Post January 24, 2014 Responses to RFP: Critiques of the University of Minnesota’s Call for “Bids” from “Contractors” in Response to its Request for Proposals

The University’s decision to post a “Request for Proposals” and invite contractors to bid on managing the review of clinical research prompted substantial criticism. Critiques of this approach to establishing an inquiry challenged the planned review’s narrow focus on current clinical research practices and policies; the exclusion of the Markingson case and the CAFÉ study from the inquiry; the use of the MBid system to select a contractor; the failure to consult adequately with faculty senators, other faculty members, surviving members of Markingson’s family, and other involved parties; and conflicts-of-interest inherent in senior administration selecting the contractor. One letter sent to President Kaler and faculty senators stated, “The RFP is in our opinion so flawed as to preclude any chance the resulting report will be seen as legitimate, except perhaps by those vindicated by it.”

Carl Elliott, “Don’t mention the suicide!” Fear and Loathing in Bioethics, March 5, 2014.

Leigh Turner, “The University of Minnesota Resolves Not to Investigate Itself,” Health in the Global Village, March 7, 2014.

Leigh Turner, “The U of M should thoroughly investigate issues in the Markingson case,” MinnPost, March 11, 2014.

Leigh Turner, “University of Minnesota’s Ongoing Refusal to Investigate Allegations of Research Misconduct,” Impact Ethics, March 14, 2014.

Trudo Lemmens, Raymond De Vries, Alice Dreger, Lois Shepherd, Susan Reverby, Jerome Kassirer, “Re: Markingson Case and Independent Inquiry,” April 23, 2014.

Trudo Lemmens, “Markingson Case Update: How an institution can transform a request for an ‘Independent Inquiry’ into another institutional procedural shield,” University of Toronto Faculty of Law Blog, April 24, 2014.

PDF24    Send article as PDF   

Leave a Reply