-old case of a tragedy that occurred, which has been investigated thoroughly, and nothing has been found,” he said, “but we should never stop from asking questions and review such a critical area.”
Cultural studies and comparative literature professor Cesare Casarino said the full truth of the Markingson case still needs to come out.
When it comes to determining whether there was any wrongdoing in the case, the burden of proof is on the University, Casarino said.
Dr. Stephen Olson, the CAFE study’s lead psychiatrist, told reporters after the meeting that he welcomes any investigation into the Markingson case.
“I’ve got nothing to hide,” he said. “We didn’t do anything wrong.”
He said at the meeting that Markingson’s suicide was tragic but unsurprising.
“Cancer patients die in cancer studies all the time,” he said, “and it’s not a surprise that people with mental illness will die in a trial of mental illness.”
Olson said he and his colleagues involved with the study haven’t been able to fully defend themselves because they don’t have the legal right to release Markingson’s medical records.
For Mike Howard, a representative for Markingson’s mother, Mary Weiss, the Faculty Senate’s action Thursday was “a huge vindication.”
‘This cloud hangs over us’
The University already has channels set in place, like the Institutional Review Board, that hold it to “rigorous standards of ethics,” pediatrics professor Dr. Sue Berry said at the meeting.
But William Durfee, a mechanical engineering professor and Faculty Consultative Committee chair, said while the University passes those voluntary accreditation processes with “flying colors,” it might not be enough.
“There’s a sense … as faculty that we almost want to hold the University to a higher standard than that,” he said.
Sociology professor David Pellow said he’s been through the IRB process at five different research universities and found the University of Minnesota’s to be the most “rigorous,” “comprehensive” and “impressive.”
But Pellow said his confidence has faltered and he feels the University should respond to “a growing and global call” for an external review.
Not conducting the review, he said, could be dangerous for the University as a whole.
“As scholars around the nation, and indeed the world, look askance and wearily at our perceived troublesome practices … [they will] likely discourage their students and colleagues from studying here, working here and collaborating with faculty here,” Pellow said.
Anthropology professor Karen-Sue Taussig said the University needs to show its commitment to research ethics, especially to the 175 international bioethicists and scholars who signed the October letter to the Faculty Senate, many of whom are renowned in their fields.
“The fact that this cloud hangs over us in the way that it does shows that we are not being successful in demonstrating that to the public and our colleagues elsewhere,” she said.
=============End of Daily Article
To try to evade looking into what happened in the Markingson case is a very bad strategy for the university, painful as it may be after many years of denial that anything was wrong.
I've written about this on the Star-Tribune Community Blogs website:
A short excerpt:
The Gordian Knot of the Markingson matter can be solved, crudely speaking, in two ways. One is the "Alexandrine solution." [cutting the knot in half with a sword]
But simply "give them an investigation of things as they are now" may solve the problem at one level, but will it will simply intensify questioning and even outrage at another. The time for stonewalling is over.
The alternative is to take the knot apart. Follow the unravelled rope from one end - the Markingson case - to the other end: clincal practices in the present. What was wrong - if anything - in the Markingson case? What has changed as a result of it - for example Dan's Law? And where do we stand now, has anything actually changed? Is there a difference between what is ethical and what is legal? Are we now following clinical practices in accord with the highest ethical standards not just the law?
"Profiles in courage" should not only be an exemplar for politicians. It is time for the University of Minnesota administration to step up to the plate and demonstrate some courage.
I'll write again as things develop. We all love our university. Some day I'd like to be #umnproud again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
