… in the Minneapolis Star Tribune notes that the most charitable description of what’s been going on at the clubby University of Minnesota medical school would be “bizarre.”
Saturday, February 12, 2011
More Denial at the
University of Minnesota
Academic Health Center/Medical School
over Homeopathy
I wrote a piece which appeared on the Brainstorm blog at the Chronicle of Higher Education that apparently caught the attention of someone in the university administration. For background, please see:
Drs. Frank Cerra and Aaron Friedman sent a response that I was happy to post and include in full below. Please note that it does not even mention the topic of my original post which was homeopathy. I think this says about all that needs to be said by me.
Guest Post:
Dr. Frank Cerra, former Vice President, University of Minnesota Academic Health Center and Medical School Dean
Dr. Aaron Friedman, Vice President, University of Minesota Academic Health Center and Medical School Dean
In a February 4, 2011 blog post-turned-editorial, University of Minnesota associate professor Bill Gleason openly questions why a University with an evidence-based medical school would dedicate resources to a Center for Spirituality & Healing (CSH).
We thought that was an excellent question, so are pleased to have an opportunity to respond.
The Center for Spirituality & Healing was established in 1995 during a period of time when medicine and the health professions in general were coming to terms with the idea that what we don’t know about improving human health is far greater than what we do know within the confines of our traditional, Western-based practice. The original concept was to develop a program that provided faculty, students, and the community with an entry point to what’s now called integrative medicine, or integrative health care.
Since its inception in 1995, the Center for Spirituality & Healing has helped push health care forward. Students have been and continue to be one of the major drivers for the growth of CSH by crossing disciplines to expand their field of study and adding integrative medicine insight to their scope of study. The Center’s growing number of faculty educates health professionals on new models of care and positions consumers at the center of their health care. Most importantly, the Center helps patients more effectively navigate the health care system, a benefit to any health provider.
The field of health care is undergoing profound change. Today, patients more frequently combine a complementary treatment approach to traditional therapies. They’re also taking a more active role in the health care decisions that impact them and to do so, are seeking care from providers who are able to safely and effectively integrate these two types of therapies. Such a shift is an asset – not a threat – as we look to treat the entire patient.
The operating principle of the CSH is to have an evidence-based approach to complementary approaches to health, and also to promote comparative, evidence-based research between complementary and traditional therapies—knowledge that providers need to best serve the patients coming to them for integrative care. So in charging the University with wasting its resources in supporting the CSH, Gleason couldn’t be further from the truth.
In actuality, only a small percentage of the Center’s funding comes from University resources. The rest, it earns through tuition revenue, philanthropic gifts, and extensive research funding. Integrative medicine is an internationally recognized area of study, including by the National Institutes of Health, and our CSH has been very successful in competing for NIH funding.
For all of these reasons, the CSH is a great investment with incredible returns. In fact, for every University dollar invested in the CSH, it leverages such funding to generate ten more dollars. If all University Centers, Institutes, and faculty functioned as efficiently or as productively as the CSH, our University would be on very solid footing indeed.
The University of Minnesota’s Center for Spirituality & Healing was founded on the assumption that Western medicine may not have all the answers. In 2011, what we don’t know about improving human health still exceeds that which we do know. Perhaps this will always be the case.
But either way, it would be the height of arrogance to think that one line of thinking could possibly supply every brush stroke needed to complete the overall scene.
In its short 15 year tenure, the CSH has established a model curriculum, hired faculty, and developed a graduate minor as well as a post-baccalaureate certificate program. And for 15 years, the Center for Spirituality & Healing has enriched health and well-being by providing high-quality interdisciplinary education, conducting rigorous research, and delivering innovative programs that advance integrative health and healing.
We look forward to discovering what the next 15 years holds for not just our Center, but the field of integrative medicine as a whole.
It’s critical to remember that our University is a state-wide resource and its mission is to serve the whole patient, the whole state, and the nation.
Comments - so far - on the Chronicle post:
"Maybe the university decided that its financial situation required it to restructure some departments. Did you check to see whether Cultural Studies was merged with pharmacology?"
