A primary role of the University in a democratic society is to provide a neutral space where both traditional beliefs and new ideas can be challenged by disinterested investigators. To ensure that neutrality is maintained, research has traditionally been publicly funded. However, because of government cutbacks to higher education and public research granting programs, universities have a growing reliance on private sector funding which is undermining public research institutions ability to maintain their impartiality. As research becomes increasingly reliant on private sector money, special interests have demonstrated a growing ability to influence the direction and publicly reported results of research.
In recent years, a number of prominent university researchers have been subjected to public smear campaigns, reprisals, and academic censorship as a result of their refusal to remain silent about research findings that conflicted with the interests of their corporate sponsors or research institution administrators. Dr. David Healy, Dr. Nancy Olivieri, and Dr. David Noble are examples of researchers who have boldly resisted institutional pressure to suppress their research findings or to curb their analysis in order to protect private donations.
The fight for academic and scientific integrity waged by courageous whistleblowers like Noble, Olivieri, and Healy is a warning that there is something seriously wrong with the way our public research institutions are being run. Science, knowledge and the public good are not served when institutions sacrifice academic freedom to the commercial needs of private-sector research sponsors. If the capacity of research institutions to conduct accurate, high quality studies is compromised, researchers risk losing the trust and support of our most important funding partner: the Canadian public. Students in Canada stand in solidarity with researchers from around the world in honouring and supporting those who defend public research against outside interference and who stand up for academic freedom.
Campaigns and Lobbying
Whistleblowers: Standing Up For Academic Freedom
2007-11-11
Background: A Threat to Public Education
The Canadian public is the largest investor and stakeholder in Canada's research programmes. The public interest is best served through high quality research that is conducted without prejudicial influence. Ideally, universities provide a neutral space where ideas can be freely challenged by investigators. To ensure that free inquiry is maintained, research has traditionally been publicly funded. However, because of government cutbacks to higher education and public research granting programmes, universities are increasingly forced to turn to new 'matched funding' initiatives, such as the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI), that merge public funds with money from private sources.
This growing reliance on private sector funding is undermining public research institutions' ability to maintain their impartiality. Private interests have taken advantage of these public/private funding models, recognising them as an opportunity to gain access to high quality publicly funded researchers and institutions for a fraction of the real cost. As research becomes increasingly reliant on private sector money, corporate interests have demonstrated a growing ability to influence the direction and publicly reporting research results.
Researchers not willing to tailor their work to the needs of private investors are increasingly becoming the targets of public smear campaigns, reprisals and academic censorship. These researchers demonstrate that academic freedom and free speech is the best guarantee of unbiased research and that quality research requires the right to share findings with colleagues and research subjects, to publish research results regardless of findings and the right of researchers to make critical observations of the institutions in which they work. The Whistleblowers' Page documents some high profile cases of whistleblowers who have fulfilled their ethical obligations as public researchers by standing up against institutional and corporate pressure to suppress research findings and curb honest academic analysis.
This growing reliance on private sector funding is undermining public research institutions' ability to maintain their impartiality. Private interests have taken advantage of these public/private funding models, recognising them as an opportunity to gain access to high quality publicly funded researchers and institutions for a fraction of the real cost. As research becomes increasingly reliant on private sector money, corporate interests have demonstrated a growing ability to influence the direction and publicly reporting research results.
Researchers not willing to tailor their work to the needs of private investors are increasingly becoming the targets of public smear campaigns, reprisals and academic censorship. These researchers demonstrate that academic freedom and free speech is the best guarantee of unbiased research and that quality research requires the right to share findings with colleagues and research subjects, to publish research results regardless of findings and the right of researchers to make critical observations of the institutions in which they work. The Whistleblowers' Page documents some high profile cases of whistleblowers who have fulfilled their ethical obligations as public researchers by standing up against institutional and corporate pressure to suppress research findings and curb honest academic analysis.
2007-11-11
Individuals
In the last decade, researchers across Canada have faced corporate and institutional interference with their work. The following examples document some high profile cases of whistleblowers who have fulfilled their ethical obligations as researchers by standing up against institutional and corporate pressure to suppress research findings and curb honest academic analysis.
David Noble
Fighting Attempts to Stifle Dissent
David Noble is an Historian at York University who has gained much notoriety for his uncompromising analysis of the effects of technology on the classroom learning environment. In his book, Digital Diploma Mills: The Automation of Higher Education, Noble argues that the drive to digitise North American classrooms is actually a pretext for the commercialisation of higher education. Noble contends that administrators' justification of the 'virtual classroom' as a cost-saving device runs against empirical evidence, and that online education provides administrators with an opportunity to get a piece of the commercial action for their institutions or themselves, as vendors in their own right of software and content.
