healthy4u: intellectual property

Rendering Unto Caesar - What the Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute vs Thompson Says About the Loss of the Academic Medical Mission

A case, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/health/cancer-center-in-lawsuit-says-a-doctor-appropriated-a-discovery.html">reported</a> by the New York Times as involving an intellectual property dispute, should create a lot of cognitive dissonance about the state of the academic medical mission. Litigation Involving the Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute and Dr Craig B Thompson Here is how the Times outlined the story: <blockquote>The president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York is in a billion-dollar dispute with his former workplace, a cancer institute at the University of Pennsylvania, over accusations that he walked away with groundbreaking research and used it to help start a valuable biotechnology company. In a lawsuit, the Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute at Penn described its former scientific director, Dr. Craig B. Thompson, as 'an unscrupulous doctor' who 'chose to abscond with the fruits of the Abramson largess.' </blockquote> In particular, <blockquote>In the suit, the Abramson cancer institute, which has received more than $100 million from the philanthropist Leonard Abramson and his family, says that Dr. Thompson concealed his role in starting Agios, which has attracted investors with a potentially new way to treat cancer. The institute says Dr. Thompson’s actions deprived it of proceeds that could support future research, causing it damages that could exceed $1 billion.</blockquote> So presumably the Abramson Institute is alleging that Thompson took its intellectual property and put it into Agios, and the Institute therefore wants compensation. Note that the Institute does not appear to be alleging either that Thompson was supposed to be its employee, but actually was working for Agios at the time he was supposed to be working for the institute; or that Thompson hid a a conflict of interest created by his financial relationship with Agios that could have affected how he fulfilled his professional responsibilities there. Note further that certain other parties declared that they are not part of this dispute. These included Dr Thompson's current employer: <blockquote>Sloan-Kettering declined to comment, saying it was not a party to the lawsuit....</blockquote> These also included the University of Pennsylvania: <blockquote>Susan E. Phillips, senior vice president for Penn Medicine, said that the suit had been filed not by the university but by the research institute, a separate entity. She said the university was investigating the accusations. </blockquote> The nature of this dispute ought to generate several kinds of cognitive dissonance. Protecting Intellectual Property vs Upholding the Academic Mission at the University of Pennsylvania On <a href="http://www.afcri.upenn.edu/aboutus/ourhistory.html">one of its web pages</a>, the Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute describes its history: <blockquote>The Abramson Cancer center of the University of Pennsylvania provides each patient with exemplary care though a comprehensive team approach, personalized service, education and outreach, and nationally recognized cancer research programs.</blockquote> The web page describes the institute as simply part of the larger University of Pennsylvania cancer center, which came to be named for the Abramson family: <blockquote>Penn's Cancer Center was renamed in 2002 as the Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania, recognizing the Abramson family's $100 million commitment to support comprehensive cancer research and care.</blockquote> Thus it seems that the Abramson institute is simply a piece of a traditional academic medical center. The academic mission is traditionally described as the creation and teaching of knowledge. Thus, if an academic institution creates new knowledge, its should then disseminate it, not own it. Of course, in the US, since the Bayh-Dole act was passed, academic institutions were given the ability to patent their discoveries, and began to protect and sequester the knowledge they contained, rather than disseminating it. In this case, however, one part of a large university and a large academic medical center seems to be concentrating entirely on its right of ownership of intellectual property, not the traditional academic mission. The fact that this dispute has lead to litigation suggests that the academic organization is now intent on protecting, rather than disseminating knowledge. The dispute appears to be between a commercial research company and its allegedly errant former hired manager. The Abramson Institute: Part or Independent of the Academic Medical Center?   