"Drs. Cerra and Friedman are blowing smoke. Homeopathy has already been studied and found to be without effect. Their response is a perfect example of PR doubletalk."
"What exactly is “Spirituality”? Do the smoke blowing Drs. actually know?"
A wonderful detailed response: (emphasis mine)
Diane Auer Jones - vice president for external and regulatory affairs for the Career Education Corporation - comments:
To which, there were of course rejoinders:
and
A wonderful detailed response: (emphasis mine)
Bravo to the University of Minnesota for the very responsible work they are doing to train physicians to consider the patient as a whole person rather than little more than the vessel for the arthritic knee or cancerous prostate. Whether or not homeopathy “works” isn’t the right question to ask. Chemotherapy doesn’t “work” for curing bronchitis in the same way that antibiotics don’t “work” for curing viruses. What we should be asking – and it seems that UofM is – is for what conditions does homeopathic treatment work or work best, and in combination with what other therapies (allopathic, spiritual, etc) does it achieve the best result? It may be that homeopathic remedies work as outstanding stand-alone treatments for some conditions and as complementary (to allopathic) treatments in others. Science has not answered all of the questions about when, how and why alternative (to allopathic) therapies work, but it certainly has not produced any results that would suggest it is a waste of time or money to explore the potential of homeopathic medicine. That homeopathic remedies are inexpensive and have few associated side effects (some remedies make those who are lactose intolerant a bit gassy) should make them the focus of lots of research.
What if homeopathy, acupuncture or spirituality could reduce the cost of health care delivery and produce, for some diseases, equal or better outcomes? Oh, that’s right – it would crumble the hierarchy and challenge the dominance of the current leaders, potentially shifting the power to another. I guess when you can’t show results to prove that your way works best, the best you can do is hack away at the other person’s work. Are the negative commenters afraid that if homeopathy works, you could quickly find yourself out of that job that Harvard medical trained you to do so well? Or are you just worried that the NIH might favor work other than your own when making allocations of scarce resources? Is it just that you don’t want more horses at the tough?
I don’t think anyone is saying that homeopathy, alone, could cure cancer, but perhaps homeopathy could make chemotherapy more effective, or minimize the side effects so that we could use a more aggressive regimen of chemotherapeutic treatment.
Why is it that science is called “junk” science when the findings are counter to mainstream scientific thinking or when one brave soul stands up to challenge his or her peers? Shouldn’t those experts in non-biased empiricism start practicing at least a little of what they preach and hold ALL research findings to an equal level of scrutiny? Have you ever thought about just how much “real” science that is published by mainstream journals turns out to be “junk” science in the end? That, alone, is evidence that peer reviewers are far too lax in criticizing papers that reinforce, rather than challenge, their world view.
Sadly, science has become its own form of religion. In a very odd twist of fate, it is now the scientific community, not the church, that is creating its very own set of modern-day Galileos.
To which, there were of course rejoinders:
Daujones asks: “Have you ever thought about just how much “real” science that is published by mainstream journals turns out to be “junk” science in the end? That, alone, is evidence that peer reviewers are far too lax in criticizing papers that reinforce, rather than challenge, their world view.”
Of course, it’s a serious concern – but that doesn’t make rigorous testing of scientific hypotheses a waste of time, or suggest that those that ROUTINELY FAIL rigorous testing – such as homeopathy’s therapies – should be embraced. There are no discovered conditions in which homeopathy “works” in any way that is different from placebo effects. You may be waiting for that one magical study in which a homeopathic “drug” (which is chemically identical to pure water) actually and unambiguously cures a disease, but you may also be waiting for Santa Claus.
Daujones continues: “What if homeopathy, acupuncture or spirituality could reduce the cost of health care delivery and produce, for some diseases, equal or better outcomes? Oh, that’s right – it would crumble the hierarchy and challenge the dominance of the current leaders, potentially shifting the power to another.”
Very entertaining. Ann Landers used to get letters from people in the 1960s saying that they heard that doctors could cure cancer if they wanted to, but then they’d lose the bulk of their income. It echoed earlier, 19th century concerns – from doctors – that if the “germ” theory of disease turned out to be true, medicine might actually cure disease and doctors would lose the substantial income they derived from treatment of wealthy patient/clients. Medicine persists along its trajectory despite these fantasies.