Despite Noble's criticism of this emergent trend in higher education, academic freedom should ensure his continued ability to work, and that no limits are placed on his future job prospects. It therefore came as a shock to the research community when Noble's appointment to the prestigious J.S. Woodsworth Chair of the Humanities was blocked by the Simon Fraser University administration. The appointed search committee had unanimously recommended Noble for the position, and that recommendation was overwhelmingly accepted by the Humanities department.
Noble has demonstrated an uncompromising commitment to academic rights by refusing to acquiesce to the SFU administration. Upon receiving news of SFU's biased decision, Noble initiated a series of communications that resulted in the striking of a committee of inquiry by the Canadian Association of University Teachers. Meanwhile, 120 historians from the United States signed a letter protesting SFU's actions, joining the chorus of Canadian voices who have voiced public support for Noble. Though Noble's case has not yet been satisfactorily resolved, researchers are indebted to him for his vigorous challenge to the practice of punishing academics who criticise the system in which they work.
Links to the inquiry and articles related to the Dr. David Noble case from the CAUT web site:
http://www.caut.ca/english/issues/acadfreedom/Noble-Report.pdf
http://www.caut.ca/english/bulletin/2003_sep/news/noble.asp
Dr. Nancy Olivieri
Resisting Corporate Interference
Good science requires the free flow of information. But with the growth of industry- sponsored research at public institutions, secrecy enforced through confidentiality contracts (or non-disclosure agreements) is limiting the dissemination of facts and poses a serious threat to the health and wellbeing of Canadians.
While working at the University of Toronto-affiliated Hospital for Sick Children (HSC), Dr. Nancy Olivieri signed a contract to test a new drug for the Apotex pharmaceutical company. The contract included a confidentiality clause. Upon discovering that some of her child subjects were experiencing high levels of iron overload that could compromise liver function and lead to life threatening liver cirrhosis, Olivieri immediately stopped the tests and insisted that these health risks be communicated to her patients' parents. Apotex not only refused to do this, but also halted all further drug trials at the HSC, confiscated the trial medicine, fired Olivieri from the study, and threatened her with legal action if she divulged any information to her patients.
Acting on her ethical obligations and confident that the University and the HSC would support her, Olivieri informed her patients of the risks. A bizarre series of events ensued that the Globe and Mail would later refer to as Canada's worst academic and research scandal in decades.
Olivieri and her supporters began receiving anonymous threatening letters that were later proven to have been sent by co-worker Gideon Koren, a recipient of Apotex funding. Koren also sent anonymous letters containing unfounded allegations against Olivieri to the media and the HSC disciplinary committee. Apotex and certain senior hospital and University employees later used these allegations as a basis to level misconduct charges against Olivieri. Apotex also used these allegations in attempts to discredit Olivieri and argue that claims against their drug were therefore unfounded. Disturbingly, Olivieri's employers initially kept the existence of these allegations secret from her, providing her with no opportunity to defend herself or to clear her reputation.
Six years after the first signs of problems with the Apotex drug were detected, an Independent Committee of Inquiry completely exonerated Olivieri from all allegations of misconduct. The committee's extensive report, (complete with over 1400 footnotes referencing the extensive paper trail from the incident) arrived at 31 recommendations, including the banning of secrecy clauses in research contracts. The report was critical of the University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children for their failure to protect Olivieri's academic freedom. At the time Olivieri came under attack, the University was in negotiations with Apotex for a $20M infrastructure investment, and it seems likely that the institution allowed financial considerations to compromise its duty to defend Dr. Olivieri's rights and freedoms as a researcher.
In her struggle to defend ethical research practices, Olivieri has made important contributions to the movement to expose infringements on academic freedom. Olivieri is one of the founding members of Doctors for Research Integrity and works actively to oppose the adverse influence of corporate interests on public research.
