Northwestern Upholds its "Brand," Never Mind Free Speech and Academic Freedom

Threats to free speech and academic freedom in health care were a major concern when we started Health Care Renewal.  Such threats may now be less anechoic, but do not seem to have diminished.

Censorship and the Resignation of Alice Dreger

The latest example was at Northwestern University. The basics of the case appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Alice Dreger just resigned her position of 10 years as "a clinical professor of medical humanities and bioethics."

What prompted her departure was the fallout over an article by William Peace, who at the time was a visiting professor in the humanities at Syracuse University. Mr. Peace wrote an essay for an issue of the journal, Atrium, that Ms. Dreger guest-edited. The essay is a frank account of a nurse who helped Mr. Peace regain his sexual function after he was paralyzed.

According to Ms. Dreger, Eric G. Neilson, vice president for medical affairs and dean of the university’s school of medicine, tried to censor the essay. The essay is straightforward in its description of sex, and includes multiple mentions of 'the dick police,' but the purpose is to illuminate what went on in the era prior to disability rights and studies.

As Mr. Peace writes, the unconventional approach of the unnamed nurse 'injected a compassionate eroticism that made me a better man.'

In her letter, Ms. Dreger writes that the university allowed the essay to be published online only after she and Mr. Peace threatened to talk publicly about what they saw as censorship. She writes that she was 'disgusted that the fear of bad publicity was apparently the only thing that could move this institution to stop censorship.'

Now the essay is out there, for all to see, 'dick police' and all. So what does Ms. Dreger want?

She asked the university to acknowledge that attempting to remove portions of the essay was a mistake and to promise not to do so in the future. 'They never acknowledged that the censorship was real,' Ms. Dreger said in an interview. 'I wanted a concrete acknowledgment and assurance that my work would not be subject to monitoring.' That, she said, would have been enough for her to remain.

The idea that institutions must acknowledge wrongdoing is central to Ms. Dreger's academic work.

More details about university managers' alleged attempts to control the content of an academic journal emerged in an article in the local newspaper, that is, the Chicago Tribune.  The managers wanted to appoint their own oversight committee to control journal content.

The journal Atrium stopped publication after faculty objected to the new oversight committee, which [University spokesman Alan] Cubbage has described as 'an editorial board of faculty members and others, as is customary for academic journals.'

Note, however,  that editorial boards are usually appointed by journal editors, not managers or executives.

Also, as noted in an article in Inside Higher Ed,

Dreger, who guest-edited the 'Bad Girls' issue [in which the controversial article first appeared], said that soon after publication, medical school administrators asked Atrium’s editors to remove the essay from the web, because the content was considered inflammatory and too damaging to the new Northwestern Medicine 'brand.' (Northwestern Memorial Health Care recently acquired Northwestern’s Feinberg School of Medicine faculty practice and merged with Cadence Health to operate under the Northwestern Medicine banner.) The editor, another faculty member, refused to single out one article for censorship and took down the journal’s web archive instead.

Furthermore, the university administration's reaction to the publication of the article prompted another resignation,

The controversy prompted the resignation of Kristi Kirschner, a former clinical professor humanities and bioethics at Feinberg, in 2014. Kirschner, now an adjunct professor of disability and human development at the University of Illinois at Chicago, told Inside Higher Ed earlier this summer that the alleged censorship had a 'chilling effect, antithetical to the idea of the university.'

As for that "chilling effect,"

A university spokesman declined to comment on Dreger’s case on Tuesday, saying it was a personnel issue. He also declined to answer general questions about censorship or the status of Atrium, which recently had its funding reduced, causing the journal to be canceled.

Atrium’s editor, Katie Watson, an assistant professor of bioethics and medical humanities, declined an interview but said the funding cut was not related to the 'Bad Girls' issue or censorship.

She referred additional questions to a post she wrote for Peace’s blog, Bad Cripple, in June, in which she said that she was disappointed with Peace for taking certain details of the case public, and in which she confirmed that a university content oversight committee meeting had been 'disheartening.'

"[T]he medical school required me to allow a vetting committee to review my editorial choices and veto them if they were perceived to conflict with other institutional interests," Watson wrote.

So note that the allegations of censorship have come from at least three separate faculty members at Northwestern, and from the author of the censored article, a faculty member at another institution.  Furthermore, on university spokesperson has contradicted these charges.  

Previous Mysterious Events at Northwestern

Of further concern is that this case may be part of a pattern.

Two years ago we wrote (here and here) about another case, albeit mysterious and convoluted, at Northwestern in which a faculty member, Dr Charles Bennett, resigned after being accused of mismanaging the finances of a government grant.  However, although he was responsible for the scientific management of the project, university managers, nor Dr Bennet, were responsible for its finances.  While the university settled allegations of financial mismanagement, and a university staffer pleaded guilty to related charges, a university statement implied that it was mainly Dr Bennett's fault, per the Cancer Letter

'As the settlement makes clear, the covered conduct in the settlement involved allegations focused on Dr. Charles Bennett, and grants for which Dr. Bennett was the principal investigator,' Northwestern officials said in a statement.

In addition,

The statement was signed by Northwestern President Morton Schapiro, Provost Daniel Linzer, and Vice President for Medical Affairs and Dean of the Feinberg School of Medicine Eric Neilson.

Note that the Vice President and Dean Neilsen above was the same Dean who Prof Dreger accused of trying to censor her journal.

Suspicions were raised at that time that the treatment of Dr Bennett might have been somehow related to how he made himself unpopular by authoring research that suggested Aranesp, a blockbuster Amgen epoetin drug, was much more dangerous than it seemed.  The Cancer Letter had interviewed one of Dr Bennett's collaborators,

[Michael]  Henke confesses to wondering whether the many powerful enemies Bennett made in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have struck back.

'We shouldn’t feed paranoia,' Henke said. 'However, given the exclusively positive experience when collaborating with his group, makes me wonder whether this litigation might follow some very particular other issues.'

And recently the editor of the Cancer Letter, and the author of the above article, has been fighting subpeonas from Amgen intended to make him reveal his sources of negative information about Aranesp, (look here and here).

As far as I can tell, the questions I raised about the case of Dr Bennett (look here and here) have never been answered.

Nonetheless, the case of Prof Dreger has also been rather anechoic.  It was also covered by the Times of London Higher Education Supplement, and inspired comment from FIRE, but has otherwise not gotten national media attention, or any apparent coverage in medical or health care journals.  

Sometimes you may be paranoid, and sometimes someone may be out to get you.
Summary and Comments

So, to summarize, multiple sources suggested that top Northwestern Medicine leadership attempted to censor an academic publication edited and led by university faculty.  After publication of an article apparently controversial for its sexual content, but which likely also brought up valid issues about compassionate treatment of disabled patients versus traditional ethical concerns about boundary issues for health professionals, university leaders imposed an oversight committee which apparently was more concerned about the instiution's "brand" and other "institutional interests" than about free discussion of important health care issues.  The chilling effects of this attempt at censorship seemed to include resignations by two faculty members, and the demise of the journal.

Thus it appears that the managers were putting public relations and revenue concerns ahead of the fundamental academic values of free speech and academic freedom, thereby threatening these values.  In a post on Bioethics.net, Craig Klugman reminded us,

 According to the American Association of University Professors (1940):
'Academic freedom is essential to these purposes [the search for truth and its free exposition] and applies to both teaching and research. Freedom in research is fundamental to the advancement of truth.'

Cary Nelson, president of the AAUP and an English professor says that academic freedom:
'Gives both students and faculty the right to express their views — in speech, writing, and through electronic communication, both on and off campus — without fear of sanction, unless the manner of expression substantially impairs the rights of others or, in the case of faculty members, those views demonstrate that they are professionally ignorant, incompetent, or dishonest with regard to their discipline or fields of expertise.'