And the “what if” argument is always a great one. “What if we could find a way to persuade the health fairy to visit whenever we asked, and then those bullying Harvard Med guys that daujones mentioned would be sorry….” What if, instead, we invested our scarce resources in research and development in areas of medical research that have shown real promise?
The “patient as a whole person” is fine. George Engel argued persuasively for that in his famous 1977 article “The New For a New Medical Model”, and Mack Lipkin wrote his book “The Patient as Person” (also 1977), which became a mainstay of medical education for a while. Nothing wrong with that; clinicians embrace it. But that is a different issue, I’m afraid.
Daujones ends “Sadly, science has become its own form of religion. In a very odd twist of fate, it is now the scientific community, not the church, that is creating its very own set of modern-day Galileos.”
Well, no – religion, as a matter of definition (See Edward Tylor) relies on a belief in a supernatural, which is precisely what has been rejected in science since the Enlightenment. We put people on the moon because our science was good enough, not because we prayed hard enough. Science — like many fields – may embrace its own ideologies, but that doesn’t make science a “religion”, nor does it make those ideologies false. On the contrary – one of the hallmarks of modern medical science is the assumption that revolutions in thinking are just around the corner, as we have moved from simplistic humoral models of disease to anatomical models to cellular pathology to molecular biology, always gaining extraordinary power to diagnose and treat disease. Homeopathy? Not so much.
You want to be treated with a homeopathic “drug” that is chemically indistinguishable from pure water? Fine; go see a homeopath. Just don’t expect a better result than you’d get from a placebo, and don’t expect that responsible allopathic physicians will recommend it. But be very surprised if a major state university medical center offers it.
and
“I guess when you can’t show results to prove that your way works best, the best you can do is hack away at the other person’s work.”
Absolutely right: I guess when you can’t show results to prove that homeopathic remedies work best, the best you can do is hack away at allopathic medicine’s work.
What’s amazing about Diane Auer Jones’s comment on this post is that she was, in the words of her profile on the website of her former employer, The Washington Campus, “trained as a molecular biologist, [and] began her career as a laboratory director and college biology professor.” In other words, someone who was trained in, and practiced, the scientific method now supports a state university offering a scientifically unsupported pseudo-medicine on the grounds that, simply put, since allopathic medicine doesn’t cure absolutely everything all the time, offering any “alternative” medicine must be a good idea.
Not only is Ms. Auer Jones’s comment riddled with the likes of “it may be that,” “what if,” “are negative commenters afraid,” “are [they] afraid,” and “perhaps”–all without one shred of scientific evidence that homeopathic medicine would fare any better than, say, wafting incense and shaking rattles over a patient. It’s up to a medical method to prove it does work; it’s not up to allopathic doctors and scientists to prove that it doesn’t. If there is a bona fide scientific study out there that indicates that a homeopathic remedy works more than a standard deviation better than allopathic medicine in some significant instance, Ms. Auer Jones–who, one would expect, could uncover such data–should cite it.
And while Galileo might have proven the Church wrong on the matter of the Earth being in orbit around the sun, he didn’t prove astrologists, numerologists, alchemists, and tea-leaf readers to be right.
Afterthought: Is the Career Education Corporation looking to add to its roster some schools offering training in “alternative medicine”?
+++
Friday, February 11, 2011
Morrill Hall – The University of Minnesota
University Inc.
Part II
Guest Post by Michael McNabb
[Mr. McNabb has posted on this topic earlier. Part I. in the series is one of the most widely read posts on the Periodic Table, both at the University of Minnesota and at universities throughout the world. ]
As the University transforms itself from an institution of higher education to a modern business corporation, it inevitably acquires the attributes of a for-profit corporation. Here we will examine whether some of those attributes serve the advancement of learning and the instruction of youth. (See the inscription above the entrance to Northrop Auditorium.)