A little more digging suggests that the nature of the Abramson institute is not as clear as is described in its web-page. A GuideStar search revealed that the institute is actually legally independent from the university. It filed its own 990 form (latest version, covering 2009-2010, <a href="http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2010/232/929/2010-232929823-074d3257-9.pdf">here</a>.) The filing did list various entities, including the Clinical Care Associates of the University of Pennsylvania Health System, and the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania as "related tax-exempt organizations." However, this filing should create cognitive dissonance about what the underlying nature of the Institute? Is it part of the University of Pennsylvania and its medical center, or is independent but cooperating? This dissonance is only enhanced by the ambiguous response of the University of Pennsylvania to the lawsuit. If the Institute is part of the University, then the University ought to be party to the lawsuit, it would seem. This filing with the US government did underline the Institute's commitment to disseminating research. A description of its tax "exempt purposes" included: <blockquote>Education - scientists at the Institute actively share their discoveries with the research community, physicians, and students.</blockquote> As above, this statement of purpose appears not to fit with the filing of a lawsuit to obtain damages due to the alleged taking of intellectual property. If this really were the Institute's mission, would not they want the intellectual property liberated so it could be actively shared? The cognitive dissonance about the mission of the Institute and of the University versus the protection and sequestration of intellectual property is thus increased. Upholding the Academic Mission vs Staying Uninvolved at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center As an aside, note that Dr Thompson is now not just working for Agios. In fact, he has been President of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center since 2010 (look <a href="http://www.mskcc.org/news/magazine/october-2010/craig-thompson-named-president-msk">here</a>). Just like the Abramson Cancer Center, Sloan-Kettering is an academic medical center with the traditional mission of teaching, research, and patient care. Here is its <a href="http://www.mskcc.org/about">mission statement</a>: <blockquote>As one of the world's premier cancer centers, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center is committed to exceptional patient care, leading-edge research, and superb educational programs.</blockquote> So one would think that people there ought to be concerned by allegations that its current president took intellectual property without authorization, and that he is "an unscrupulous doctor." If these allegations were to be proven false, they seemingly would represent a major, unwarranted slur on its and his reputation. If they were to be proven true, they would indicate that current leadership might not have the character to uphold the mission. Either outcome would be serious and have serious implications. However, at the moment, this noted academic medical institution has expressed neither outrage about possibly false accusations nor resolve to investigate the matter and then weed out any leaders not devoted to the mission. Thus, the apparent intention of the leadership of Memorial Sloan-Kettering to stay uninvolved with this case ought to generate more cognitive dissonance. Summary The cognitive dissonances evoked by the case of the Abramson Institute vs Dr Thompson ought to inspire questions about what our academic medical institutions have become.  While they proclaim their devotion to research and teaching to improve health and health care, and advance science, they may increasingly act like commercial research organizations whose main goal is to generate increased revenue from products and services, and in this case, from intellectual property.  It is hard to see how this emphasis on holding onto rather than disseminating new knowledge will be good in the long run for science, learning, or patient care. We are now a good 30+ years into our ill-fated American experiment about the effects of turning medicine commercial and making health care a commodity. So far, it has yielded the highest costs in the world, but declining access, mediocre quality, and demoralized professionals.  Squabbling among top researchers and leading academic medical institutions over the ownership of intellectual property for the sake of revenue, not dissemination, is the latest symbol of the decline of our health care. I can only hope that all the parties involved suddenly remember that they are supposed to be creating and disseminating knowledge, not just getting rich.