Even the American Society for Bioethics & Humanities, which is known for not taking positions on 'substantive moral and policy issues,' does take positions to support academic freedom and has done so in the past.

Since 1940, the notion of academic freedom has been a core tenet of university and faculty life. The idea was born in response to centralized governments telling researchers what they could and could not study and what they should and should not teach.

So free expression and academic freedom remain under threat in academic health care institutions. These threats seem in part to stem from managers' continuing inclinations to put commercial concerns ahead of the academic mission, perhaps fueled by prodigious amounts of money waved around by health care corporations looking to make their marketing appear more scientifically based.  These threats may be partially enabled by the anechoic effect, a sort of second order self censorship, so that cases of censorship are another kind of recent unpleasantness that get little public attention.

Students, health care professsionals, and faculty members who care about medical education and research ought to be asking some hard questions about the leadership of their organizations.  It looks like Northwestern students, trainees, and faculty members could have lots of questions to ask.

As we have said until blue in the face, true health care reform would enable leadership of health care organizations that upholds and is willing to be accountable for putting patients' and the public's health first, and leadership of health care academic organizations that also puts honest, transparent research and education ahead of commercial interests.   

11:35 AM

Childish, petty and vindictive: UPMC hospitals ban sale of Post-Gazette from their gift shops

Here's a new angle on how a healthcare organization might react to unfavorable press:

Ban the sale of the newspaper in question from their territory:

UPMC hospitals ban sale of Post-Gazette from their gift shops
June 24, 2015 12:00 AM

http://www.post-gazette.com/business/pittsburgh-company-news/2015/06/24/UPMC-hospitals-ban-sale-of-Post-Gazette-from-their-gift-shops/stories/201506240066

By Steve Twedt / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Some UPMC hospitals are banning the Post-Gazette from sale in their gift shops, a move UPMC spokesman Paul Wood said was precipitated by “fairness issues” in the newspaper’s coverage of the health system.

At least three UPMC hospitals -- UPMC Shadyside, UPMC Mercy and Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC -- say they will no longer sell the newspaper.

This seems simply retaliatory and in fact silly, as (at least hopefully) the newspaper will remain on sale in the rest of the city, as well as available online.  That is, assuming UPMC does not go on a vendetta against the newspaper, in its own in-house PR campaigns and mailings, in other media, or in the courts.

Twice in recent years, UPMC executives have canceled the health giant’s advertising in the PG, citing dissatisfaction with the way UPMC was covered in the news pages and how it was portrayed in editorials and editorial cartoons.

One wonders if UPMC has specifically identified false and inaccurate reporting.  Editorial cartoons are also standard fare for newspapers, and if they are not liked, the answer is written response, not banning IMO.

''The Post-Gazette is edited without regard to any special interest, and our news columns are not for sale, at any price,'' said John Robinson Block, publisher of the newspaper. ''We have been here since 1786, and have as our purpose the same goal that UPMC was established for -- to serve the public's interest, not a narrow purpose.''

As pointed out many times at Healthcare Renewal, the purpose of healthcare systems may not entirely be for serving the public's interests anymore.  Rather, they are serving the private interests of a small executive group who reward themselves handsomely for all being such uniformly superb, excellent and deserving managers.

As Roy Poses wrote at http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2015/02/outsize-compensation-for-teflon-coated.html, and elsewhere:

... As we have said before, in US health care, the top managers/ administrators/ bureaucrats/ executives - whatever they should be called - continue to prosper ever more mightily as the people who actually take care of patients seem to work harder and harder for less and less. This is the health care version of the rising income inequality that the US public is starting to notice.

Thus, like hired managers in the larger economy, non-profit hospital managers have become "value extractors."  The opportunity to extract value has become a major driver of managerial decision making.  And this decision making is probably the major reason our health care system is so expensive and inaccessible, and why it provides such mediocre care for so much money. 

Back to the newspaper:

... UPMC officials did not respond Tuesday to questions asking which specific stories they found objectionable.

Perhaps anything that does not read like PR from a large advertising firm painting the organization in the finest light, and editorial cartoons showing executive halos....

''We believe that our coverage of UPMC has been fair-minded in every respect,'' said David M. Shribman, the newspaper's executive editor. ''Every entity in every town feels aggrieved at some point by what a good newspaper writes. It's part of living in a free society where the exchange of news and information is prized, not punished.''

It's sad when newspapers have to state the obvious.

But health system officials have often criticized stories, editorials, and editorial cartoons published in the Post-Gazette in recent years, most frequently in its coverage of the ongoing contract battle with insurer Highmark and, in years past, about the health giant's real-estate holdings and its business practices.

The answer to free speech is more free speech.  Colleges and universities are painfully learning this lesson (e.g., see the website of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Eduction, FIRE, at https://www.thefire.org/).

I actually think a ban on selling the newspaper at UPMC facilities is childish.  UPMC executives seem a bunch of petty, vindictive crybabies for banning sale of the paper from their shops.

-- SS

4:26 AM

How the Anechoic Effect Persists: The Case of the Continued Punishment of Dr Elliott

We have frequently discussed the anechoic effect, how evidence and opinions that challenge the dysfunctional status quo in health care, and that might discomfit those in power in benefit from it, have few echoes.  One major reason for the anechoic effect is that people are afraid to speak up because thus disturbing the powers that be may have bad consequences for the speakers.   

A December 21, 2014 article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune updated an ongoing example of how the leaders of health care may seek to silence their critics.  The article updated the career trajectory of Dr Carl Elliott, a psychiatrist physician and bioethicist at the University of Minnesota who dared challenge the university's handling of the untimely death of a patient in a university run clinical trial.

Background - the Dan Markingson Case

We first blogged about this case in 2011.  The case itself dates from 2003, and first got media attention in 2008.  A good quick summary appeared in the Center for Law and Bioscience blog out of the Stanford Law School. 

Dan Markingson – a vulnerable, psychotic young man – was forced to choose between enrolling in a Pharma-funded drug study or being involuntarily committed (in other words, locked up).  A UMN [University of Minnesota]  doctor enrolled him in the study despite having just determined that Dan 'lack[ed] the capacity to make decisions regarding [his] treatment,' rendering it highly unlikely that Dan could have given valid informed consent to participate.  As Dan's mother, Mary Weiss, observed his mental condition deteriorating, she repeatedly tried to have Dan removed from the trial – at one point asking  'Do we have to wait until he kills himself or someone else before anyone does anything?'  But the UMN co-investigators in the drug study refused to terminate his participation.  Shortly after Ms. Weiss made her desperate plea, Dan Markingson killed himself by cutting his own throat.

Dr Elliott, an expert in bioethics who had concentrated on issues such as the effect of conflicts of interest and commercial influences on clinical research, started probing the death of Mr Markingson after the 2008 media reports.

Some of what Dr Elliott found appeared in a May 23, 2014 article in Science. He concluded that previous efforts to investigate the death of Mr Markingson were flawed.

 Elliott came to believe that every investigation—not only by FDA but also by the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice, the university's IRB, and its general counsel's office—had been flawed or incomplete. FDA did not seek Weiss's perspective, the views of Markingson's caseworker, or interview staff at the halfway house who had interacted with Markingson, for instance. (FDA would not comment on the Markingson case for this story.) Nor did the agency examine conflicts of interest. Weiss's lawsuit was dismissed not on its merits, but because the university's IRB and Board of Regents were deemed immune from liability thanks their role as state employees. (The judge did argue that informed consent was obtained appropriately, because Markingson had signed the consent form and had not been declared mentally incompetent by a court.)