1. The Costs & Risks of Non-Academic Business Ventures
The administration spent $9.3 million on planning the development of UMore Park by the end of fiscal year 2010 (on June 30, 2010). In December 2009 the administration told the Regents that:
1. The Costs & Risks of Non-Academic Business Ventures
The administration spent $9.3 million on planning the development of UMore Park by the end of fiscal year 2010 (on June 30, 2010). In December 2009 the administration told the Regents that:
Revenues are anticipated to be approximately $3.7 million in FY 2010 and $4.6 million in FY 2011, primarily related to gravel mining activities. Revenues from mining activity beyond FY 2011 are estimated at $3.0 to $4.0 million per year, rising to as much as $7.0--$10.0 million per year after FY 2020. Revenues from mining activities are subject to market conditions.
See the link to the December 10, 2009 report of the Finance & Operations Committee of the Board of Regents at item (5) of Financial Stringency .
The only part of that projection that was realistic was the final sentence. In November 2010 the Regents approved a 40 year lease for mining at UMore Park. The lease provides for a minimum royalty of $5 million (for the entire 40 year lease) plus annual royalties between $425,000 and $800,000. See p. 2 of the November 11, 2010 report of the Facilities Committee of the Board of Regents at http://www.umn.edu/regents/
The projected balance for the central reserves fund for the University is $10.3 million by the end of fiscal year 2011(on June 30, 2011). The balance should be $24.7 million to comply with the policy of the Board of Regents. See p. 32 of the U of M budget for FY 2011 at http://www1.umn.edu/regents/
This is what can happen in the new corporate university when senior administrators and Regents go moonlighting and use public funds to start business ventures on the side. See University Inc. It is easy for the senior administrators and Regents to take enormous financial risks on such business ventures when they are not spending their own money.
Spending millions of dollars on advertising is another corporate attribute. The University paid the Olson & Co. advertising firm $4.4 million for the Driven to Discover
campaign for the period April 9, 2007 through June 30, 2009. See the link in item (2) of Financial Stringency. In October 2009 the Regents approved an additional $1 million payment to the firm. Now the Regents have approved another $1 million payment to the firm for an "integrated marketing plan" [a/k/a "Because"] for the period November 30, 2010 through December 1, 2011. This latest payment is just the first of two renewals for the contract.
campaign for the period April 9, 2007 through June 30, 2009. See the link in item (2) of Financial Stringency. In October 2009 the Regents approved an additional $1 million payment to the firm. Now the Regents have approved another $1 million payment to the firm for an "integrated marketing plan" [a/k/a "Because"] for the period November 30, 2010 through December 1, 2011. This latest payment is just the first of two renewals for the contract.
We are told that since the inception of the advertising campaign "public perceptions are shifting upwards" and that "continuation of these efforts is crucial as we work to leverage the brand's success and engage audiences around supporting the University during these challenging economic times." See p. 12 of the November 11, 2010 report of the Finance & Operations Committee of the Board of Regents at http://www1.umn.edu/regents/
What has been "the brand's success" in generating support for the University? From fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2011 the level of state appropriations has declined from $709 million to $591 million. See p. 3 of the March 2010 report "Financing the Future" at http://www1.umn.edu/regents/
So we further enrich an advertising agency at the expense of teaching our children? Every single student, parent, and faculty member would have spent the $6,400,000 and counting on the academic mission of the University. Use the tuition paid by students and their parents and the state appropriations provided by the citizens of this state on the substance of education, research, and public service. Then the public perception of the University will be outstanding. Squander the public resources of the University and the public will be outraged at the misplaced priorities of the senior administrators and Regents.
The expenditure of millions of dollars on advertising is related to the goal of creating a perception of the University as "one of the top three public research universities in the world." Yet the senior administrators and Regents all know that this is an illusory goal. On September 11, 2009 the president and the provost presented the annual University Plan, Performance, and Accountability Report to the regents:
While university rankings are often a topic of interest to the general public and influential in changing or, in most cases, reinforcing perception; these rankings have several limitations which make them inappropriate for strategic planning and monitoring progress. Two of the most significant limitations are, first, that the rankings are not guided by any empirical and theoretical framework to justify the selection of measures and methodology employed, and second, that the rankings adjust methodologies annually making year-to-year analysis meaningless.
