“Among the many interesting documents that emerged in the lawsuit brought against the University of Minnesota by Mary Weiss is a “Departmental Peer Review” for Dr. Stephen Olson. Olson, of course, is the principal investigator of the CAFE study, in which Dan Markingson committed suicide.
At the bottom of the document are two conflict of interest questions: one for a “potential conflict of interest that is of $10,000 or more” and another for a “gift valued at $1,000 or more.” Olson checked “yes” for both, which means he should have attached explanations. But the explanations are not included in the court exhibit.
What exactly was this gift that Olson received, and how was it justified? What was his potential conflict of interest? I have filed yet another Data Practices Act request for those explanations. If past experience is any guide, however, I won’t be getting an answer anytime soon.”
Fear and Loathing in Bioethics-Carl Elliot-Monday, March 25, 2013
It would be difficult to imagine how many cases like this there really are. It seems this is one that refused to disappear thanks to the persistance of Carl Elliot. The problems in the psychiatric research industry can only be resolved one case at a time. Mary Weiss also took great losses to keep this case going.
“The IRB’s Mission
The goal of the IRB is to protect human research participants by ensuring that
* participants’ rights and welfare are adequately protected,
* research is guided by the ethical principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice as set forth in the Belmont Report,
* research is conducted with the highest level of expertise and integrity, and
* research complies with all applicable laws, policies and regulations.”
Stanford U-Research Compliance Office
Seems like a whole lot of “benefince” to me.