U panel proposes conflict-of-interest policy

The University of Minnesota is poised to adopt a far-reaching conflict-of-interest policy that would ban several controversial practices that create ties between its faculty and business, including gifts, ghostwritten research papers and product endorsements.

The draft, which will be presented to a committee of the Board of Regents today, requires faculty, researchers and staff to file annual reports disclosing financial interests that may overlap with their work at the U, including consulting agreements and royalty payments for inventions. While some disclosure is required now, the new policy demands far more detail.

The policy, which comes after a series of embarrassing ethics episodes for faculty and researchers, appears to be one of the nation's most comprehensive.

Released to department heads this week, the proposal comes at a time when many medical schools are struggling to determine appropriate relationships with drug and medical device companies and to make these ties more transparent. Some of the nation's top academic institutions have been tainted by scandal after top researchers and faculty members were found to have questionable financial ties to industry.

The university has been stung recently by reports of congressional inquiries into its current conflict-of-interest policy, as well as the disclosure that one of its top surgeons earned more than $1 million as a consultant for Medtronic Inc. Just last week, debate raged on campus after a textbook was distributed free to second-year medical school students by Daiichi Pharmaceutical Corp.

University General Counsel Mark Rotenberg said Wednesday that the U must strike a balance between collaborating with industry and assuring the public that these relationships are forged with integrity and transparency.

"It's important that we encourage our faculty and staff to engage in outside activities which utilize their knowledge and expertise, and for us to transfer our discoveries into the private sector," he said. "On the other hand, when you have close linkages with business, you have a potential for conflict of interest."

The U hopes to have a final draft ready within 90 days.

"I think it's important that whatever policy we pass is well-received by the public," said Dr. Macaran Baird, a professor who heads the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health. "It has to pass the test of fairness and balance from the public's perspective."

The U's proposed policy is unusual nationally because it would cover relationships with business throughout the university, not just the medical school. A task force convened by former Medical School Dean Deborah Powell crafted a conflict-of-interest policy in 2008 with many of the same tenets, but it was put on a back burner. After that policy was made public, the Star Tribune revealed that the professor leading the effort was himself disciplined in 2004 for secretly steering a $500,000 research grant to his own company.

Since then, a congressional investigation revealed that Dr. David Polly, a nationally known surgeon in the U's Department of Orthopedic Surgery, received $1.2 million from Medtronic Inc. for consulting activities.

A second committee was subsequently convened at the behest of University President Robert Bruininks with the task of writing a policy covering the entire university.

But Dr. Mark Paller, executive vice dean of the medical school who served on the recent task force, said, "It's entirely reasonable to expect that if the rules apply to me, then why shouldn't they apply to others at the university, whether you're a software designer or an architect."

The proposed policy would not require the university to disclose financial relationships on a public website. Rotenberg said state law prevents that, but indicated that many faculty members may voluntarily disclose their relationships.

Health care legislation currently before Congress would require companies to disclose this information, and six states, including Minnesota, already require drug companies to disclose that information to the public. The proposed policy does require faculty, researchers and staff to disclose their industry ties to students, professional journals, human subjects in clinical trials and government agencies.