See p. 90 of the Report at http://www1.umn.edu/regents/
As one ancient statesman and orator asked:
Ubi est autem dignitas nisi ubi veritas?
(Where is there dignity unless there is honesty?)
Cicero, Epistalae ad Atticum (Letters to Atticus)
The new corporate University has numerous executives (administrators) with extravagant compensation. The amount devoted to "institutional support" (also known as costs of administration) has exploded at the University from $196.6 million for fiscal year 2008 to $234.3 million for fiscal year 2010. See p. 21 of the report of the Board of Regents on December 10, 2010 at http://www1.umn.edu/regents/
The 2010 institutional support includes $173 million for compensation and benefits and $61.4 million for supplies and services. See p. 82 of the report. Compare the extraordinary increase in institutional support to the modest increases (or decreases) for instruction, public service, academic support, and scholarships.
The fuel for this explosion has been the skyrocketing tuition and fees. The protests of students and their parents about the crushing debt of higher education do not register with the tone deaf senior administrators and Regents. In November 2010, in the midst of the "financial stringency" declared by the president, the Regents approved $150,000 for compensation and benefits for the new position of deputy director of the Board of Regents and $215,000 for maintenance and "refurbishment" of Eastcliff. See p. 11 of the November 11, 2010 report of the Finance & Operations Committee of the Board of Regents at http://www1.umn.edu/regents/
It may be claimed that the lavish compensation of the senior administrators is within the market range for those positions. The Regents may have an unwavering confidence that the market always makes the correct determination in economic matters. Alan Greenspan did when he was the chair of the Federal Reserve, as did the "Masters of the Universe" who were the chief executive officers of the Wall Street firms. Their misplaced confidence combined with greed to bring our national economy to the brink of chaos.
Considerations of equity must balance economic considerations, and that is true in spades when the issue is compensation for the leaders of a non-profit corporation, such as an institution of higher education. It is the public service of a non-profit corporation that qualifies it for tax exempt status. See section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code. Great leaders exemplify that public service.
4. The Costs of Research
Research at the University is part of the reason for its existence, and research is essential for the continuing existence of many corporations. This common attribute is not a problem. However, there is a problem with the escalating costs of research. The increases in the costs of research and the costs of administration are by far the fastest growing categories of expenses for the University. See page 21 of the report of the Board of Regents on December 10, 2010 at http://www1.umn.edu/regents/
The administration uses the media to broadcast across the state the news of the funds that it receives for research. (In 2010 the University received $823 million for research from the federal government and other sources.) But those glowing press releases issued by the administration fail to report that those funds cover only part of the costs of research.
The University classifies those costs as Facilities and Administrative Costs. Those costs include the capital costs for the construction and maintenance of research facilities and the operating expenses for compensation and benefits of the researchers and staff. In 2009 the University incurred $289 million in such costs and received $104 million for such costs. So the University had net F & A costs of $185 million. In 2009 the University received $95.2 million in gross revenues from research in the form of royalties. See On The Hidden Cost of Research
The information about these costs is available in University documents, but one has to search diligently to find the information. The public pronouncements about research should also discuss the costs incurred by the University. Then the University puts itself in a credible position to request state appropriations to support research. SeeThe Cost of Education
5. Sports
The modern corporation leases stadium suites to entertain its customers. The senior administrators and the Regents construct a stadium that will be used for six games each year at a principal cost of $288.5 million. In the 2006 "stadium session" the legislature approved $137 million in bonds for the construction of the stadium while it slashed the request of the administration for HEAPR bonds for the maintenance and renovaton of existing academic facilities from $80 million to $30 million. Now the administration and the Regents are strong-arming the students (and their parents) to pay for part of the cost of construction by imposing a stadium fee on all 50,000+ students, most of whom will never attend a single game.
