Research, Reputation and Responsibility

FTLComm - Saskatoon - July 2, 2000

Friday morning the National Research Council held a press conference at their building at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon to announce the construction of a fifteen million dollar expansion to a bio-technical building on campus. All but one million of this money will come from the federal government

The continued development of research facilities on the University of Saskatchewan campus is most remarkable and given the present and continuing circumstances regarding the university's research efforts, is more than a little puzzling. To many, funding research in Saskatoon would be similar to offering one additional life boat to the White Star line to be included on their new 1912 ocean liner.

The mounting suspicion and declining reputation of work done by this University has reached the point where one must view with pity any and all individuals who invested their money and efforts to get their degree from the University of Saskatchewan.

To understand the situation you must come to some reckoning with what the concept of University really means

and with that in mind understand how much is jeopardised by a centre for higher learning getting themselves involved in questionable financial strings to academic activity. Universities and colleges are at the mercy of public perception and opinion.

The public, the business community and other universities judge the performance of an institution with extremely subjective and whimsical standards. The quality and achievements of graduating students, the scholarly and substantive depth of the courses offered, the nature and reputation of the research associated with the institution, all of these factors are taken into consideration and out of them comes shared opinion on the relative value of the place when compared to other similar institutions.

The University of Saskatchewan when ranked by McLeans magazine was placed as number fourteen out of a field of fifteen. One can dispute the merit of the ranking and argue that this is hardly the real litmus test of quality, but you are reminded that the subjective and imprecise ranking of a university is only refuted by delivering solid widely

recognised evidence that the place is on the mend and getting better and better.

Almost everyone who has seen a movie or even held a casual conversation about what constitutes a good education knows about places like Cambridge, Eaton, Harvard, Yale, McGill, West Point, Vassal, Berkeley, John Hopkins, MIT, St. Xavier, Chapel Hill and no doubt you would add others. These places brand their students with their reputation and the aura of their excellence. In a group of Canadians with post secondary degrees, a person wearing a ring with a black "X" on it is respected and treated with guarded authenticity without that person saying or doing anything. That small but outstanding college turns out capable individuals who can think on their feet and make an argument stick. We may view Brian Mulroney with disdain but everyone respects that ring on his finger and what that means about his background and training.

An educational institution must guard its reputation more than any other element that makes up the university. The facilities, its buildings, its library, the level of training of its faculty, all are trivial compared to its achievements and the perception of it by other institutions and the public and that includes the press as they reflect the opinions of many. The really important part of this sort of thing is that the university must guard itself, not defend itself.

Guarding an institution means that rules and precedent is established and followed to prevent anything from casting even minor doubt on the quality of work done there. Academic freedom is protected and worshipped like a religion and the influence of government, business and vested interest groups is considered the poison that will destroy the well of knowledge.

