The Scripps Research Institute ranked
first in the world in research quality and commercialization of new
products, while nearby UC San Diego was 14th, according to the journal
Nature.
The publication’s Nature Index connects scholarly papers from research institutions with the patents that cite them..
Stanford University, Memorial Sloan
Kettering Cancer Center, and other prestigious medical research
institutions have flagrantly violated a federal law
requiring public reporting of study results, depriving patients and
doctors of complete data to gauge the safety and benefits of treatments,
a STAT investigation has found.
The violations have left gaping holes in a federal database used by
millions of patients, their relatives, and medical professionals, often
to compare the effectiveness and side effects of treatments for deadly
diseases such as advanced breast cancer.
The worst offenders included four of the top 10 recipients of federal
medical research funding from the National Institutes of Health:
Stanford, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Pittsburgh,
and the University of California, San Diego. All disclosed research
results late or not at all at least 95 percent of the time since
reporting became mandatory in 2008.
Drug companies have long been castigated by lawmakers and advocacy
groups for a lack of openness on research, and the investigation shows
just how far individual firms have gone to skirt the disclosure law. But
while the industry generally performed poorly, major medical schools,
teaching hospitals, and nonprofit groups did worse overall — many of
them far worse.
The federal government has the power to impose fines on institutions
that fail to disclose trial results, or suspend their research funding.
It could have collected a whopping $25 billion from drug companies alone
in the past seven years. But it has not levied a single fine.
The STAT investigation is the first detailed review of how well individual research institutions have complied with the law.
The legislation was intended to ensure that findings from human
testing of drugs and medical devices were quickly made public through
the NIH website ClinicalTrials.gov.
Its passage was driven by concerns that the pharma industry was hiding
negative results to make treatments look better — claims that had been
dramatically raised in a major lawsuit alleging that the manufacturer of
the antidepressant Paxil concealed data that the drug caused suicidal
thoughts among teens.
“GlaxoSmithKline was misstating the downside risks. We then asked the
question, how can they get away with this?” Eliot Spitzer, who filed
the 2004 suit when he was New York attorney general, said in an
interview.
The STAT analysis shows that “someone at NIH is not picking up the
phone to enforce the obligation to report,” Spitzer said. “Where NIH has
the leverage through its funding to require disclosure, it’s a pretty
easy pressure point.”...
Is this the future in California if UCSD wins its poaching lawsuit
against Dr. Paul Aisen regarding Aisen's decision to transfer his
Alzheimer's study to USC? Is it unlawful restraint of trade? Science
magazine reports on what happens when health systems collude to stop
their employees from moving to other institutions.
“[L]ateral moves of faculty between Duke and UNC are not permitted.”
–UNC's chief of cardiothoracic imaging
In August, we reported
on the lawsuit brought by the University of California, San Diego
(UCSD), against the University of Southern California (USC) in Los
Angeles, in an effort to stop USC’s alleged attempt to bring a
multimillion-dollar Alzheimer’s disease research project along with its
new recruit, neuroscientist Paul Aisen, from UCSD to USC. We noted that
though some observers view universities’ efforts to bring major
researchers to their campuses from elsewhere as effective recruiting,
others see it as harmful poaching.
In North Carolina, meanwhile, another scientist’s effort to move from
Duke University in Durham to the University of North Carolina (UNC),
Chapel Hill, has also resulted in a lawsuit, but for an entirely
different reason. Danielle Seaman,
an assistant professor of radiology at Duke, claims that “an illegal
conspiracy” among Duke, UNC, and the two universities’ health systems
not to raid each other’s talent barred her from consideration for an
advertised opening at UNC, according to the complaint filed with the court.
Allegedly, the institutions’ goal was to “suppress the compensation
of their employees,” according to the complaint. “Without the knowledge
or consent of their employees, [Duke’s] senior administrators and deans
entered into express agreements [with UNC] to eliminate or reduce
competition … for skilled medical labor” by not “hir[ing] or
attempt[ing] to hire” from each other. This deal, the complaint argues,
constitutes an unlawful restraint of trade.