The athletic department also continues to receive annual multi-million dollar subsidies from the general fund of the University (the Operations & Maintenance fund). In fiscal year 2010 the subsidy was $8 million; in fiscal year 2011 the subsidy is $7.8 million. pp. 77 & 81 of the U of M budget for fiscal year 2011 (ending June 30, 2011) at http://www1.umn.edu/regents/
Conclusion
The creation of the new corporate University raises legitimate concerns. It is up to each student, parent, and faculty member to address those concerns. Talk to your state legislator. Talk to your student and faculty representatives in the University Senate. Send letters and guest columns to the Minnesota Daily and to the local newspapers. Discuss these concerns in your blogs and in committee meetings. As the administration has unwittingly advised us: Because the fate of tomorrow's U is in our hands today (one of the slogans of the "Because" campaign).
Michael W. McNabb
University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974
University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member
Thursday, February 10, 2011
(U of M president to wear tuition cap?)
Bill to freeze tuition gets cold shoulder
from University of Minnesota and MnSCU
Administration
Administration
From the Star-Tribune
The U and MnSCU say the bill is bad policy and will erode the quality of the education they provide.
A few state senators want to freeze tuition at Minnesota's public colleges and universities -- then limit tuition increases forever.
Few? This may be wishful thinking.
Sen. John Carlson, R-Bemidji, introduced a bill Wednesday that would freeze tuition for two years at the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) and University of Minnesota and keep all future increases below the annual percentage increase of the Consumer Price Index.
While the bill could affect MnSCU schools, the U has a separate constitutional status and would not have to comply.
As a practical matter, the U would have to comply. If they want to get legal, maybe that should be fixed as has been done in other states.
The bill would force the two public higher ed systems "to make true structural reform to push revenue into the classrooms and reduce administrative overhead," Carlson said in a statement. It has the support of Sen. Michelle Fischbach, R-Paynesville, chair of the Senate's higher education committee.
The two state education systems oppose the bill -- not because they don't want to keep tuition low. They do, they said. But they said a freeze would tie their hands in dealing with another round of potentially deep cuts to state funding, diminishing the quality of education they provide.
They want to keep tuition low? So why didn't they when they had the opportunity to do so. The U has espoused a high tuition/high aid model that was a serious mistake.
U President Robert Bruininks called it "a very bad bill" that could force the university to eliminate programs, reduce enrollment and cut need-based aid.
This is an unfortunate reaction because it sounds like a threat - we will take it out on the students. Stupid thing to say.
"It looks like this is an attempt to make college more affordable," he said by phone, "but it would leave us no alternative but to erode the resources we provide now for low- and middle-class students." The U has made significant cuts to deal with falling state funding, he said, but "it is reasonable for tuition to be part of the solution."
The financing at the U is deliberately inscrutable and there is no easy way to tell whether tuition increases actually go to the education of students. They may very well continue the entrenchment of administrators or subsidize research under the table. These matters have been discussed often on this blog. And yet Dr. Paller responded very recently to the fact that NIH funding may go down by stating that the U should hire more (research ?) faculty. The cluelessness of the current administration at the U is breathtaking. Let us hope for serious changes under the new president.
MnSCU voiced similar concerns.
"The Legislature gave the board the authority to set tuition in the first place because the trustees can look at the whole picture," said spokeswoman Melinda Voss. "They can balance the interests of the students and the state's need to prepare more graduates and all the things the board has to take into consideration."
The Minnesota State College Student Association does not support a tuition freeze. But it does support the Legislature setting a cap on tuition.
In fact, hours before the tuition freeze bill gets its first hearing Feb. 16, students will rally at the Capitol, wearing red hats that say "S.T.O.P" -- student tuition is overpriced.
Make sure that President Bruininks gets one of these hats...
"Tuition caps," if you will
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Regents play innocent
The regents are acting like Dan Markingson’s suicide never happened.
In a letter released Monday, the University of Minnesota Board of Regents dismissed a request from eight bioethicists for an independent investigation of the case of Dan Markingson, who committed suicide after being enrolled in a University psychiatric research study.
One of the leaders of that study, Stephen Olson, was Markingson’s doctor, but he also received consulting fees from the study’s sponsor, AstraZeneca. His obligation to the study and its corporate sponsor could have caused him to overlook his patient’s safety. The University made $327,000 from the study, $15,000 of which came from recruiting and retaining Markingson as a subject in the study, despite repeated requests by his mother for him to be released.