Rendering Unto Caesar - What the Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute vs Thompson Says About the Loss of the Academic Medical Mission

A case, reported by the New York Times as involving an intellectual property dispute, should create a lot of cognitive dissonance about the state of the academic medical mission.Litigation Involving t…

Đọc thêm »

07 Feb 2012

Yale, Van Gogh's "The Night Cafe" and Personal Property: What's Mine is Mine, and What's Yours is Mine

At Healthcare Renewal and at numerous other healthcare blogs, we write about academic and industry conflicts of interest, malfeasance, and other topics in the hopes that there are leaders within organizations who might correct the wrongs that result from such conflicts and behaviors. (That is, when it is not those same leaders behind the scandals in question.) Our efforts are based on the assumption (perhaps, more correctly, a hope) that the problems within organizations are not organic and ideological, and that they are in some fashion amenable to correction internally and externally via exposure to sunlight. What if we're wrong? A story caught my eye about my Medical Informatics alma mater. A Frenchman, Pierre Konowaloff, is suing Yale for return of a famous Van Gogh painting that was confiscated from his family in the early 1900's by totalitarians, psychopaths who created what proved to be one of the most oppressive and murderous regimes in history (the Soviet Union). In return, Mr. Konowaloff was countersued by Yale. Yale alleges that the confiscation of the painting by the Soviets was A-OK because "international law was not violated" [by the confiscation - ed.], therefore Yale has legitimate and unchallengeable dibs on the painting. "International law" was not violated? This response is beyond stunning. I had to retrieve my jaw from the floor after reading the story: <blockquote>Wall Street Journal June 3, 2009 <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124406037069082321.html">Yale Sued Over Van Gogh Painting Seized by Soviets</a> By JOSEPH PEREIRA A descendant of the onetime owner of a famed Van Gogh painting has sued Yale University in an effort to reclaim the artwork from the Ivy League school. In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in New Haven, Conn., Pierre Konowaloff alleged that the university should have known the painting—"<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_Caf%C3%A9">The Night Café</a>"—had been confiscated from his great-grandfather, Ivan Morozov, a Russian industrialist and aristocrat, during the Communist takeover of Russia in the early 1900s. The 1888 painting was subsequently sold by the Soviet government to a European gallery. Stephen Carlton Clark, a Yale alumnus, bought the painting from a gallery in New York in the early 1930s and bequeathed it to Yale in 1961. In his suit, Mr. Konowaloff, who lives in France, accuses the university of engaging "in a policy of willful ignorance" that amounts to "art laundering," and asks the court to declare him the rightful owner. Aware of Mr. Konowaloff's intention to claim the painting, Yale filed a lawsuit of its own last March in federal court in New Haven. In its suit, Yale asserted ownership of "The Night Café," claiming that the nationalization of the painting by Communist Russia -- while at odds with capitalism -- did not violate international law. Yale stated in its lawsuit that "it was accepted at the time, as it is now, that the sales by the Soviet government were valid, as were later acquisitions of the paintings."</blockquote> In other words, rather than doing the right thing, Yale is claiming that the theft of personal property by the Soviets was OK by them. (While Yale is well known to have a culture far to the left and many of its leaders and faculty probably sympathize with communists, Hitler also "nationalized" the artwork and other property of individuals. Would Yale find those actions in accordance with "International law?" One can only wonder.) <div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrSXZnfYXp1v75BtZHvc3nSFhg2zA9wb0vwtvfwCd3Hji13Ohnq78KunpBqHyaVGrhA_qkzf5VYOPgy2Hogq-3ViaaG43moo04CMNqY-6Ux7xjF0UjZie76n0B_q1NDAJn4n_u5VVPV7Wv/s1600-h/the_night_cafe.jpeg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5345054562162009938" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrSXZnfYXp1v75BtZHvc3nSFhg2zA9wb0vwtvfwCd3Hji13Ohnq78KunpBqHyaVGrhA_qkzf5VYOPgy2Hogq-3ViaaG43moo04CMNqY-6Ux7xjF0UjZie76n0B_q1NDAJn4n_u5VVPV7Wv/s320/the_night_cafe.jpeg" style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 313px; height: 254px;" /></a>Van Gogh's "The Night Cafe" </div> Now, if this were a one-off event, it would not be as illustrative of a systematic ethical decay that I fear exists in the hallowed Ivy halls. However, Yale has recently been fined $7.6 million after an investigation by NIH, NSF, DOD and others into misuse of research money by faculty. I wrote about that event at "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/01/lux-et-veritas-or-trust-but-verify-yale.html">Lux et Veritas, or Trust But Verify? Yale discovers eDiscovery</a>", and the <a href="http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/powerpoint/csd5020.pps">powerpoint</a> from within Yale outlining the issues was eye-opening. Here is a synopsis of the outcome: <blockquote><a href="http://orda.siuc.edu/rm/36-02.pdf">Yale University Pays $7.6 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations</a> (PDF) —excerpted from U.S. Dept. of Justice press release, Dec. 23, 2008 Yale University has entered into a civil settlement agreement with the federal government in which it will pay $7.6 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act and the common law in the management of federally-funded research grants awarded to the university between January 2000 and December 2006. The grant awards were made by approximately 30 federal agencies and entities, including