When UNC advertised a position in cardiothoracic imaging, the
complaint claims, Seaman wrote to the division chief to express interest
in applying. As quoted in the complaint, he wrote back saying “I agree
that you would be a great fit. … Unfortunately, I just received
confirmation today from the Dean’s office that lateral moves of faculty
between Duke and UNC are not permitted. There is reasoning for this
‘guideline’ which was agreed upon between the deans of UNC and Duke a
few years back. I hope you understand.” (Emphasis is in the
original.) Seaman did not understand, so she wrote back to ask about
this “reasoning.” The guideline arose, the division chief allegedly
replied, “in response to an attempted recruitment by Duke a
couple of years ago of the entire UNC bone marrow transplant team; UNC
had to generate a large retention package to keep the team intact.” (Emphasis is in the original.)
The universities have not commented on the case, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education. Still, The Chronicle
quotes a former senior vice president for public affairs and government
relations at Duke as saying, “[i]n my time in the administration, there
was a general practice that we did not recruit aggressively at the
other institution, and vice versa. … It was based on thinking both
institutions were better if each institution was strong.”
Seaman is represented by a North Carolina law firm and also by Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein (no relation to this reporter), the
San Francisco-based legal powerhouse that won a $415 million settlement
against tech giants Google, Apple, Intel, and Adobe for colluding to
keep wages down by not hiring each other’s workers. Seaman’s complaint
requests a jury trial and approval of the case as a class action “on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals,” presumably the
employees of Duke and UNC. Stay tuned for developments.
Is this the future in California if UCSD wins its poaching lawsuit against Dr. Paul Aisen regarding Aisen's decision to transfer his Alzheimer's study to USC? Is it unlawful restraint of trade? Science magazine reports on what happens when health systems collude to stop their employees from moving to other institutions.
“[L]ateral moves of faculty between Duke and UNC are not permitted.”
–UNC's chief of cardiothoracic imaging
In August, we reported
on the lawsuit brought by the University of California, San Diego
(UCSD), against the University of Southern California (USC) in Los
Angeles, in an effort to stop USC’s alleged attempt to bring a
multimillion-dollar Alzheimer’s disease research project along with its
new recruit, neuroscientist Paul Aisen, from UCSD to USC. We noted that
though some observers view universities’ efforts to bring major
researchers to their campuses from elsewhere as effective recruiting,
others see it as harmful poaching.
In North Carolina, meanwhile, another scientist’s effort to move from
Duke University in Durham to the University of North Carolina (UNC),
Chapel Hill, has also resulted in a lawsuit, but for an entirely
different reason. Danielle Seaman,
an assistant professor of radiology at Duke, claims that “an illegal
conspiracy” among Duke, UNC, and the two universities’ health systems
not to raid each other’s talent barred her from consideration for an
advertised opening at UNC, according to the complaint filed with the court.
Allegedly, the institutions’ goal was to “suppress the compensation
of their employees,” according to the complaint. “Without the knowledge
or consent of their employees, [Duke’s] senior administrators and deans
entered into express agreements [with UNC] to eliminate or reduce
competition … for skilled medical labor” by not “hir[ing] or
attempt[ing] to hire” from each other. This deal, the complaint argues,
constitutes an unlawful restraint of trade.
When UNC advertised a position in cardiothoracic imaging, the
complaint claims, Seaman wrote to the division chief to express interest
in applying. As quoted in the complaint, he wrote back saying “I agree
that you would be a great fit. … Unfortunately, I just received
confirmation today from the Dean’s office that lateral moves of faculty
between Duke and UNC are not permitted. There is reasoning for this
‘guideline’ which was agreed upon between the deans of UNC and Duke a
few years back. I hope you understand.” (Emphasis is in the
original.) Seaman did not understand, so she wrote back to ask about
this “reasoning.” The guideline arose, the division chief allegedly
replied, “in response to an attempted recruitment by Duke a
couple of years ago of the entire UNC bone marrow transplant team; UNC
had to generate a large retention package to keep the team intact.” (Emphasis is in the original.)
The universities have not commented on the case, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education. Still, The Chronicle
quotes a former senior vice president for public affairs and government
relations at Duke as saying, “[i]n my time in the administration, there
was a general practice that we did not recruit aggressively at the
other institution, and vice versa. … It was based on thinking both
institutions were better if each institution was strong.”