Furthermore, he found reasons to think that the problems with the trial in which Mr Markingson died were not unique.  He and a colleague

heard from other individuals who insisted that they had been harmed in UMN psychiatric drug trials or had witnessed others' mistreatment. One man said he had worked in the psychiatric units of the hospital where Markingson was treated. Another identified herself as a counselor for teenagers. Elliott heard from parents, who said their son or daughter had enrolled in a study under pressure.

Thus, Dr Elliott and others concluded that the university should do a thorough investigation of the case,

In November 2010, eight faculty members, including Elliott and [McGill University bioethicist Leigh] Turner, wrote a letter to the university's Board of Regents, requesting an independent, university-commissioned investigation into the Markingson case.

The Punishment of a Dissident

As the Science article noted, former Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson said that the

university hired Elliott because it 'found him to be one of America's most outstanding bioethicists. The moment he comes up with something that is sensitive to them, he becomes the village idiot.'

In fact, as we noted in 2013, in a 2012 post in the Center for Law and Bioscience blog, not only did university officials rebuff the call for a new, thorough investigation of the untimely death of Mr Markingson, but the university general counsel, who had been operating at the heart of this case, appeared to threaten the leading bioethicist dissident, Dr Carl Elliott:

 After Carl Elliott, the University of Minnesota bioethicist, refused to drop the matter, [university chief counsel] Rotenberg asked the university’s Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee to take up the question of '[w]hat is the faculty[’s] collective role in addressing factually incorrect attacks on particular university faculty research activities?' – a question that appeared both to accuse Elliott of 'factually incorrect attacks' and to call for some unspecified action to 'address' them.  Other faculty, including the president of the Minnesota chapter of the American Association of University Professors, viewed this as an attempt to intimidate Elliott into silence.  If so, it backfired.  The story ended up in the press, putting the Markingson case back in the public eye and once again making the University of Minnesota look really bad.

The December 21, 2014 Star-Tribune article reported that university administrators seem to be out to get Dr Elliott once again. First, it interviewed the university's chair of psychiatry,

[Dr S Charles] Schulz, the department chair, says he can’t even bear to read Elliott’s published accounts anymore. 'It’s too painful,' he said.

Both he and Olson say that Elliott gives only one side of the story and that he ignores the facts that don’t support his case.

'I think [people] believe that because Carl Elliott is a professor of bioethics and a member of the Center for Bioethics, that he must be telling the truth,' said Olson. But 'he’s not pursuing this in an academic way. I don’t think it’s conduct that becomes a faculty member and a peer.'

What is not academic or unbecoming about investigating the death of a vulnerable psychiatric patient during a clinical trial is not clear. Then,

University officials have not been amused. They accuse Elliott of whipping up hysteria with 'false and unfounded' allegations, and undermining research efforts in the process. And while the university hasn’t tried to fire him, it has reprimanded him for 'unprofessional conduct,' a move that he’s now challenging under the tenure code.

Again, rather than investigating the death of Mr Markingson, or at least responding to specific allegations, university administrators have set about to punish their own distinguished faculty member who wondered why a vulnerable patient died during a university run clinical trial. 

Finally,

So far, academic freedom has protected Elliott’s job. But last winter, the university claims, he crossed a line. It accused him of using a 'fabricated letter' in a speech about the Markingson case at Hamline University and demanded that he issue a retraction.

The 2004 letter, addressed to Weiss, Markingson’s mother, appears to be from a university lawyer disputing her right to her son’s medical records. The U says it’s a forgery; Elliott says he doesn’t believe it, and he refused to issue a retraction. He called it an attempt to discredit Weiss, adding: 'I won’t be part of it.'

Elliott received a letter of reprimand in August from Dr. Brooks Jackson, the current dean of the Medical School, citing him for 'significant acts of unprofessional conduct.' The reprimand is on appeal.

The evidence that the letter was a forgery was not apparent.  Yet while they pursue their own faculty member for his investigation of Mr Markingson's death, university managers still apparently have not addressed the many problems in the university's version of the story of Mr Markingson's death, from the fragmentary nature of previous investigations to the problems just revealed in a Scientific American blog with the knowledge of an expert witness for the university in the lawsuit brought by Mr Markingson's mother against it.  

Summary

Dr Carl Elliott is a respected physician bioethicist who has uncovered problems with commercial contract research organizations doing human research (see our blog posts here and here), and has written a critically acclaimed book, White Coat, Black Hat (reviewed here by Dr Howard Brody on his blog.)  Yet his previous work counted for naught when he dared look into possibly unethical clinical research done at his own university.  As noted in the Star-Tribune article,

Within the U’s Center for Bioethics, where he has worked since 1997, he says the tension is so palpable that he dreads setting foot in his office. He does most of his work from coffee shops.

In my humble opinion, it appears that top university managers have put their personal interests ahead of the mission of their university, the role of their faculty members in upholding that mission, and even the welfare of patients who put their trust in the university's academic medical center.  The hard life that Dr Elliott has lead since he started to challenge his own university's administrators show how the anechoic effect is generated.  As long as leaders of academic medical institutions, and other health care organizations can put their own interests ahead of the mission, health care professionals and other academics who object are likely to have their lives made miserable, possibly lose their jobs, or worse.  How many will have both the courage, and the resources to stand up for what is right under such a threat.

True health care reform would turn leadership of health care organizations over the people who understand and are willing to uphold the mission of health care, and particularly willing to put patients' and the public's health, and the integrity of medical education and research when applicable, ahead of the leaders' personal interests and financial gain.

ADDENDUM (30 December, 2014) - Post corrected.  Dr Elliott trained as a physician but is not a psychiatrist.

ADDENDUM (30 December, 2014) - also see comments on the 1BoringOldMan blog. 

1:02 PM

Are Million Dollar Plus Business Trained Managers the Right People to Lead Health Care in the Time of Ebola?

You can guess my opinion on the answer.

Introduction

News and opinions about Ebola virus are swirling around the US, fueled by a tragic epidemic in West Africa, and fears that more infections could appear here.  On October 6, 2014, I posted my concerns that despite a tremendous amount of confidence expressed by government officials and health care leaders, our dysfunctional health care system might have trouble containing Ebola virus.  Less than two weeks later, my concerns do not seem so extreme.  The first patient to be diagnosed with Ebola virus in the US has died.  Two nurses who cared for him now have the virus.

There seem to be millions of words on paper and on the internet about Ebola appearing every day.  So I certainly do not want to try to deal with the problem in all its aspects.  I do want to revisit a particular set of issues from my October 6 post: the hazards posed by generic management deluded by business school dogma running health care institutions in the time of Ebola.  In particular, my focus is the management of the US hospital at which one patient died, and two nurses were infected, based on what has come out since October 6.

The Incoherence of Hospital Leaders

On October 6, we noted that the hospital, Texas Health Presbyterian, part of the Texas Health Resources hospital system, had issued conflicting and confusing statements about why the first Ebola patient, Mr Thomas Eric Duncan, was sent home from the hospital when he first presented.  The first specific statement by hospital managers was that there had been a problem with the hospital's electronic health record (EHR), as had been suspected by my fellow Health Care Renewal blogger, InformaticsMD.  Then the hospital retracted that statement, but provided no explanation with which to replace it.

Since then, there have been more inconsistencies in statements made by hospital managers.

Fever or No Fever?

First hospital managers said Mr Duncan arrived without a fever, but then review of his medical records indicated his temperature was as high as 103 degrees F while he was in the hospital, a fever high enough that it might reasonably have prompted admission given his other symptoms, even if Ebola was not a concern.  (See this Dallas Morning News story.)

Readiness for Ebola Patients?

Hospital managers assured the public they were ready for Ebola virus patients, e.g., in the Dallas Morning News story of September 30, 2014, 

When Ebola arrived, they were ready.