Links to the inquiry and articles related to the Dr. Nancy Olivieri case from the CAUT web site:
http://www.caut.ca/english/issues/acadfreedom/olivieri.asp
http://www.caut.ca/english/issues/acadfreedom/olivieri_supplement.asp
David Healy
Refusing to be Silenced
David Healy is a well-known scholar at the University of Wales College of Medicine who studies a family of antidepressant drugs called selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRI). In September 2000, Healy accepted a job offer from the University of Toronto Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), which had been actively trying to recruit him since July 1999. Soon afterwards, he appeared in Toronto as one of several distinguished lecturers to an international colloquium on the history and future of psychiatry. Healy's talk addressed concerns about conflicts between accepted clinical practice in drug testing and growing private influence in public research. He likened large pharmaceutical companies to tobacco companies, in that they may be suppressing research that could demonstrate hazards resulting from the use of their products.
Healy's research, using data from Prozac manufacturer Eli Lilly, lead to estimates that probably 50,000 people have committed suicide on Prozac since its launch, over and above the number who would have done so if left untreated . The suicides were believed to be due to a side effect known as akathisia, an inner restlessness that can lead to violent and suicidal behaviour in a small group of SSRI users.
Following this lecture, which received the highest participant evaluation of all presenters and panellists at the colloquium, Healy was contacted by the University of Toronto and told that his job offer had been withdrawn.
Faculty organisations such as the Canadian Association of University Teachers and the University of Toronto Faculty Association believe that Eli Lilly's major financial contributions to the CAMH were behind the Centre's decision. Since then, countless organisations and individual researchers have rallied behind Healy in what many see as a critical battle in the struggle against the erosion of academic freedom in institutions compromised by private funding. Ultimately, Healy was completely vindicated when the University and the Centre agreed to a settle in a lawsuit that he launched against them. In a statement following the settlement, the University stressed its support for free expression of critical views and acknowledged Dr. Healy's scholarship by confirming he will be appointed as a visiting professor in the Faculty of Medicine. Healy's case drew international attention to the corrupting influence that private funding can have on research in public institutions. His victory is an inspiring example that academic activists can successfully fight back against attacks on academic freedom.
Links to articles on the Dr. David Healy case from the CAUT web site:
http://www.caut.ca/english/bulletin/2001_may/default.asp
http://www.caut.ca/english/publications/news_releases/20010924_lawsuit.asp
http://www.caut.ca/english/publications/news_releases/20020429Healy.asp
David Noble
Fighting Attempts to Stifle Dissent
David Noble is an Historian at York University who has gained much notoriety for his uncompromising analysis of the effects of technology on the classroom learning environment. In his book, Digital Diploma Mills: The Automation of Higher Education, Noble argues that the drive to digitise North American classrooms is actually a pretext for the commercialisation of higher education. Noble contends that administrators' justification of the 'virtual classroom' as a cost-saving device runs against empirical evidence, and that online education provides administrators with an opportunity to get a piece of the commercial action for their institutions or themselves, as vendors in their own right of software and content.
Despite Noble's criticism of this emergent trend in higher education, academic freedom should ensure his continued ability to work, and that no limits are placed on his future job prospects. It therefore came as a shock to the research community when Noble's appointment to the prestigious J.S. Woodsworth Chair of the Humanities was blocked by the Simon Fraser University administration. The appointed search committee had unanimously recommended Noble for the position, and that recommendation was overwhelmingly accepted by the Humanities department.
Noble has demonstrated an uncompromising commitment to academic rights by refusing to acquiesce to the SFU administration. Upon receiving news of SFU's biased decision, Noble initiated a series of communications that resulted in the striking of a committee of inquiry by the Canadian Association of University Teachers. Meanwhile, 120 historians from the United States signed a letter protesting SFU's actions, joining the chorus of Canadian voices who have voiced public support for Noble. Though Noble's case has not yet been satisfactorily resolved, researchers are indebted to him for his vigorous challenge to the practice of punishing academics who criticise the system in which they work.
Links to the inquiry and articles related to the Dr. David Noble case from the CAUT web site:
http://www.caut.ca/english/issues/acadfreedom/Noble-Report.pdf
http://www.caut.ca/english/bulletin/2003_sep/news/noble.asp
Dr. Nancy Olivieri
Resisting Corporate Interference
Good science requires the free flow of information. But with the growth of industry- sponsored research at public institutions, secrecy enforced through confidentiality contracts (or non-disclosure agreements) is limiting the dissemination of facts and poses a serious threat to the health and wellbeing of Canadians.