Ensign has obtained this article written by Barry McLennan the assistant dean of research in the college of medicine at the University of Saskatchewan. The material is shown here on the right or you can click here, to see the document as a full By Barry McLennan Following is the personal viewpoint of the writer, assistant dean of research in the college of medicine at the University of Saskatchewan. I feel compelled to respond and attempt to clarify some of the misinformation which is circulating concerning the whiplash study recently published by one of the university's former researchers, Dr. David Cassidy. It is quite true that the study was sponsored by SGI. The majority of research conducted at the university is funded by outside agencies. All research grants are provided to the university, and the university is responsible for ensuring that research funds are expended in accordance with the terms of the various research agreements. Each study has a principal researcher from the university who is appointed to conduct the study. The manner in which the research is carried out, however, varies greatly. For example, some funding agencies supply funding to researchers to collect data but the funding agency itself controls the analysis and publication of results. In the whiplash study, SGI provided a research grant for the project to the university. However, in contrast to the previous example, this research contract was set up in such a way that SGI had no control over the study. The contract with the university did not allow SGI any direction over the conduct of the research nor was SGI involved in the preparation of the final published document. At all stages of the research, the research team operated quite independently from SGI and at no time did SGI personnel interfere with the research work or the publication process. Allegations to the contrary are false. It is quite true that in 1996, the U of S removed Dr. Ken Yong-Hing as principal investigator of the project and replaced him with Cassidy, because of the problems that arose over Yong-Hing’s stewardship (leadership) of the research project. Yong-Hing was also reprimanded (sanctioned) by the dean of the college of medicine for his behaviour toward. Cassidy, his staff and graduate students. It is quite true that the university and Cassidy have been named in a lawsuit brought by a former university employee, Emma Bartfay. When the lawsuit was filed, the university immediately struck an independent committee of well-respected scientists to investigate whether there was any evidence of wrongdoing. The committee carefully reviewed all personnel records and other documents and the analyses that had been done on the study to that time. The committee also interviewed personnel involved in the study and concluded that there was absolutely no evidence of research misconduct. It is a matter of public record that the university has countersued Bartfay, claiming that her work performance was unsatisfactory, she had a substantial number of absences from work without authorization, had a limited knowledge of the subject areas in which she was assigned to work and that she wrongfully deleted and/or destroyed and/or removed information, data and statistical results and research which belonged to the university. References to "fraud" in the research have also circulated. The lawsuit does not contain any allegation of research fraud. This is a serious allegation to which the university takes great exception. These references do nothing but discredit hardworking and well-respected members of the university community. The university takes great pride in the caliber and integrity of both its research staff and research work. It is fully supportive of Cassidy’s work and accomplishments. It is a great disappointment to the university that it was unable to retain yet another talented researcher because of our inability to compete with certain larger universities. It is important that the public be aware of the credentials of the scientific journal in which the whiplash study was published. The New England Journal of Medicine is the preeminent medical journal in the world. Only a small percentage of the research papers submitted are accepted and only the most significant studies are published. Before studies are published, they undergo an extensive and detailed peer review process in order to guard against flaws in the data, study procedures or conclusions drawn. Cassidy’s study was published after such an extensive review process and was found to be worthy of publication. Cassidy, the entire research team and the university deserve due credit for such a notable accomplishment. I am quite dismayed at the manner in which this study, and those involved in it, have been so unprofessionally criticized in public forums and the press. Academic debate is always necessary and welcome; however, it is not useful unless engaged in in a scientific manner. The usual channel for academic criticism and debate is for researchers to conduct their own studies and then publish those to corroborate or refute the conclusions reached in any particular study. It does not advance the search for knowledge simply to state disagreement with a study’s conclusions. If indeed accident victims recover more quickly under a no-fault system, is it not in the public’s best interests to confirm this through scientific research? If this conclusion is flawed, this should also be confirmed through further scientific research and study. Emotional public debate having no factual foundations simply does not assist in the search for the answer. This is certainly an important and controversial issue of great concern to the members of the public. However, I would urge that the answer be sought out in a logical and scientific manner.

page. This is a defense

Dr. McLennan goes through the Cassidy saga defending the University's position, arguing that emotional arguments rather than science are being used to sully the research and researcher. This is a sad and pitiful attempt because even if he is right the obvious and widely demonstrated judgmental errors made by the University in this and other projects

makes it utterly impossible to sway an opinion to the contrary.

In the man's third and fourth paragraphs he explains how the University maintains its academic integrity when a quick click to a University web site shows that the vice president to the Administrative Committee of the study is a company man, Jon Schubert from SGI.

McLennan shamelessly attacks Dr. Ken Yong-Hing whom the university replaced with Dr. Cassidy while four years ago Dr. Ken Yong-Hing states "differences arose over SGI
personnel's interference in the research work." and "I feel that SGI's interference in the research will expose the results and conclusions of the study, when they are published."

Perhaps the most offensive part of Dr. McLennan's statement is that "the manner in which this study and those involved in it, have been so unprofessionally criticized in public forums

and the press." Nobody ever said maintaining your reputation is "fair". If you, as an institution, cross the line, take money from a company to give them favourable research results, your reputation and all that you are is a grease mark on the educational parking lot.

The merits of the Cassidy research has been attacked in Ensign and every other form of media, simply because basing medical research upon when a claim file is closed is quite simply foolishness. Cassidy, his research team, the University and the New England medical journal deserve to be called "stupid" for allowing themselves to endorse a procedure that no kid working on a grade six science fair project would ever try. Imagine your belief in the validity of your eleven year old explaining that he timed when eggs were cooked by when his mother turned off the light in the kitchen. When SGI closed the file Cassidy claimed the victim cured. He did not do this a few times, it was the method he used to measure the entire 1.5 million dollar project.

On Friday as the University and the Canada Research Council announced their newest development and as I met a young woman working on her masters degree doing bio-research, I really felt bad. Both the CRC and the young woman are investing their time and money, and definitely for the young woman, her future, on the University of Saskatchewan. When the young woman gets her degree will it evoke snickers when she applies for a job? Will research in the new wing funded by the Research Council be disregarded by other research centres because it came from Saskatoon, the second last ranking university in Canada, the one where they do research by measuring successful medical cures by when a bureaucrat closes a file?

