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.
Not quite so easy. Half the time these federal grants are tied to the individual, not the university. Heck, applying for a research position at my university is a waste of time unless you already have a grant. Side-note: Yep, they're having staffing problems.
The interesting thing is the computers. If they were on site, then it doesn't matter about root access. Pull the plug, and restore from backups or change to single user mode. If they're cloud servers paid for with federal grant money, then it becomes a tricky issue...
So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
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).