Seaman is represented by a North Carolina law firm and also by Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein (no relation to this reporter), the
San Francisco-based legal powerhouse that won a $415 million settlement
against tech giants Google, Apple, Intel, and Adobe for colluding to
keep wages down by not hiring each other’s workers. Seaman’s complaint
requests a jury trial and approval of the case as a class action “on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals,” presumably the
employees of Duke and UNC. Stay tuned for developments.
According to a new survey released Monday, 81 percent of responding universities said that sequestration, the automatic federal budget cuts, have directly affected their research activities. More than half of universities said a decrease in new federal grant opportunities and the shrinking value of existing grants, has prompted them to reduce research-related positions and nearly a quarter of the institutions said they have laid off research employees as a result of the cuts.
“The survey shows that sequestration is already eroding America’s research capabilities at universities across the country,” the Association of American Universities, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities and The Science Coalition announced in a written statement.
UCLA Chancellor Gene Block has been criticized in the past by student activists for doling out lavish salaries for high-profile hires amid tuition hikes, budget cuts and recession, but on Monday he stated that a $50 million loss to the university’s research funding could lead to a brain drain, top researchers leaving in a mass exodus.
RELATED Q&A
Dr. Andrew Rosenberg of the Union of Concerned Scientists talks about the "war on science."
Block put things in stark terms, reminding members of Congress that many universities have no more emergency funds or administrative flexibility to help compensate for the sequester cuts.
“The buffer is much thinner,” said Block. “So if faculty members lose their grants, if grants don’t get re-funded because of sequestration, there is a limited amount we can do to keep labs running. So if you ask what is the long-term effect? …Literally labs close and people end up on the street. That’s the danger.”
The negative effects of sequester are already on display in Ohio. Dr. Stan Gerson, director of the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, spent much of the past year calling members of Congress in hopes they would repeal cuts to research programs. Gerson told public radio WCPN, “It’s real jobs and real people” at stake.
From WCPN:
Case, like Michigan, receives some of the biggest federal grants in the US for research.
Of the roughly $400 million Case spends on research annually, about 80 percent comes from federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services.
Case’s cancer center offers an example of how sequestration funding is slowly squeezing the budget. This summer, news came that the center’s five-year operational grant fell by $6 million.
“It’s undoubtedly the case over an 18-month period that there will be a smaller workforce in our school and our university. Just because, where else are the dollars going to come from?” Gerson says.
While Case isn’t planning layoffs yet, they are more selectively filling positions and faculty members are being encouraged to consider flexible hours. Gerson also told WCPN that labs on campus aren’t hiring as many graduate students.
Others also expressed concern that cuts in research would result in the loss of a competitive edge against other countries that prioritize education and research.
“We lose our competitiveness with foreign countries, especially China and India, which are investing very heavily in research and development,” said Philip DiStefano, chancellor at University of Colorado Boulder. “The longer that sequestration goes on, the more chances are that we are going to lose our competitive edge that we have had with foreign countries.”
The world of academia has objected to harsh austerity measures for a long time. In March, Science Works for US collected video editorials from professors and administrators, who argued that the then-proposed cuts would threaten American research and innovation. An op-ed in the Financial Times from before the sequester stated that, “fully 75 percent of postwar growth is tied to technological innovation, according to the commerce department.”
But these concerns fell on deaf ears, even though budget cuts will have a ripple effect for multiple generations, stripping opportunities from burgeoning students, researchers and scientists.
“There is a clear and present danger that sequestration will damage America’s pre-eminence in scientific research and higher education over the long-term,” said Northeastern University President Joseph Aoun. “Given the impact we already have seen, we urge the members of the House and Senate who are negotiating funding for fiscal year 2014 and beyond to end sequestration, enable investments in scientific research and higher education and restore the dividends these investments produce for our economy and society.”
"Paranoid ideologues have burned books and records throughout human history to try to squelch dissenting visions that they view as heretical, and to anyone who worships the great God Economy monotheistically, environmental science is heresy."
Post Media News has obtained a document stamped "SECRET" which exposes the closure or destruction of more than half a dozen world famous science libraries and countless scientific documents that they contain. The destruction and burning of documents has little if anything to do with digitizing the books and documents for cost savings as claimed by the Harper government.
The Tyee has several excellent reports detailing the destruction of scientific documents and the libraries that house them.