The staff at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas did a run-through just last week of procedures to follow if the deadly virus landed in Dallas.

'We were prepared,' Dr. Edward Goodman, an epidemiologist at Texas Health Presbyterian, said Tuesday in a news conference. 'We have had a plan in place for some time now in the event of a patient presenting with possible Ebola. We are well-prepared to deal with this crisis.'

Presbyterian said it is following recommendations from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Texas Department of Health in responding to the patient, described as being 'critically ill' at the hospital in northeast Dallas.

All precautions are being taken to protect doctors, nurses and others in the hospital, officials said.

Sadly, this statement soon seemed, as one politician once said, inoperative. an October 14 Washington Post article described how hospital health professionals had to essentially make up their procedures as they went along.

The hospital that treated Ebola victim Thomas Eric Duncan had to learn on the fly how to control the deadly virus, adding new layers of protective gear for workers in what became a losing battle to keep the contagion from spreading, a top official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Tuesday.

'They kept adding more protective equipment as the patient [Duncan] deteriorated. They had masks first, then face shields, then the positive-pressure respirator. They added a second pair of gloves,' said Pierre Rollin, a CDC epidemiologist.

Also,

He said the hospital originally had no full-body biohazard suits equipped with respirators but now has about a dozen. Protocols evolved at the hospital while Duncan was being treated, he said: 'Collecting samples, with needles, then you have to have two people, one to watch. I think when the patient arrived they didn’t have someone to watch.'

Worse, in the last 24 hours, there have been reports by anonymous people said to be nurses at Texas Health Presbyterian that the hospital was clearly not ready, per the Los Angeles Times,

The nurses' statement alleged that when Duncan was brought to Texas Health Presbyterian by ambulance with Ebola-like symptoms, he was 'left for several hours, not in isolation, in an area' where up to seven other patients were.  'Subsequently, a nurse supervisor arrived and demanded that he be moved to an isolation unit, yet faced stiff resistance from other hospital authorities,' they alleged.

Duncan's lab samples were sent through the usual hospital tube system 'without being specifically sealed and hand-delivered. The result is that the entire tube system … was potentially contaminated,' they said.

The statement described a hospital with no clear rules on how to handle Ebola patients, despite months of alerts from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta about the possibility of Ebola coming to the United States.

'There was no advanced preparedness on what to do with the patient. There was no protocol. There was no system. The nurses were asked to call the infectious disease department' if they had questions, but that department didn't have answers either, the statement said. So nurses were essentially left to figure things out on their own as they dealt with 'copious amounts' of highly contagious bodily fluids from the dying Duncan while they wore gloves with no wrist tape, flimsy gowns that did not cover their necks, and no surgical booties, the statement alleged.

'Hospital officials allowed nurses who interacted with Mr. Duncan to then continue normal patient-care duties,' potentially exposing others, it said.

In response, the official hospital statement (authored by one Wendell Watson, "a Presbyterian spokesman," according to the AP) contained vague assurances, but no specific responses to the allegations,

'Patient and employee safety is our greatest priority, and we take compliance very seriously,' the hospital said in a statement. 'We have numerous measures in place to provide a safe working environment, including mandatory annual training and a 24-7 hotline and other mechanisms that allow for anonymous reporting. Our nursing staff is committed to providing quality, compassionate care, as we have always known, and as the world has seen firsthand in recent days. We will continue to review and respond to any concerns raised by our nurses and all employees.'

So while hospital officials (and local and national politicians and government leaders) kept up reassuring statements that our sophisticated, high-technology hospitals were totally ready to deal with a disease like Ebola, the reality appeared far different. 

Other Inconsistencies

According to a USA Today story, other inconsistencies included hospital statements about the date Mr Duncan's diagnosis was confirmed, and whether or not the hospital was diverting ambulances.

Were Health Professionals Silenced?

Of course, given the suddenness of the arrival of Ebola in the US, the acuity of the first patient, and the general atmosphere of panic, initial confusion in public statements however critical the information they were meant to contain may be, is understandable.

However, there are now allegations that hospital management was not merely confused, but trying to keep critical information secret, and the allegations do not seem incredible.

In a Washington Post story on October 12, about how many US hospitals seem not well prepared for Ebola infected patients, appeared this from Bonnie Castillo, director of Registered Nurse Response Network, part of the union, National Nurses United,

Castillo said the union has been trying to contact nurses at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, where Thomas Eric Duncan, the Liberian man diagnosed with Ebola, died Wednesday.

'That hospital has issued a directive to all hospital staff not to speak to press,' Castillo said. 'That is a grave concern because we need to hear from those front-line workers. We need to hear what happened there. … They have them on real lockdown. There is great fear. This hospital is not represented by a union. Our sense is they are afraid to speak out.'

The Los Angeles Times story included,

The Dallas nurses asked the union to read their statement so they could air complaints anonymously and without fear of losing their jobs, National Nurses United Executive Director RoseAnn DeMoro said from Oakland.

The October 14 Washington Post story noted

the labor organization National Nurses United read a statement that it said came from nurses at the hospital who 'strongly feel unsupported, unprepared, lied to and deserted to handle their own situation.'

The AP story of October 15 stated,

The Presbyterian nurses are not represented by Nurses United or any other union. DeMoro and Burger said the nurses claimed they had been warned by the hospital not to speak to reporters or they would be fired.

The AP has attempted since last week to contact dozens of individuals involved in Duncan's care. Those who responded to reporters' inquiries have so far been unwilling to speak.

 Covering up information vitally needed by health care professionals, other institutions, the government, etc to better manage a potentially fatal disease that is already epidemic in other countries appears completely unethical.  Doing so to preserve the reputation of managers seems reprehensible.  But the implication of the recent stories is that is what happened. 

Why Hospital Managers May Not Deserve Our Trust

The US has had no recent experience with any disease like Ebola.  So that mistakes, sometimes very serious ones, were made in the management of the first Ebola patients is not a big surprise.
 
What may be a big surprise to many Americans is how untrustworthy health care leaders, and in particular the managers of Health Texas Presbyterian hospital and its parent system, Health Texas Resources now appear.  After all, USA Today published on October 14, "Texas Health Presbyterian was a respected, renowned hospital."  While even people at respected, renowned institutions make mistakes when confronted with sudden, unfamiliar problems, should not the institution's leaders at least be trusted to in their public pronouncements?

Instead, it appears that the leaders appeared tremendously overconfident, and worse, may have silenced employees from raising concerns that could have reflected badly on leadership.  This occurred in a context in which transparency was imperative so that other people who might have to deal with Ebola patients might be better prepared.


On the other hand, based on what we have been posting on Health Care Renewal for nearly 10 years, the conduct of the Texas Health Resources leaders should have come as no surprise.  On Health Care Renewal we have been connecting the dots among severe problems with cost, quality and access on one hand, and huge problems with concentration and abuse of power, enabled by leadership of health care organizations that is ill-informed, incompetent, unsympathetic or hostile to health care professionals' values, self-interested, conflicted, dishonest, or even corrupt and governance that fails to foster transparency, accountability, ethics and honesty. 

We have seen many examples of hospital executives who seemed vastly impressed by their own brilliance, egged on by board members who were themselves executives of other organizations, and by marketing and public relations functionaries dependent on these executives for their own career advancement.  In particular, we have posted examples of hospital CEOs and other top executives making millions of dollars a year based on their supposed "brilliance," or "visionary" capacity, at least according to the board members who supposed to be exercising stewardship over their institutions, and the public relations people they hired.  Such brilliance has often been asserted, but rarely been explained or justified  (The latest example was here, and much more discussion is here.)

Most such ostensibly "brilliant" hospital executives had no direct experience in clinical care, public health, or biomedical science.