While working at the University of Toronto-affiliated Hospital for Sick Children (HSC), Dr. Nancy Olivieri signed a contract to test a new drug for the Apotex pharmaceutical company. The contract included a confidentiality clause. Upon discovering that some of her child subjects were experiencing high levels of iron overload that could compromise liver function and lead to life threatening liver cirrhosis, Olivieri immediately stopped the tests and insisted that these health risks be communicated to her patients' parents. Apotex not only refused to do this, but also halted all further drug trials at the HSC, confiscated the trial medicine, fired Olivieri from the study, and threatened her with legal action if she divulged any information to her patients.
Acting on her ethical obligations and confident that the University and the HSC would support her, Olivieri informed her patients of the risks. A bizarre series of events ensued that the Globe and Mail would later refer to as Canada's worst academic and research scandal in decades.
Olivieri and her supporters began receiving anonymous threatening letters that were later proven to have been sent by co-worker Gideon Koren, a recipient of Apotex funding. Koren also sent anonymous letters containing unfounded allegations against Olivieri to the media and the HSC disciplinary committee. Apotex and certain senior hospital and University employees later used these allegations as a basis to level misconduct charges against Olivieri. Apotex also used these allegations in attempts to discredit Olivieri and argue that claims against their drug were therefore unfounded. Disturbingly, Olivieri's employers initially kept the existence of these allegations secret from her, providing her with no opportunity to defend herself or to clear her reputation.
Six years after the first signs of problems with the Apotex drug were detected, an Independent Committee of Inquiry completely exonerated Olivieri from all allegations of misconduct. The committee's extensive report, (complete with over 1400 footnotes referencing the extensive paper trail from the incident) arrived at 31 recommendations, including the banning of secrecy clauses in research contracts. The report was critical of the University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children for their failure to protect Olivieri's academic freedom. At the time Olivieri came under attack, the University was in negotiations with Apotex for a $20M infrastructure investment, and it seems likely that the institution allowed financial considerations to compromise its duty to defend Dr. Olivieri's rights and freedoms as a researcher.
In her struggle to defend ethical research practices, Olivieri has made important contributions to the movement to expose infringements on academic freedom. Olivieri is one of the founding members of Doctors for Research Integrity and works actively to oppose the adverse influence of corporate interests on public research.
Links to the inquiry and articles related to the Dr. Nancy Olivieri case from the CAUT web site:
http://www.caut.ca/english/issues/acadfreedom/olivieri.asp
http://www.caut.ca/english/issues/acadfreedom/olivieri_supplement.asp
David Healy
Refusing to be Silenced
David Healy is a well-known scholar at the University of Wales College of Medicine who studies a family of antidepressant drugs called selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRI). In September 2000, Healy accepted a job offer from the University of Toronto Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), which had been actively trying to recruit him since July 1999. Soon afterwards, he appeared in Toronto as one of several distinguished lecturers to an international colloquium on the history and future of psychiatry. Healy's talk addressed concerns about conflicts between accepted clinical practice in drug testing and growing private influence in public research. He likened large pharmaceutical companies to tobacco companies, in that they may be suppressing research that could demonstrate hazards resulting from the use of their products.
Healy's research, using data from Prozac manufacturer Eli Lilly, lead to estimates that probably 50,000 people have committed suicide on Prozac since its launch, over and above the number who would have done so if left untreated . The suicides were believed to be due to a side effect known as akathisia, an inner restlessness that can lead to violent and suicidal behaviour in a small group of SSRI users.
Following this lecture, which received the highest participant evaluation of all presenters and panellists at the colloquium, Healy was contacted by the University of Toronto and told that his job offer had been withdrawn.
Faculty organisations such as the Canadian Association of University Teachers and the University of Toronto Faculty Association believe that Eli Lilly's major financial contributions to the CAMH were behind the Centre's decision. Since then, countless organisations and individual researchers have rallied behind Healy in what many see as a critical battle in the struggle against the erosion of academic freedom in institutions compromised by private funding. Ultimately, Healy was completely vindicated when the University and the Centre agreed to a settle in a lawsuit that he launched against them. In a statement following the settlement, the University stressed its support for free expression of critical views and acknowledged Dr. Healy's scholarship by confirming he will be appointed as a visiting professor in the Faculty of Medicine. Healy's case drew international attention to the corrupting influence that private funding can have on research in public institutions. His victory is an inspiring example that academic activists can successfully fight back against attacks on academic freedom.
Links to articles on the Dr. David Healy case from the CAUT web site:
http://www.caut.ca/english/bulletin/2001_may/default.asp
http://www.caut.ca/english/publications/news_releases/20010924_lawsuit.asp
http://www.caut.ca/english/publications/news_releases/20020429Healy.asp
2007-11-11