Slashdot Mirror
USC Vs. UC San Diego In Fight Over Alzheimer's Research
New submitter BVBigelow writes: In Southern California, a legal skirmish between USC and UC San Diego is escalating into into a full-blown fracas, replete with restraining orders, loyalty oaths, and accusations of computer piracy, intimidation, and interference in federal grant awards. The two universities are fighting over control of an Alzheimer's program that coordinates about $100 million in research grants. The lawsuits began after USC recruited scientist Paul Aisen from UC San Diego, where he has been director of the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study since 2007. The study has been based at UC San Diego since 1991, and and UCSD expected to retain control. But Aisen's team took root command of the computer system (including 24 years' worth of clinical trial data) and won't give it back.
All that clinical data better be on tape somewhere amirite?
Neat.
Can't they just settle this with a football game?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The two schools are fighting over $100million in research grants.
They don't much give a fuck about Alzheimers,
a SoCal saying.
I know there's a crap ton of money involved, but I would think that since the study was based at UCSD, that it would stay there, regardless of where the head of the study goes.
They seem to have forgotten who's in charge of the research.
Their priorities are so screwed up it isn't funny.
Side with the public school, because the private school will sell their IP to a private pharma.
Can't we all just forget about the past and work towards a greater future?
There is science and there are scientists. The latter often fail to practice the former.
(A lot of anti-science groups are really anti-scientist groups, but science advocates fail to see this, creating many endless verbal wars.)
UC San Diego alleges that Aisen and at least eight colleagues (who have joined Aisen at USC) changed computer passwords to retain their custody and root control of the ADCS system, essentially locking out UCSD from administrative control of the Alzheimer’s study.
Courts have traditionally taken a dim view of that strategy. Hostage taking is almost never the answer, regardless of the nature of the dispute. Had he taken a copy of the database, that would have been more palatable. Something is always hinky when one person sets themselves up as the lone guardian of data purity.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
USC is in the Pac 12. UCSD is a Division II school.
Although the Pac 12 is a fugazi conference, it's gotta be USC, hands down.
Just running off with the data and going "tee hee"... I don't get how that works if you can put your hands around his scrawny neck.
I suspect UC has less of a claim on it than they thought or the court case to get the professor to give the data back is going to be short and hilarious.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
And 100 years from now, will anyone even remember this?
The issue is a general one with research. Who owns the research project and the grants – the institution (UCSD) or the researchers (Prof. Aisen and his team). [disclosure: I'm a university professor myself]
To me it seems clear that Prof. Aisen's research is his, and if he moves universities he takes his project with him (especially the data). It's true that formally the university administers the grant (the granting agency write them a check, equipment bought with the money is university property etc). But the project itself is an intangible concept, which runs with the people and not with the university.
Since grants are formally made to institutions, of course approval of the granting agency is needed to move the grant, but this should generally be routine. It's not like USC lacks the ability to administer this research. In particular, I'm quite troubled by the idea that "the original grantee institution [may] not wish to relinquish the grant". Grant-making decisions are primarily based on scientific criteria -- the potential contributions of the researchers -- not on the identity of their home institution, so this rule seems preposterous to me. "UCSD wants to resume its management of the study" -- but I doubt anyone from UCSD other than the research team actually managed the study – by definition the PIs manage the study. UCSD provided administrative services (financial oversight, for example) and facilities (for which the grant is charged overhead), but this is not a unique contribution of UCSD.
Some grants are political (Congressional earmarks) and then it may make sense not to move them if the researcher moves, but NIH grants shouldn't work like that (and in any case these earmarks are illegitimate).
Why should this information be exclusive to one person or university? If this is paid for with public funds then it should be made publicly available.
All they want is their grant money so they can fatten their personal greedy pockets. Alz.org is the same as well. The entire Alzheimer's "medical industry" is a complete sham.
Imagine if Alzheimer's was cured? These greedy assholes would be completely out of business.
Science research, like everything else is nothing but a big pile of steaming shit.
A full blown fracas? Wake me when it becmes a donnybrook
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Very sad.
Most ADRCs use drive to drive backups btw. With multiple site locations. We get quakes here.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
They forgot what they are fighting for.
I agree on the studies that are currently ongoing -- the grant was awarded to the PI, not to the institution.
But this whole question of who 'owns' the data from research has been coming to ahead for a while. Common arguments are for one of:
* The PI
* The PI's institution
* The funder
The problem is that for years, the disposition of the data was never spelled out clearly in the RFPs. Most people had never heard of a DMP (Data Management Plan) until NSF started requiring them a few years ago.
So ... we get into the problem that because each grant can come up with a different DMP, we have to look to those to see who is the gatekeeper of the data. In some cases, the data is handed off to an IR (Institutional Repository; typically something managed by the library), and if that's spelled out in the DMP, then I'd say that the institution keeps control of the data. In some cases, it all needs to be sent back to the funder (NASA instrument contracts are like this, where the 'final data' must be deposited back to an ARC (Archive Resource Center)). But there might be other ones where the PI is personally responsible for access to the data.