Making hospital leaders feel entitled to make more and more money regardless of their or their institutions' performance seems to be a recipe for "CEO Disease," leading to disconnected, unaccountable, self-interested leaders.  Hospital leaders suffering from the CEO disease may be particularly willing to countenance suppression of any facts or ideas that might raise doubts about their brilliance.  

So the leadership of Texas Health Resources may in fact be very typical of that of large non-profit hospital systems.  THR is such a system.  A Dallas Morning News article about Mr Doug Hawthorne, the Texas Health Resources CEO who just retired in September, 2014, stated

In 1997, Doug Hawthorne helped reshape the health care industry in North Texas by leading the creation of Texas Health Resources, an alliance of Presbyterian Healthcare Resources, Harris Methodist Health System and Arlington Memorial Hospital.

By 2014,

 With more than 22,000 employees in fully owned and joint venture operations, Texas Health is one of the largest care providers in North Texas. For its 2012 fiscal year, it had $3.7 billion in total operating revenue and $5.3 billion in total assets.

For leading this system, Mr Hawthorne made a lot of money, although apparently no recent data is available on his compensation,

He was among the most highly compensated not-for-profit CEOs in the region. For 2012, the most recent information available, his base salary was about $1 million and his bonus was about $1.1 million.

It should be no surprise that to justify this compensation, Mr Hawthorne was proclaimed a visionary.  According to the Dallas/ Fort Worth Healthcare Daily, Mr Hawthorne was inducted in 2014 into the Texas Business Hall of Fame.  At that time, 

'A healthcare visionary, Mr. Hawthorne is at the helm of one of the largest faith-based, nonprofit health care delivery systems in the United States, Texas Health Resources,' the Hall said in a release announcing the induction.

Yet Mr Hawthorne had no direct patient care experience, public health experience, or biomedical or clinical science experience.  Mr Hawthorne is on the board of directors of the LHP Hospital Group Inc, a for-profit that provides capital and services to non-profit hospitals.  The official bio, posted by LHP stated his educational background only included

B.S. and M.S. degrees in healthcare administration from Trinity University in San Antonio.

Furthermore, as we mentioned earlier, the current CEO of Texas Health Resources, Mr Barclay E Berden, who has only been on the job since September 1, 2014, also was hailed by system board of trustees for his "unique leadership strengths."  His current compensation is unknown, but I would guess is likely over $1 million/year.  He highest degree is a MBA, and like his predecessor, had much experience in hospital management, but apparently none in clinical care, public health, or biomedical science. 

Summary

Texas Health Resources' recent CEOs have been paid millions, and hailed for their brilliance, despite a lack of any direct experience in health care, public health, or biomedical science.  Leaders convinced of their own brilliance may live in bubbles that prevent penetration of any ideas or facts that may challenge that brilliance, making them thus susceptible to hubris.

So should we have been surprised that the leadership of the first US hospital system to directly confront Ebola de novo seemed more concerned with polishing their supposed brilliance than with transparently providing the information that other people who have to confront Ebola in the future so greatly need?

No, but one tiny silver lining to the time of Ebola is that it may make it glaringly obvious that we need true health care reform that focuses on reforming the leadership of big health care organizations. In particular, we need leadership that is well-informed about health care and public health; that upholds the values of health care professionals, specifically by putting patients' and the public's health ahead of their own remuneration; is willing to be held accountable; and is honest and unconflicted.

Allowing the current dysfunction to continue, while it will be very profitable to the insiders who run the system, will continue to enable tragic outcomes for patients and the public.  

1:02 PM

Retrospective on the Blumsohn - Procter and Gamble -Sheffield University Affair: the Unhappy Lives of Whistleblowers and the Anechoic Effect

Introduction - the Unhappy Lives of Whistleblowers

The UK Times Higher Education Supplement just published a feature on the unhappy fate of academic, including academic medical whistleblowers.

Whistleblowers in universities can hit the national headlines for shining light on issues of public interest, only for their careers to end up in very dark places.

Some of higher education’s most prominent whistleblowers paint a bleak picture about the impact on their subsequent careers. They talk about being persecuted by colleagues after coming forward. But even after leaving their jobs, some believe they still suffer a legacy. One talks about being 'effectively blackballed' from ever working again in higher education.

For other whistleblowers, exile is self-enforced.

It is noteworthy that the graphic for the article showed a whistleblower with a ball and chain, but the ball is in the shape of a whistle.

Summary - The Blumsohn - Actonel - Procter and Gamble - Sheffield University Case

The article focused on the case of Dr Aubrey Blumsohn, which we discussed recently, and have posted about since 2005 (here).  For all relevant posts, look here.

The Times provided a good summary.  It is worth quoting it here, as a reminder of a very important case which has had far too few echoes.

[The] case began in 2002, when he was working in the research unit led by Richard Eastell, professor of bone metabolism at Sheffield. The unit was researching the effects on patients of Procter & Gamble’s anti-osteoporosis drug Actonel.

Blumsohn raised concerns about abstracts for conference papers submitted by P&G, under his primary authorship, but without the firm having granted him full access to the drug trial data.

His concerns were first raised with senior colleagues and then reported in Times Higher Education in 2005.

The data analysis for the research was carried out by P&G, which paid for the research and which did not release key data to Eastell and Blumsohn. According to Blumsohn, this prevented honest publication of research.

After coming forward, Blumsohn has previously said, his other research work was used as the basis for a series of research grant applications that Eastell sponsored and signed off for a PhD student, without acknowledging Blumsohn’s input and despite his objections.

In 2005, he told the university that he was speaking to the media after losing faith in its internal systems for dealing with such allegations. He was subsequently suspended and told by Sheffield that he could lose his job over alleged 'conduct incompatible with the duties of office', including 'briefing journalists' and 'distributing information, including a Times Higher article, to third parties with apparent intent to cause embarrassment'.

He later reached a settlement with the university and it dropped all disciplinary charges. However, he left the university in 2006.

Blumsohn says of what happened afterwards: 'I withdrew from medicine completely, I withdrew from academia and ultimately withdrew my medical registration as well.'

Given the impact on his career, does Blumsohn regret coming forward with his concerns? 'I had to do that,' he says. 'As a scientist, I couldn’t just go along with having my name attached to manipulated publications, based on secret data ghost-analysed by pharmaceutical companies.'

Could Sheffield have dealt with his concerns more effectively? 'I don’t know how Sheffield could have done better, or indeed how any medical school could have done,' Blumsohn replies.

He clarifies: 'The problem these days is that some parts of universities – most notably medical schools but some other parts as well – have so many conflicts of interest and financial imperatives guiding what they do, I’m not sure other universities would necessarily have behaved differently from Sheffield. When millions of pounds are at stake both in private fees for academics and university funding, and a pharmaceutical company is wanting you to dance, the pressure to go along and to get staff to remain quiet is overwhelming.'

A few comments are in order.  While universities appear to be places of free speech and open discussion, note that Sheffield apparently could punish Dr Blumsohn simply for talking to journalists, but particularly for simply saying things that might embarrass university leaders.  So university leaders wish not to be embarrassed seems to trump free speech and academic freedom.

Second, Dr Blumsohn rightly pointed out that the issue was really scientific integrity, not embarrassment.  He tried to stop what he perceived as manipulation of clinical research by a pharmaceutical company to support its vested interests in selling a particular drug.  Such manipulation threatened scientific integrity, and ultimately threatened patients' health.

Third, Dr Blumsohn also rightly pointed out in retrospect that what university managers really seemed to fear was not just personal embarrassment, but curtailment of money flows from industry to their institution that made them look good, and presumably become more wealthy.