Of course, the University has maintained neither it nor anyone involved in the case did anything wrong, an odd claim to make after the Minnesota Legislature unanimously passed a law that prohibits exactly what happened and named the law after Markingson.
The University seems to think that because it was not held liable in court for Markingson’s death, it did nothing wrong. This is false; it is a cynical excuse to keep corporate drug money flowing into the University.
The regents’ decision fundamentally undermines our mission: Supposedly, the University is “dedicated to … the search for truth.” But the letter makes it clear that corporate research cash is more important to the University than patient safety and transparency.Refusing to set up an independent investigation is a willfully ignorant attempt to sweep the Markingson case under the rug and damages the integrity of the entire University.
Surprise, Surprise...
President Bruininks Does Not
Lke University of Minnesota
Tuition Freeze
1. It's a "very heavy-handed form of micro-management." The Legislature elects the U's governing board, and they ought to let that board "take responsibility for setting tuition. That responsibility is codified in the state's charter."
2. "There is absolutely no way we can substantially cut the budget, freeze tuition and continue to provide the kind of education, research and outreach our citizens expect." The bill would "force the elimination of entire parts of the university and cause deep erosion in the quality of what we do."
3. It would have "a devastating impact on students. We would have to consider reductions in enrollment... Courses would have to be cut. Students would face much more difficulty graduating on a timely basis."
4. The bill would result in cuts to financial aid. "It looks like this is an attempt to make college more affordable, but it would leave us no alternative but to erode the resources we provide now for low- and middle-class students.”
5. The bill limits future increases to the annual Consumer Price Index, "a deeply flawed statistic." "It does not include labor... and of course, we spend 70 cents on the dollar on labor."
Tuition freeze at University of Minnesota
and other state schools?
SENATOR JOHN CARLSON INTRODUCES HIGHER EDUCATION TUITION FREEZE
(ST. PAUL) – State Senator John Carlson (R-Bemidji) introduced legislation today that calls for a temporary freeze and permanent tuition increase limitations for the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) and University of Minnesota institutions. The bill, Senate File 268, would put in place a two-year tuition freeze and an increase limitation thereafter.
Senator Carlson, a member of the Senate Higher Education Committee, said Wednesday, “In our current financial crisis, we must seek responsible government reform. With this bill, our Minnesota State Colleges and Universities and University of Minnesota systems will need to make true structural reform to push revenue to the classrooms and reduce administrative overhead.”
Senate File 268 calls for a tuition freeze at Minnesota State Colleges and Universities and University of Minnesota for academic terms commencing between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2013. After that two year period, tuition increases from one academic year to the next may not exceed the annual percentage increase in inflation.
The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Higher Education. The first committee hearing on Senate File 268 is scheduled for Wednesday, February 16 at 3:00 pm.
Senator Carlson is scheduled to speak with college and university students during Student Day at the Capitol on Wednesday, February 16. The group will gather at the Capitol steps at 11:30 a.m.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
University of Minnesota
You Can Run, But You Can't Hide
Nearly seven years ago, 26-year-old Dan Markingson killed himself while participating in a clinical trial at the University of Minnesota, where researchers were studying the Seroquel antipsychotic. And the circumstances surrounding his participation and subsequent death led to widely publicized allegations that the university put its own interests ahead of the patient.
How so? One reason - an academic researcher also consulted for AstraZeneca, which markets the pill and sponsored the study. And the researchers were allegedly under pressure to bolster enrollment. These details emerged following a lawsuit filed by Markingson’s mother, who objected to her son’s participation because he was already mentally ill and possibly incompetent, but was enrolled anyway (background here).
Her lawsuit went nowhere, as did a complaint to the state medical board about one researcher, Charles Schulz, who has denied any wrongdoing (more detail here). Yet a group of eight university bioethicists recently wrote the university’s Board of Regents to complain that the school failed to properly monitor the situation and to demand that an independent board should probe the episode.
Now, the school has exonerated itself. In a letter sent by the Regents to the bioethicists, the school determined there was no “improper or inappropriate” care provided to the patient and there was no evidence of misconduct or that any laws or regulations were violated (read the letter). And the Regents noted the FDA, the Minnesota Attorney General and the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice had previously conducted investigations and reached the same conclusion.