As reported by The Tyee earlier this month and again here, scientists are sounding alarms about libraries dismantled by the government, including Maurice-Lamontagne Institute, which housed 61,000 French language documents on Quebec's waterways, as well as the newly renovated $62-million library serving the historic St Andrews Biological Station (SABS) in St Andrews, New Brunswick. (Famed environmental scientist Rachel Carson corresponded with researchers at SABS for her groundbreaking book on toxins, Silent Spring. The station's contaminant research program has been axed by the Harper government.) Also shut down are the famous Freshwater Institute library in Winnipeg and one of the world's finest ocean collections at the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Centre in St. John's, Newfoundland.
Scientists who use the libraries say priceless information -- essential for the legal and political security of Canada's waterways as well as the defence of the longest coastline in the world -- was thrown into dustbins, burned or scavenged by private consultants. In Winnipeg, a consultant's group operating for Manitoba Hydro backed up a truck to collect materials from the dismantled library.
A DFO scientist anonymously told The Tyee, "The cuts were carried out in great haste apparently in order to meet some unknown agenda. No records have been provided with regard to what material has been dumped or the value of this public property. No formal attempt was made to transfer material to libraries of existing academic institutions."
In addition, the Harper government has forced hundreds of researchers and Coast Guard workers to be laid off. Harper has dismantled a marine contaminants program, closed the Kitsilano (Vancouver) Coast Guard station which is reportedly the first line of defense against oil spills.
The document lists 26 "tracks" or changes within the Department of Fisheries being carried out to help reduce Canada's federal budget deficit. Very few of those tracks' descriptions make claims for bolstering or improving marine safety, contaminant research, protection of fish habitat or the efficacy of the Coast Guard.
Instead, the document details numerous actions which create reductions or total elimination of these environmental services.
They include:
•The shrinkage of 20 Marine Communications and Traffic Service centres down to 11;
•The reduction of Inshore Rescue Boats;
•The reduction of Marine Search and Rescue services;
•The defunding of species at risk recovery oriented programs in the Maritimes;
•The closure of 21 Conservation and Protection offices, as "part of a broader departmental footprint reduction plan." Comox, Pender Harbour, Quesnel, Hazelton and Clearwater all lost offices;
•The closure of the Kitsilano Lifeboat Station in Vancouver;
•Closure of the Experimental Lakes Area;
•The killing of all biological effects contaminant research within the department.
The document explains that ending the capacity to do public research on freshwater and ocean pollutants such as bitumen spills "involves eliminating the in-house research program aimed at biological effects of contaminants, pesticide and oil and gas, and establishing a small advisory group to oversee the outsourcing of priority research needs."
Sounds like "quiet little rooms" if you ask me.
Environmental activists through out the world celebrated when George W. Bush was finally out of office. Since the election of Harper's regime, the world now has Canada with a leader, who like Bush, prides himself in the part that he plays in the destruction of the planet. Maurice Strong, the Canadian diplomat who was secretary-general of the famous 1992 Earth Summit, calls Harper’s government, “the most anti-environmental government that we’ve ever had, and one of the most anti-environmental governments in the world.”
Canada holds more than 20 per cent of the surface freshwater in the world, and its rivers and streams annually transport almost 10 per cent of the world flow of freshwater. Canada is also one of the world's largest seafood-exporting nations. All of which is now at risk of damage or destruction along with scientific evidence documenting the pollution and the damage to marine and freshwater systems.
The below corporations along with Charles and David Koch are pushing a libertarian brand of political activism that presses a large footprint on energy and climate issues. They have created and supported non-profit organizations, think tanks and political groups that work to undermine climate science, environmental regulation and clean energy. They are also top donors to politicians, who support the oil industry and deny any human role in global warming.
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
Canadian Energy Pipeline Association
Petroleum Services Association of Canada
Propane Gas Association of Canada
Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors
Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association
Alberta Chamber of Resources
Alberta Chambers of Commerce
The Cement Association of Canada
Canadian Council of Chief Executives
I recommend reading the Tyee articles. There is to much atrocity documented there to elaborate on in one Dkos diary.
Stanford University, Memorial Sloan
Kettering Cancer Center, and other prestigious medical research
institutions have flagrantly violated a federal law
requiring public reporting of study results, depriving patients and
doctors of complete data to gauge the safety and benefits of treatments,
a STAT investigation has found.