Few Echoes in the Discussion of Whether the Former Procter and Gamble Executive on Whose Watch the Affair Occurred Should be US Veterans Affairs Secretary

As we discussed here, a top executive at Procter and Gamble whose remit at the time the affair occurred seemed to include Actonel and research related to it was nominated to run the US Department of Veterans Affairs, and hence the whole VA health system.  Only two blogs, including this one, raised the issue of the Blumsohn - Actonel - Procter and Gamble - Sheffield University affair as relevant.  There was no other public discussion of this connection.  The former Procter and Gamble executive was confirmed, and now runs the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Summary

This is another example of how leaders of big health care organizations remain unaccountable for their organizations' misdeeds.  The lack of any mainstream discussion of the Blumsohn - Actonel - Procter and Gamble - Sheffield University affair in connection to the VA nomination demonstrate the anechoic effect.  Even the most determined whistleblowers often do not get the public notice they deserve, and their revelations do not have the effects they ought to have, even after the whistleblowers have paid a very high price to try to spark public discussion.

So anyone thinking about trying to get public notice for some fact or issue that threatens the powers that be will think twice, both about the potential downsides to the whistleblower, and the potential ineffectiveness of these attempts.    

In the past two weeks, I have heard in confidence about three stories in which discussion of issues that might offend the powers that be, specifically, the leaders of big health care organizations, has been suppressed.  I am convinced that for every Dr Aubrey Blumsohn, there are dozens who are aware of deception, other unethical conduct, even crime and corruption that could harm patients and patient care, but are afraid to speak out.

Of course, as long as these issues remain hidden, the damage to patients and the public's health continues to be done.

We clearly need changes in public policy to protect whistleblowers and foster free speech about important issues in academics and health care.  We need health care professionals, health care researchers, health care policy makers, and those among the public who care about health care and health care need to organize to support free speech and academic freedom.  Otherwise, the anechoic effect will continue to befog all of health care.

Hat tip to Dr Carl Elliott writing for the Fear and Loathing in Bioethics blog.

11:31 AM

Health Care Academics' Unrest and Bad Health Care Leadership?

Last month we discussed a recent, large scale study of physician burnout, and wondered whether it would finally inspire some discourse about why physicians are really so upset.  In particular, we hypothesized,  based on some real, if limited data, that physician angst, dissatisfaction, burnout, etc may mainly be a response to the problems with leadership and governance of health care organization we post about on Health Care Renewal.

After that post, one of our scouts found a very interesting and relevant article from earlier this year which got little attention at the time, but deserves more.  [Pololi LH, Krupat E, Civian JT, Ash AS, Brennan RT. Why are a quarter of faculty considering leaving academic medicine? A study of their perceptions of institutional culture and intentions to leave at 26 representative U.S. medical schools. Acad Med. 2012; 87: 859-69. Link here.]

Study Design

This was a cross-sectional survey of faculty at 26 medical schools in the US, selected to be similar to the general population of medical schools in the country.  At each school, 150 faculty were randomly chosen stratified by sex and age, and then the sample was enriched to include additional minority faculty and women surgeons, for a total of 4578.

The faculty were sent a multi item survey to assess their perception of the organizational culture of their institutions, and asked about their intentions to continue in or leave their current positions and academic medicine.  Responses to each survey item were allowed to be from 1 = strongly disagree, to 5 = strongly agree.  The items on the survey were combined into various scales.  A number of items on the survey seemed to be related to issues we frequently discuss on Health Care Renewal.  These items ended up in three different scales, entitled Relatedness/Inclusion, Values Alignment, and Ethical/Moral Distress.  The survey items are listed below, grouped by issue, with the scales into which they were combined noted.

Issue: Mission-Hostile Leadership

Administration only interested in me for revenue   (Reverse coded) (Values Alignment)
Institution committed to serving the public (VA)
Institution's actions well-aligned with stated values and mission (VA)
Institution puts own needs ahead of educational/clinical missions (RC) (VA)
My values well-aligned with school's (VA)
Institution awards excellence in clinical care (VA)
Institution does not value teaching (RC) (VA)
Have to compromise values to work here (Ethical/Moral Distress)

Issue: Deceptive, Unethical Leadership

Felt pressure to behave unethically (Ethical/Moral Distress)
Need to be deceitful in order to succeed (EMD)
Others have taken credit for my work (EMD)

Issue: Generation of the Anechoic Effect by  Suppression of Free Speech, Academic Freedom, Dissent, Whistle-Blowing,

Feel ignored/ invisible (RC) (Relatedness/Inclusion)
Hide what I think and feel (RC) (R/I)
Reluctant to express opinion/ fear negative consequences (RC) (R/I)

So in summary, the survey contained quite a few questions about mission-hostile management, comprising nearly all of the Values Alignment scale, some questions about deceptive or unethical leadership, all in the Ethical/Moral Distress scale, and some about generation of the anechoic effect by suppression of free speech, academic freedom, dissent, and whistle-blowing, all in the Relatedness/Inclusion scale.

Results

The response rate was 52% (N=2381.)

Unfortunately, the article did not include the distributions of the responses to individual survey items, and only included the mean and standard error of the scale scores.  The values for the scales of most interest were:
Relatedness/Inclusion  3.56 SE= 0.022
Values Alignment  3.25 SE=0.028
Ethical/Moral Distress 2.36 SE=0.022

Note that the article did not address the degree individual items, especially those listed above, contributed to variation in the scale scores.


A small majority of faculty indicated their intentions to stay at their institutions (57%).  Of the remainder, 14% were considering leaving their school due to dissatisfaction, and another 21% were considering leaving academic medicine due to dissatisfaction.  The remainder were considering leaving due to personal/ family reasons or to retire.

The authors did complex multinomial logit modeling to assess the relationships among the various scales, demographic factors, and intention to leave.  Most relevant to us, Relatedness/Inclusion was significantly related to intention to leave the institution due to dissatisfaction (Coefficient -0.69, p lt 0.001, OR =0.50), as was Values Alignment (-0.39, p=0.04, OR=0.68), but not Ethical/ Moral Distress.  Furthermore, Relatedness/Inclusion was related to intention to leave academic medicine due to dissatisfaction (-0.48, p lt 0.001, 0.62), as was Ethical/Moral Distress (0.60, p lt 0.001, OR =1.82). The article did not address whether individual survey items, including those of most interest listed above, were related to intention to leave.  The article also did not address whether responses to the survey or intention to leave varied across faculty characteristics, medical school characteristics, or individual medical schools. 

Summary and Comments

This very large survey of faculty from multiple US medical schools showed that more than one-third were considering leaving their institutions or academic medicine due to dissatisfaction, indicating a striking prevalence of faculty distress.  Their responses to questions about perceived organizational cultural and leadership problems, including those possibly related to leadership's perceived hostility to the mission, leadership's perceived dishonesty or unethical behavior, and leadership's suppression of dissent, free speech, academic freedom, and whistle-blowing were related to their intentions to leave due to dissatisfaction.

These results suggest the hypothesis that much of faculty angst may be due to the sorts of problems with leadership and hence organizational culture that we discuss on Health Care Renewal.  Since this was a cross-sectional survey, it certainly does not offer scientific proof of this hypothesis.  Note that there is other evidence from numerous cases discussed in Health Care Renewal, qualitative studies and our much smaller study published only in abstract form that also supports this hypothesis (look here). 

One part of the author's discussion of their findings was particularly relevant:

Our findings are congruent with metaanalyses of 25 years of organizational justice research outside medicine. These studies suggest that employee perceptions of organizational justice and an ethical climate are related to increased job satisfaction, trust in leadership, enhanced performance, commitment to one’s employer, and reduced turnover.

