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?
Can't they just settle this with a football game?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
a SoCal saying.
They seem to have forgotten who's in charge of the research.
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
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
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.
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).
But, honestly, without being familiar with all the details:
Hired to administer an existing program ... that sort of screams you can't suddenly claim ownership of it and bring it with you when you leave.
If this many players have been involved that long, one guy can't suddenly claim it's his and lock everybody else out.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Of course not, by the time we're 100, we'll all have Alzheimer's and won't remember a thing.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
It's medical research. There's insanely stringent restrictions on how you can release it. Research scientists get special permission (with patient consent) to have personally-identifiable medical info, because it's necessary to their research, but it's so detailed that releasing it for public consumption would be pretty darn bad for the subjects in the study, and they didn't give consent for it. It would also drive research subject recruitment rates way down if that was mandated in the future
This distinction is also key to one of the Republican oppositions to environmental research. "The EPA can't make policy decisions on any research that doesn't completely 100% open all its data to the public"--who can argue with that? Problem is, that would mean releasing the entire medical history of all those patients. No thanks. And again, requiring patients to give consent to full public release of their medical history is a great way to discourage people from participating in any environmental-issue-related medical study.
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.
Additionally, you can't share the data gathered from living subjects or even deceased individuals when the data includes their DNA and detailed medical history.
There are strict protocols about this.
Which is why I laugh when vendors try to sell me "cloud solutions".
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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.
You need to read, it's the institution. The PI files for the grant. Nothing more. As it clearly states it is up to the institution to allow the grant to transfer. If they don't, the NIH can terminate the grant if they feel the project can't continue under new leadership. Notice the grant does not follow the PI nor does the NIH award it to the original PI. This clearly means the grant is awarded to the institution.
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. ”