“THE MD ANDERSON SCANDAL Report”: Why Now? Is It Accurate? Who Wrote It? What Do The Authors Want?

“THE MD ANDERSON SCANDAL Report”: Why Now? Is It Accurate? Who Wrote It? What Do The Authors Want?

By

Leonard Zwelling

My last two blogs have been focused on this document that was emailed to me late last week. I was included in the email because the authors of the report attached to the email used one of my blogs in the body of their text and wanted me to know they had done that which was very considerate.

As far as I can discern, there are three allegations at the heart of this report.

1. Padmanee Sharma and several of her associates have treated other people badly committing verbal abuse and harassment.
2. Padmanee Sharma committed research misconduct with regard to demanding her inclusion as an author on a paper to which she contributed little.
3. Padmanee Sharma is guilty of nepotism in hiring and conflict of interest.

As to number one, I have spoken with one of the victims named in the report. The report seems accurate in this regard to me. I have no personal knowledge of the other examples of harassment, etc. If HR handled this badly, blame HR. These are clearly HR issues that have not been resolved to the satisfaction of the complainants.

As to number two, in the report is a detailed analysis done by a friend of mine (full disclosure) Alan Price of Price Research Integrity Consultant Experts. In my past life, I was the Research Integrity Officer for MD Anderson from 1995 to 2007. Dr. Price worked in the federal Office of Research Integrity for 17 years. He was the Director of the Division of Investigative Oversight and ORI Associate Director for Research Oversight. He and I addressed several allegations of research misconduct that were made against MD Anderson investigators during our overlapping tenures. I always found Dr. Price to be a man of great integrity and very helpful to me. He taught me a great deal.

Here’s his finding of the investigation of research misconduct (plagiarism) leveled at two MD Anderson investigators by Dr. Sharma:

“I found no overlap in the numerous detailed records…therefore I conclude there is no basis for apparent allegations of plagiarism.”

I know a little bit about allegations of research misconduct given my twelve plus years as the Research Integrity Officer (RIO). There is a strict policy at MD Anderson as to how such allegations are supposed to be handled—confidentially, expeditiously, fairly, and by the faculty, not by outside lawyers and not by consultants. The policy applies to everyone.

Additionally, when I was the RIO anyone could make an allegation of research misconduct, but they had to do it to my face. I never launched an inquiry based on an email, phone call, or text and never on an anonymous tip.

My reading of the facts in this case suggest that the allegation perpetrated by Dr. Sharma is without foundation. By contrast, whether or not Dr. Sharma herself committed misconduct is, as yet, uninvestigated as far as I can tell. It is not evident to me from the report that she committed falsification, fabrication or plagiarism. But, if allegations of research misconduct as described on page 9 of the report were not subject to an inquiry, then the policy regarding the handling of such allegations may not have been followed. I am not sure at all whether the Research Integrity Officer pursued these allegations or that the allegations were actually brought to whoever was the RIO at the time. This is very confusing to me.

On count three, conflict of interest, the report claims that Dr. Sharma hired her relatives. I am not sure that this is against MD Anderson policy. There have been many husband and wife faculty at MD Anderson including Dr. Kleinerman and me. It was customary to not have a married couple report to one another. The one exception I recall was when Dr. Margaret Kripke became Chief Academic Officer and her husband, Dr. Josh Fidler was still department chair of Cancer Biology. At that time, he instead had a direct reporting relationship to Dr. Mendelsohn. The reporting relationships between the individuals described on page 10 is unclear to me.

This report, that has taken up hours of my time for the past three days, is a smorgasbord of allegations and grievances. Most have been known to the world for many months due to a very public trial reported on by the media.

So, I ask:

1. Why write and distribute this now? What has changed since the Harris County District Court granted Dr. Sharma sovereign immunity in the trial of Jamie Lin v. Padmanee Sharma? As I understand this judicial decision, it means that Dr. Sharma cannot be sued as an individual for whatever she did in the course of her work for MD Anderson and the State of Texas. Like Donald Trump, she gets a free pass on bad behavior as long as it occurred on the job. Of course, did all of the bad behavior occur on the job?
2. Who wrote this report? Those writing this report remain unnamed. It’s not clear if the authors are faculty or staff, active or retired. The credibility of any written document turns on the sources of the words. Without an author, this is all gripes from disgruntled employees and faculty. With names, it takes on much more weight. It would have a face and that face would be that of colleagues and friends. There are accusations in the report that are completely undocumented. I understand the fear associated with owning up to authorship, but without it, it’s just a list of names, dates, and damages.
3. What do the authors want to have happen? It sounds like they want further investigation from unbiased bodies. That would have been a good idea a long time ago and what should have happened the moment an allegation of misconduct by anyone was made. Furthermore, the leadership of MD Anderson at the very top should have been able to address this without a court case and so much collateral damage. This report says more about the failure of Dr. Pisters and his vice presidents at managing the institution and the failures of MD Anderson Human Resources than it does about Dr. Sharma. It also reflects poorly on HR and the process employed assessing allegations of research misconduct.

In the end, what this report really shows is that Dr. Pisters has been seemingly absent in this matter, or at least his fingerprints are nowhere to be found. I can assure you that when matters like these arose during my tenure as a vice president, and they did, Drs. Mendelsohn and Kripke were actively involved in solving any such problems. They took pride in this. They didn’t hide behind anyone. Matters like this never wound up in court, never needed outside consultants on research integrity (that was my job), and certainly involved the peer judgment of other faculty in matters of research misconduct or conflicts of interest.

I still don’t know what the authors expect to happen. My queries to the anonymous emailer who I have been in communication with have not revealed the answer.

If the goal of this report is to unmask the absence of integrity at MD Anderson, it makes that accusation, but that’s not news to many of us. To make any headway on this issue, the authors need to reveal themselves and articulate what they want. If that is the replacement of the leadership at MD Anderson, that should have happened with a “no-confidence” vote when there was still a Faculty Senate. It’s a little late for that now.

Given how many of the current faculty are young and know no other MD Anderson than the one led by DePinho and Pisters, they have no idea what the place could be and may be perfectly happy. That’s not what the annual surveys show, however.

I think the Pisters plan all along was to get his own people in place and rid himself of older faculty with memories of better days at Anderson. I think he just may have done it. With weak leadership at UT in Austin and a state legislature more interested in DEI than curing cancer, Pisters may be the perfect choice for today’s MD Anderson. And it’s a damned shame.