 The scale of ethical/moral distress (see Table 1) reflects reactions to the prevailing norms and possible erosion of professionalism and increased organizational self-interest. There is a growing belief that organizations influence and are responsible for the ethical or unethical behaviors of their employees.To our knowledge, faculty perceptions of 'moral atmosphere' and 'just community' embedded in our survey have not been previously investigated in academic medicine, even though the ethical concepts of professionalism and justice can be used to guide the pursuit of excellence in the missions of medical schools. Several scholars have called for academic medicine to attend to its social justice and moral mission. Faculty perceptions
of organizational justice are pivotal to the critical issue of professionalism in medicine. The ethical/moral distress scale in the survey reported here included items such as 'the culture of my institution discourages altruism' and 'I find working here to be dehumanizing.' (See Table 1 for other items in this scale.) In that ethical/moral distress was more strongly related to intent to leave academic medicine entirely than intent to leave one’s own institution, these negative feelings among faculty must be particularly disheartening to them and may color major career decisions.

I believe that the study by Pololi et al adds to the evidence that physician distress is a symptom of a dysfunctional system in which major health care organizations have been taken over by leaders more devoted to self-interest and short-term revenue than the values prized by health care professionals and academics.  This applies obviously to academic medical institutions, but also to other organizations that might have been expected to defend such professional and academic values, such as professional associations, accrediting organizations, and health care foundations.  As we said before, if physicians really want to address what is making them burned out and dissatisfied, they will have to regain control of their own societies, organizations, and academic institutions, and ensure that these organizations put core values, not revenue generation and providing  cushy compensation to their executives, first.  

12:34 PM

A Blogger That Dares Not Speak His University's Name

Dr Douglas Bremner is a Professor of Psychiatry and Radiology at Emory University, and Director of the University's Clinical Neuroscience Research Unit. He has also written a book critical of the pharmaceutical industry (Before You Take That Pill), and writes a blog (also called Before You Take That Pill) that is also skeptical about certain aspects of current psychiatric dogma. Inside Higher Education reported that Emory University can apparently no longer bear to have its name mentioned in Dr Bremner's blog:

Emory University has been accused repeatedly over the last year of looking the other way while one of its prominent physicians built extremely close ties to the pharmaceutical industry and -- critics charge -- failed to adequately report those ties as required by university and federal regulations.

But what if you are an Emory professor who happens to differ with the pharmaceutical industry? Then, it appears, Emory watches you closely -- and if you are a blogger, the university can tell you that you must remove the Emory name from your Web site. That's why a recent post on the J. Douglas Bremner's blog Before You Take That Pill is called 'I Am Removing the Name of My University From This Blog.'

In the post, he notes that he was recently ordered to remove the Emory name both by the interim chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, and by the medical school's executive associate dean for faculty affairs. In the letters, which he provided to Inside Higher Ed, they tell Bremner to remove Emory's name, logo and letterhead from his blog because none of them can be used for 'non-Emory business.' He was also told to report on when he had removed Emory from his blog.

The letters cite complaints that the university received about a blog post Bremner made in January in which he criticized the eviction of a man with bipolar disorder who was being forced out of his apartment for smoking. Bremner made his point in the form of a mock letter 'To Whom It May Concern' giving his blessing for the man to continue to smoke. According to Bremner's Emory superiors, complaints they received suggested that he was making 'clinical recommendations for a patient you do not know and have never examined,' and these postings made them feel the need to tell him to stop using the Emory name.

And even more concerning:

Sarah E. Goodwin, director of media relations for Emory Health Sciences, said that Emory's objection to the use of its name in non-official places was 'across the board' and not related to the content of Bremner's blog. When told about other blogs or Web sites where Emory professors' university affiliation was noted on non-Emory business, she said she didn't know why that was the case but insisted that the ban was 'across the board.'

She noted that Bremner has been 'blogging for some period of time,' and that 'if you read it over a long period of time, you can see comments he makes that may be of concern.' She declined to identify those comments.

So there you have it. It appears that faculty members, even senior faculty at Emory who make comments "that may be of concern" to an Assistant Vice President for Health Sciences, and Director, Media Relations, are not supposed to identify themselves as Emory faculty. This is the sort of policy one might expect from certain corporations. But Emory is a university. It proclaims it

is an inquiry-driven, ethically engaged and diverse community whose members work collaboratively for positive transformation in the world through courageous leadership in teaching, research, scholarship, health care and social action.

It proclaims its strategic plan is entitled:

Where Courageous Inquiry Leads

We can see where courageous inquiry leads at Emory. It leads to University executives attempting to censor faculty blogs when they included "concerning" remarks. As Inside Higher Education noted, Emory executives have not attempted to have other faculty bloggers remove references to the University, or to the bloggers' faculty status from their writing. Presumably, those bloggers were more politically correct.

We have often written about the suppression of medical research that is now a plague upon medicine, and the most dire threat to the evidence-based medicine approach. The research most likely to be suppressed is that which offends vested interests, particularly vested interests in selling particular health care goods or services. On the other hand, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for years has been fighting to uphold free speech and academic freedom on campus, but has mostly dealt with threats to politically or socially unpopular speech.

This case seems to blend these these different kinds of threats to free speech and academic freedom. It once again shows how elite universities increasingly are run like for-profit corporations, putting the prerogatives of managers ahead of the individual rights of faculty and students, and putting the mission of the university, to discover and disseminate the truth in the spirit of free enquiry, in the trash.

Dr Bremner's own comments in his blog are here. He concluded that Emory managers were "thinking more like a corporation than a university, where the free exchange of ideas, regardless of the perceived value or political correctness of those ideas, is held to the highest standard."

See also comments by Prof Margaret Soltan in the University Diaries.

ADDENDUM (15 July, 2009) - Emory has backed down, and will once again allow Dr Bremner to identify himself as a faculty member. See this post by Dr Bremner, and this post on The Torch (the FIRE blog).

12:26 PM

The "Investment Bankers" Strike Back: A Dissident is Thrown Off the Dartmouth Board

We have posted frequently on the governance and leadership of academic medical organizations. While one would think that health care organizations, and especially academic health care organizations ought to be held to a particularly high standard of governance, we have noted how their governance is often unrepresentative of key constituencies, opaque, unaccountable, unsupportive of the academic and health care mission, and not subject to codes of ethics. How the governance of organizations with such exemplary missions and sterling reputations got this way has been unclear.

We have often come back to the example of Dartmouth College, of which Dartmouth Medical School is a significant component. We most recently summarized here an ongoing dispute about the extent that the institution's board of trustees ought to represent the alumni at large, or instead, ought to be a self-elected body not clearly accountable to anyone else. When we first addressed the dispute, we noted that the self-elected, or "charter" members of the board were mostly leaders in finance, and when they succeeded increasing the proportion of self-elected members, the additions were again, mainly from finance.

The latest development at Dartmouth is that the board, whose majority is now self-elected, is going to boot off one of the few members who was elected by the alumni at large after being nominated by petition of alumni. As described in an editorial in the college newspaper, The Dartmouth,

We were dismayed to learn of the Board of Trustees’ decision not to reelect Trustee Todd Zywicki ‘88 for a second term ('Board votes not to reelect Zywicki ‘88,' April 7). Even in the wake of Zywicki’s open letter to the Dartmouth community on Tuesday ('Zywicki ‘88 criticizes Board in open letter,' April 15), the Board has yet to provide the Dartmouth community with a sufficient explanation for the removal.

Since 1990, when the power to reelect alumni trustees was transferred from alumni to the Board itself, reappointment to the Board for a second term has generally been routine; Zywicki is the first trustee in recent history to be denied reelection.

Zywicki said in his letter that comments he made during an address at the John William Pope Center in October 2007 'might have been' one of the reasons behind the Board’s decision. In the address, Zywicki made a series of controversial and inflammatory statements, including calling former College President James Freedman 'truly evil.'