NIH, NSF, DOE, DOD, and NASA. The investigation focused on allegations involving two types of mischarges to federal grants. Both types of mischarges arose as violations of the basic principle that recipients of federal grants are allowed to charge to each grant account only “allocable” costs, which are costs that relate to the specific objectives of that grant project. The first allegation involved cost transfers and the requirement that costs transferred to a federal grant account must be allocable to that particular grant account. The settlement resolves allegations that some Yale researchers at times improperly transferred charges to a federal grant account to which those charges were not allocable. Researchers allegedly were motivated to carry out these wrongful transfers when the federal grant was near its expiration date and they needed to spend down the remaining grant funds. Federal regulations require that unspent grant funds be returned to the government. The second allegation involved salary charges and the requirement that charges to federal grant accounts for researcher time and effort must reflect actual time and effort spent on a particular grant. It was alleged that some Yale researchers submitted time and effort reports, for summer salary paid from federal grants, that wrongfully charged 100 percent of their summer effort to federal grants when, in fact, the researchers expended significant effort on unrelated work. Researchers allegedly were motivated to carry out these wrongful salary charges by the fact that they are not paid their academic-year salary by Yale during the summer. The only salary received by these researchers during the summer was the result of the effort they charged to federal grants. Absent the alleged grant mischarges, the researchers would not have been paid. The $7.6 million payment comprises two components: $3.8 million in actual damages for the false claims, and $3.8 million assessed as penalties for the false claims. </blockquote> Taxpayer money was used as they pleased until caught. What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine.<div> </div><div>Yale's clinical operations have seen federal investigation once before which I wrote about at "<a href="http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/failurecases/?loc=cases&sloc=Insufficient%20IT%20management">Insufficient IT Management Depth Results in Justice Dept. Investigation, Millions of Dollars in Fines</a>." That story was more about IT incompetence rather than malfeasance, however. I've had my own personal experiences with these "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine" property-rights attitudes at Yale. Perry Miller, Director of Informatics, Kenneth Kidd, Professor of Genetics, and Carolyn Slayman, Deputy Dean for Academic and Scientific Affairs, waged a rather one-sided and extortionary battle to misappropriate my intellectual property, a computer program I'd authored as faculty, assisted by a lawyer in Yale's Office of General Counsel -- who for good measure was in fact unauthorized to practice law in Connecticut at that time. Ex-colleague faculty Richard Shiffman "purged" me, Stalin style, by telling recruiters who called that I didn't exist - one of those recruiters, unfortunately for him, happened to be a <a href="http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/informaticsmd/protocol.jpg">detective I retained</a>. I wrote up the story in detail <a href="http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/failurecases/?loc=cases&sloc=%5Eyaleinf">at this site</a>. Dr. Kidd in particular was a principal in the now-defunct <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Diversity_Project">Human Diversity Genome Project</a> in which he and others promised indigenous tribes their genetic materials would not be misappropriated for others' gain and profit. (I found that position risible considering my circumstances. Kidd's research raised further issues as I wrote at "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2007/07/informed-consent-and-developing-snp.html">Informed consent, exploitation and developing a SNP panel for forensic identification of individuals</a>.") University officials right up to President Richard Levin (in the WSJ recently <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124425383780391015.html">lamenting the decrease in the value of Yale's endowment</a> from $24 billion to $17 billion), said they could do nothing to help me, even though I was being badgered for my software and actually blackmailed (through denial of confirmation of my training and faculty time at Yale to potential employers).<div> You would think a university with an endowment in the billions of dollars could have protected its own junior faculty from senior faculty predators, and you'd also think it could return a Van Gogh to the heir of a man who had it stolen by thugs who later murdered tens of millions of their own citizens.<div> </div><div>Ironically, when I was Yale School of Medicine junior faculty in Yale Center for Medical Informatics, I was charged with teaching postdoctoral fellows about NIH ethics guidelines. The tenured senior faculty I was working for just didn't have the time.