A central issue was the extent to which Markingson’s participation contributed to his suicide. The researchers and the university maintained he had actually begun to improve prior to his death. “Not withstanding (his mother’s) belief, there is simply no evidence that Mr. Markingon’s death was causally connected to his participation” in the study, wrote university general counsel Mark Rotenberg, in a separate letter to the same bioethicists. His office conducted the university probe.
Can you say: conflict of interest?
The circumstances in which Markingson wound up in the study were central to the controversy. Back in 2003, he suddenly exhibited troubling behavior and threatened his mother before he was briefly committed involuntarily to a mental institution. To avoid remaining there, he was placed in the university trial, although just before that occurred, this same physician reportedly indicated in a court petition that he was dangerous and mentally incapable of consenting to taking antipsychotics.
As his mother, Mary Weiss, wondered: How could her son suddenly be capable of consenting to a participation in a research study while he was in a state mental institution? A report written in Mother Jones by Carl Elliott, one of the university bioethicists, suggested the researchers were under pressure to bolster enrollment in the trial.
This same report also noted that patients experiencing their first psychotic episode are at higher risk of killing themselves or other people. “For this reason, most studies of antipsychotic drugs specifically bar researchers from recruiting patients at risk of violence or suicide, for fear that they might kill themselves or someone else during the study,” he wrote at the time.
And the angels wept. I am ashamed of my university..
University of Minnesota Regents
refuse to reopen case of suicide in drug study
See no evil, hear no evil, do no evil?
Patient agreed to take part to avoid being committed.
The University of Minnesota's Board of Regents has turned down a request by eight professors and ethicists to review events surrounding the suicide of a participant in a clinical psychiatric drug trial.
In a letter released Monday, the board noted that the 2004 death of Dan Markingson was reviewed, without sanctions against the U, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice and the state attorney general's office.
While noting the tragedy of the death, the letter stated, "we do not believe university resources should be expended re-reviewing a matter ... which has already received such exhaustive analysis by independent authoritative bodies."
Markingson was enrolled in a drug trial comparing the effectiveness of medications for patients with schizophrenia. The U of M was just one site for the national study, funded by drugmaker AstraZeneca.
The recruitment of Markingson troubled the bioethics professors, including Carl Elliott, who wrote about the case last year in Mother Jones magazine. To avoid commitment in a locked institution, Markingson agreed to an outpatient commitment and to a court order requiring him to follow the instructions of his doctor. That doctor, psychiatrist Steven Olson, was also the leader of the drug study in which Markingson was then enrolled.
The professors weren't alone in their criticism. Minnesota's mental health ombudsman questioned the recruiting practice. The Legislature has since banned patients under civil commitments from being able to consent to medical research.
JEREMY OLSON
And the angels wept...
Monday, February 7, 2011
Did the University of Minnesota allow
Nemeroff to put in the fix for Schultz?
Was Nemeroff Consultant to Search Committee?
The University of Minnesota’s drug trial problems broaden.
Bernard Carroll says: February 4th, 2011 at 2:29PM I remember hearing that The University of Minnesota engaged Charles Nemeroff as a consultant to the search committee for the chair of psychiatry. At the time Nemeroff’s compromises had not been exposed and he was seen as something of a kingmaker. He was even referred to as Boss of Bosses. Nemeroff is said to have put in the fix for Charles Schultz. So who is surprised when questions about compromise arise in connection with Schultz as well?
Friday, February 4, 2011
Why Mitch P Berg
Should Shtick to Talk Radio
Mitch P Berg is a right wing squawkradio host who has Limburger envy. He plies his trade on Saturdays with an audience of fawning acolytes. He is also a copious tweeter with more than 10K inane 140 character flames to his discredit. As a one-time English major he bloviates frequently on a blog entitled: A Shot in the Dark [sic]. There he regularly shoots himself in the foot. I hope he is more careful, as I wouldn't want Scarlett to be disappointed... Mitch was described in this film clip as a political analyst which is like calling Michelle Bachmann a historian.
===
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