Assuming that no egregious act remains undisclosed (and there has been no indication that this is the case), Zywicki’s removal disregards the will of the alumni who put him on the Board, and contradicts the democratic manner in which alumni elect trustees.

Dissenting opinions are essential to the operation of any governing body. While Zywicki may have behaved unprofessionally, the public reprimand issued by the Board was sufficient punishment. It is one thing to reprimand a trustee for making statements against the College in a public forum, but to remove dissenting opinions from the boardroom is to undermine the will of the alumni who voted in support of those very views.

Further news coverage in The Dartmouth suggested a flawed process was used to get rid of Zywicki,

Trustee T.J. Rodgers '70, who like Zywicki was nominated to be a candidate for the Board via petition and was successfully reelected at the April meeting, compared the reelection process to a 'witch-hunt trial' and said it was 'an affront to due process' in an e-mail to The Dartmouth.

'[Zywicki] was ejected by a secret vote — he was not allowed to know the vote count or even the reasons behind his ejection,' Rodgers said in the e-mail.

Rodgers added that he believes the decision not to reelect Zywicki was 'an embarrassment for the Board.'

'The effect of Todd’s ejection has been to warn me and any other trustee likely to speak his or her own mind to watch our step,' he said in the e-mail.

Finally, Mr Rogers wrote his own commentary in The Dartmouth,

'Hang one, warn a thousand' says the ancient Chinese proverb. In its April meeting, the Dartmouth Board of Trustees hanged Todd Zywicki '88, thus warning the petition trustees — and any others tempted to express independent views — not to cross the party line. The Board’s action was coldly deliberate. The legal machinery by which it was achieved took two years to construct.

Every 20 years or so, when a majority of the alumni body decides that the College is ignoring a critical problem, it elects petition trustees to promote change. That tradition, a healthy method of governance that sets Dartmouth apart, goes back to 1891, when alumni were formally granted one-half of Dartmouth’s Board seats in return for financing the College.

[After Rogers' election,] Subsequently, the alumni elected three more petition trustees with views similar to mine: Peter Robinson ‘79, Todd Zywicki ‘88 and Stephen Smith ‘88. It was no accident that each of them was a university professor or scholar. The Board Majority, predominantly composed of investment bankers, could have benefitted greatly from the new trustees’ education-first viewpoint, but instead, we were treated as if we were attacking the College. We were actually called a 'radical cabal' trying to 'hijack' the College by the Board member whose seat I had taken. The petition trustees had successfully overcome the penny-ante counterattacks, such as denying us the ability to mail our petitions to alumni to request signatures, and raising the required number of petition signatures, so it came time for the Board Majority to fix the petition trustee 'problem' permanently.

First, the Majority Board members simply declared the right to double their number from eight to 16 without adding an equivalent number of alumni trustees, despite an Association of Alumni poll of 4,000 alumni, who responded in favor of alumni trustee parity, 92 percent to eight percent. Then, the Majority threw its weight and College funds into a campaign to remove the Association leaders who had sued the College for breaking the 1891 Agreement.

In the boardroom, the Majority rewrote the 50 year-old Trustee Oath into an oath of loyalty, which was designed, in part, to limit trustees’ ability to express dissenting viewpoints without the direct threat of being ejected from the Board. And finally — fatally for Todd Zywicki — the Majority installed a formal review process that judged trustees against the new oath on a line-by-line basis.

On the day of his trial, Zywicki was asked if he wanted to make a statement. He apologized again for his Pope Center speech and exited. In order to maintain the confidentiality of board proceedings, I cannot give details. However, I can say from personal knowledge that many of the statements made in that meeting about Todd Zywicki were factually incorrect, but Todd was not there to respond. In my opinion, all of the issues, including his speech, did not rise to the level of negating the votes of the alumni who elected Todd. Despite my objection, the vote — for the only time in my five years on the Board — was secret.

Todd Zywicki’s greatest achievement as a Dartmouth trustee may well be having the personal courage to force the Board Majority to take responsibility for a political lynching.

Since I started writing about the governance of health care organizations, I used the example of Dartmouth (again, really a university with a medical school as a major component) as an example of governance that was more representative and accountable than that of many other health care organizations. Most universities that contain medical schools, for example, do not allow alumni to vote on the membership of more than a few board seats, and most only allow them to vote for alumni candidates hand-picked by the administration, not nominated by alumni petitions. However, since I started writing about Dartmouth, it seems that the self-elected majority of its board has done its best to make the board less representative and less accountable. Furthermore, it seems that some of the board's self-elected members regard anyone who disagrees with them as an enemy of the institution. Thus, their attitude seems to be: "l'universite c'est moi."

However, the duties of boards of trustees include the duty to uphold the institution's mission, not the board members' personal whims.

When I first started writing about these issues, I was surprised to find that the majority of the Dartmouth's boards self-elected, that is, "charter" trustees were from the finance sector. Now, having seen poor, sometimes arrogant, greedy, or even corrupt leadership of that sector bring down the world economy, I ask again whether people brought up in that culture ought to be dominant among the leadership of higher education?

2:34 PM

The Political Incorrectness of Discussing Conflicts of Interest in Medical Academia

From today's Boston Globe,

Tufts University has withdrawn an invitation for a top aide to US Senator Charles E. Grassley to give the keynote speech at a conference on conflicts of interest in medicine and research, leading one conference organizer to pull out and question the university's commitment to academic freedom.

The University-wide Committee on Ethics rescinded the invitation on March 13, according to e-mails obtained by the Globe. The messages said top Tufts officials refused to allow other administrators to be panelists at the meeting if Grassley's aide spoke, saying it was inappropriate to do so while Grassley is investigating ties between a Tufts professor and the drug industry.

The senator, a Republican from Iowa, sent a letter on Feb. 17 to the president of Tufts, Lawrence S. Bacow, requesting detailed information on the relationship between a 'Dr. Boucher' and the pharmaceutical industry, including the amount and dates of all industry payments between January 2006 and December 2008. Dr. Helen Boucher is an infectious diseases specialist at the Tufts medical school.

Spokeswoman Christine Fennelly first said in an e-mail that when Grassley declined the invitation, 'it was decided to refocus the symposium on a smaller scale, where the panelists would be faculty from Tufts University and affiliated faculty from Tufts Medical Center.'

Later, when told that Krimsky's e-mails explicitly said the speaking offer was rescinded, she said the invitation to Grassley's aide had been withdrawn. 'Indeed . . . the administration felt it prudent to not engage someone from the Senator's office while we respond to the Senator's inquiry,' she wrote.

One only has to browse the FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) web-site to see the sad state of free speech and academic freedom in American universities. Most of the cases they discuss seem to involve barriers to presenting politically incorrect viewpoints on campus. FIRE has presented several cases involving dis-invitation of speakers with such views.

On the other hand, on Health Care Renewal we have discussed our share of cases involving free speech and academic freedom in academic medicine. Most of these cases seem to involve barriers to presenting research results that turn out unfavorable to vested financial interests, particularly interests served by the promotion of particular health care products, like drugs or devices, or services.

This case appears to be something of a hybrid. Like a number of cases discussed on the FIRE web-site, it involves the dis-invitation of a campus speaker whose viewpoint might not fit with that of the powers that be on campus. However, instead of causing offense because of his political positions, Mr Thacker seemed to cause offense because he has been involved in investigating conflicts of interest affecting medical academics. Thus, it seems that discussing such conflicts of interest has become politically incorrect. This seems to be a fairly blatant instantiation of the anechoic effect.

See also comments by Dr Daniel Carlat on the Carlat Psychiatry Blog.

ADDENDUM (31 March, 2009) - also see comments on the Effect Measure Blog.

1:15 PM