</div><div> </div><div>Now, I may simply be a "disgruntled former Yale faculty member" after nearly having my career destroyed by these people in what was the most disappointing experience in my life, bar none, but the pattern of "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine" seems to be all too commonplace in Yale's case. From Bloomberg's coverage of the same Van Gogh story:<div><div><div> <div style="margin-left: 40px;"> <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aqq9FKuy9sk8">Yale Sued Over Van Gogh Work By Man Claiming to be Russian Heir</a> </div> <div style="margin-left: 40px;">June 4, 2009 By Cary O’Reilly </div> <div style="margin-left: 40px;"> </div> <div style="margin-left: 40px;">... Konowaloff’s claim is the latest litigation accusing Yale of improperly possessing artwork or historic artifacts. The Republic of Peru sued Yale in December seeking a collection of artifacts excavated from Machu Picchu and other sites by university scientists and researchers. </div> <div style="margin-left: 40px;"> </div> I'd written about Machu Picchu <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2007/07/informed-consent-and-developing-snp.html">here</a>: <blockquote>... Peripherally related in the scientific sense but perhaps closely related in the ethical and ideological sense, I've just discovered via a recent newspaper that Yale has some additional problems of late regarding property: "<a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/579/story/180105.html">Peru demands return of Machu Picchu treasures by Yale</a>", Miami Herald, July 25, 2007, by Tyler Bridges (now a Peruvian resident). Yale apparently went so far as to interpret the laws of a foreign nation, which is, of course, Yale's right as a sovereign entity, the People's Republic of Yale, it would seem: <blockquote style="font-family: arial;">Key documents include a 1912 Peruvian decree stating that Peru reserved the right to request the objects' return, and a 1916 letter that [Yale professor/explorer Bingham] wrote to the National Geographic Society about the artifacts from the 1914-15 expedition. ''Now they do not belong to us, but to the Peruvian government, who allowed us to take them out of the country on condition that they be returned in 18 months,'' Bingham wrote. Yale officials have said that Peruvian law in force in 1912 does not require the university to return objects from Bingham's expedition that year.</blockquote></blockquote> Perhaps less credible is this additional allegation from Bloomberg: <blockquote>... Yale and a secretive student society known as the Order of Skull & Bones were sued in February by the descendants of the 19th century Apache Indian warrior Geronimo. The family claims a group of Yale students may have stolen some of Geronimo’s remains in 1918 and taken them to Yale’s campus. The university denies the allegation and says it has no connection to Skull & Bones.</blockquote> Then there's Yale's <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110008051">Taliban Man</a> incident per John Fund at the WSJ. The former deputy foreign secretary of the Taliban was taken as a student at Yale in 2006 while at the same time the school blocked ROTC training from its campus and argued for the right of its law school to exclude military recruiters. I fear other Ivy universities also lack a sense of basic ethics, both at the individual faculty level and collectively, i.e., including the leadership. I'd written about the ghastly events regarding the Duke lacrosse team affair at "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/01/truly-disturbing-lawsuit-against-duke.html">A Truly Appalling Lawsuit Against Duke University</a>." Harvard Medical Schools's own ombud had written an article in JAMA in the late 1990's entitled "<a href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/3/216">Authorship: the coin of the realm, the source of complaints</a>", outlining the commonality of fights over IP between faculty and students, and admitted in a response to my <a href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/281/2/135-a">Letter to the Editor</a> that this could not be prevented by administration (which in my view translates to, "the administration's worse than the faculty in this regard.") Others at Healthcare Renewal and related blogs have written about ethical lapses at other major universities as well. In summary, if both the majority of the faculty as well as the administration of our major universities never learned as children about respecting others' property, and pass these attitudes along to future academics and future captains of industry, the bloggers will be unable to teach them very much. We will continue on a course of periodic academic and industry healthcare (and other) scandals of increasing scale, along with the wasted talent, resources and opportunity these scandals represent. -- SS</div><div> </div><div>Addendum: after such a grim report, I thought I'd throw in something pleasant. Here is a friend I feed at the nearby park, one of six, in fact, Mute Swan cygnets (babies). The parents like me so much, they've offered me food in return - lovely clumps of fresh tender grass, which to them is a delicacy:</div><div> </div><div> </div><div><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEih9VEKA4EPHbKAP_rYRLgo_L3UTXzuHBzr2iDzO9N_HJLh-TQ7IF5FgD6DDLUM2QUGPyW5OHmEHCSb21648a7m34yveSXK34niMUVNwKJAgh1VoJuVGmIT4h5KkCFPbYkpwwiQNX2hRse6/s1600-h/IMG_0482.JPG"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5345126862280228034" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEih9VEKA4EPHbKAP_rYRLgo_L3UTXzuHBzr2iDzO9N_HJLh-TQ7IF5FgD6DDLUM2QUGPyW5OHmEHCSb21648a7m34yveSXK34niMUVNwKJAgh1VoJuVGmIT4h5KkCFPbYkpwwiQNX2hRse6/s320/IMG_0482.JPG" style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 340px; height: 255px;" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;">Cygnus olor - click to greatly enlarge these adorable fuzzballs <div style="text-align: left;">It's a great picture, but it's not a Van Gogh. Since I once worked at Yale, however, let's hope they don't claim the photo is theirs. -- SS 6/10/09 Addendum: Remarkably, there is apparently someone in the health IT community who was offended by the posting of the photo of the cygnet I feed (done, of course, as "comic relief"), as I have been informed. One can only wonder if violations of intellectual property and civil rights by universities, or patent safety concerns by faulty EHR's cause equal offense. </div></div></div></div></div></div></div>

Yale, Van Gogh's "The Night Cafe" and Personal Property: What's Mine is Mine, and What's Yours is Mine

Đọc thêm »

08 Jun 2009

Load more posts