Personally, I prefer the IR or funder, just because most scientists have no clue what they're doing when it comes to archiving data. See Data Sharing and Management Snafu in 3 Short Acts. You also run into problems when PIs retire / die / move / whatever. ... but I don't deal with medical data where you need to have an active gatekeeper (IRB, Institutional Review Board, or similar) where you might need someone with better understanding of the data.
So anyway ... without there being something specifically in the grants, the institution likely can lay claim to keeping a copy of the data ... but I don't know if they can necessarily stop the PI from taking a copy with him, or even the server holding it (if the hardware was paid for through his current grants). They *might* be able to get the IRB involved, and insist that they need to review what's being done with the data that's being moved.
In this particular case, though ... it's not only an NIH grant (which are clearly to the institution), but the PI has only been there for 8 years -- so he's taking data that was collected by previous PIs before him. I'd say that his trying to take all data from the department, and not just that which he was PI for is a rather sleazy move.
(disclaimer : I'm one of the moderators on StackExchange's Open Data site )
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
This type of shit grinds my gears... Five million fucking people with Alzheimer's and these assholes pull shit like this. This type of research should be public with the data stripped of identifying information which would be held by researchers that conducted the test.
Research Group -
Patient #ID
Gender
Age Group 60 - 63
Stage 4
Diagnosis date
Test ran
Results
Side effects
If another research group sees something that someone else did not then contact them and ask for a release. We should be working together if we want to make real progress. A couple people in my family died from Alzheimer's and thinking about progress being slowed down over bullshit really pisses me off. I bet if they had some family members that forgot who they were before they died they would not be acting like this. It's fucking horrible and nobody should have to go that way. You lose everything, and eventually you think you're alone because you cannot remember anyone.
Certain animated avian characters: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wX_N10DWMG0/VbjnPV43ISI/AAAAAAAABDk/p8lLwJF_i0I/s1600/mine%2Bmine.png
I wish someone would do the 'children... please... if you squabble like this, you'll both get nothing' thing.
John_Chalisque
I don't understand why this data isn't just shared publicly to anyone who cares to inspect it. What's gained by hiding it?
Alzheimer's costs the US economy over $100B/yr, and that amount is likely to soar as the population ages. If a university finds a cure, or even a prevention, they stand to reap billions in patent license fees. The stakes here are very high.
If the disputing parties or a family member develops dementia (high probability) and if the disease could have been mitigated or cured by the sharing of data the stakes are a LOT higher than a dollars. What good is Billion dollars if you can't recognize a family member or even remember your own name. Stupid people.
these two entities have forgotten the details about who killed who,
Who payed for the research? The USA Federal Government.
Who pays taxes to the USA Federal Government? I Do.
Ipso facto, the data belongs to me because I payed for it. All government funded research should be in the public domain! No more of this socialize the cost and privatize the profit. Hey senator, are you listening?
...did someone forget the password?
They'll take you to school.
UCSD—not Aisen— “is contractually obligated by its agreements with the NIH and research partners to maintain and safeguard data from clinical studies conducted by ADCS. ”
In point of fact, it used to be that when the Feds sponsored research, the uni could not patent it, and, if patented, the patent would be assigned to the US government.
However since the Bayh-Dole Act was passed, to encourage work on the human genome, universities have first crack at patenting or exploiting intellectual property developed under US federal govt funding. The US government gets what's called "government purposes rights" so that the government can use the IP for government purposes (defined quite broadly). For example, if USC developed a new wonder drug that cheaply cures anthrax and licensed it to Pfizer, who then charge umpty gazillion dollars, the government could step in ("march in rights") and contract with Amgen to produce the drug, using USC's IP (but not Pfizers) at whatever cost the government negotiates, and then distribute the drug as it sees fit.
The computers in question, I believe, are in the cloud (if I remember the Aisen et al filing correctly.)
Hey guys, the cloud is secure right? Lets put our accounting details in there too and not have backups.
That is just silly reasoning, you are taking a part out of the whole system. The university supported him. deal with it.
A judge need to spank them both, set them in separate corners and get all the research and the grants and give them to a grown-up like Stanford. Then may USC and UC San Diego learn to play nice and CURE THIS NIGHTMARE OF A DISEASE!!!
Lets make this fair. Each university picks champions. They go into a room, whoever walks out... gets the research project.
In God we trust, all others require data.
I am certainly aware of the rules, and event quoted this very rule in my comment. I was arguing that some ways of implementing them are wrong. Deal with it.
I actually think you should start with the ownership.
I believe that, like the research results themselves, all the underlying data of publicly funded research belong to the general public. The researchers must have a right to keep their data secret for a while so they get first dibs to produce results from it, but eventually everybody else should get to try their hand at the data.
Several different agents should work on this. The granting agencies should insist all research data is properly curated and hosted for posterity – as a benefit to the public who paid. This should include the raw data, intermediate products like scripts and code, and the final processed data. The journals should insist on the same thing, this time for the benefit of science (allowing others to verify the results). In all cases there should be an appropriate embargo period, depending on the field.
By the way, I think of your code as falling under "research results" (you developed a method of handling the data) more than "research data".