Reputations are fragile things based on the last piece of work done and only recovered by good solid trusted work not by attacking researchers who quit projects because of company interference, or claiming that " Emotional public debate having no factual foundations simply does not assist in the search for the answer."

My condolences to all of you who have the words "University of Saskatchewan" on your bachelors degree or your masters, doctorate, or diploma. Sorry to hear that. The president's wife is in the provincial cabinet. The place and its reputation are worth about the same amount as stock in the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.

Timothy W. Shire


FTLComm - Saskatoon - July 2, 2000
Friday morning the National Research Council held a press conference at their building at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon to announce the construction of a fifteen million dollar expansion to a bio-technical building on campus. All but one million of this money will come from the federal government
The continued development of research facilities on the University of Saskatchewan campus is most remarkable and given the present and continuing circumstances regarding the university's research efforts, is more than a little puzzling. To many, funding research in Saskatoon would be similar to offering one additional life boat to the White Star line to be included on their new 1912 ocean liner. The mounting suspicion and declining reputation of work done by this University has reached the point where one must view with pity any and all individuals who invested their money and efforts to get their degree from the University of Saskatchewan. To understand the situation you must come to some reckoning with what the concept of University really means
and with that in mind understand how much is jeopardised by a centre for higher learning getting themselves involved in questionable financial strings to academic activity. Universities and colleges are at the mercy of public perception and opinion.
The public, the business community and other universities judge the performance of an institution with extremely subjective and whimsical standards. The quality and achievements of graduating students, the scholarly and substantive depth of the courses offered, the nature and reputation of the research associated with the institution, all of these factors are taken into consideration and out of them comes shared opinion on the relative value of the place when compared to other similar institutions. The University of Saskatchewan when ranked by McLeans magazine was placed as number fourteen out of a field of fifteen. One can dispute the merit of the ranking and argue that this is hardly the real litmus test of quality, but you are reminded that the subjective and imprecise ranking of a university is only refuted by delivering solid widely
recognised evidence that the place is on the mend and getting better and better.
Almost everyone who has seen a movie or even held a casual conversation about what constitutes a good education knows about places like Cambridge, Eaton, Harvard, Yale, McGill, West Point, Vassal, Berkeley, John Hopkins, MIT, St. Xavier, Chapel Hill and no doubt you would add others. These places brand their students with their reputation and the aura of their excellence. In a group of Canadians with post secondary degrees, a person wearing a ring with a black "X" on it is respected and treated with guarded authenticity without that person saying or doing anything. That small but outstanding college turns out capable individuals who can think on their feet and make an argument stick. We may view Brian Mulroney with disdain but everyone respects that ring on his finger and what that means about his background and training.
An educational institution must guard its reputation more than any other element that makes up the university. The facilities, its buildings, its library, the level of training of its faculty, all are trivial compared to its achievements and the perception of it by other institutions and the public and that includes the press as they reflect the opinions of many. The really important part of this sort of thing is that the university must guard itself, not defend itself. Guarding an institution means that rules and precedent is established and followed to prevent anything from casting even minor doubt on the quality of work done there. Academic freedom is protected and worshipped like a religion and the influence of government, business and vested interest groups is considered the poison that will destroy the well of knowledge.
Ensign has obtained this article written by Barry McLennan the assistant dean of research in the college of medicine at the University of Saskatchewan. The material is shown here on the right or you can click here, to see the document as a full	By Barry McLennan Following is the personal viewpoint of the writer, assistant dean of research in the college of medicine at the University of Saskatchewan. I feel compelled to respond and attempt to clarify some of the misinformation which is circulating concerning the whiplash study recently published by one of the university's former researchers, Dr. David Cassidy. It is quite true that the study was sponsored by SGI. The majority of research conducted at the university is funded by outside agencies. All research grants are provided to the university, and the university is responsible for ensuring that research funds are expended in accordance with the terms of the various research agreements. Each study has a principal researcher from the university who is appointed to conduct the study. The manner in which the research is carried out, however, varies greatly. For example, some funding agencies supply funding to researchers to collect data but the funding agency itself controls the analysis and publication of results. In the whiplash study, SGI provided a research grant for the project to the university. However, in contrast to the previous example, this research contract was set up in such a way that SGI had no control over the study. The contract with the university did not allow SGI any direction over the conduct of the research nor was SGI involved in the preparation of the final published document. At all stages of the research, the research team operated quite independently from SGI and at no time did SGI personnel interfere with the research work or the publication process. Allegations to the contrary are false. It is quite true that in 1996, the U of S removed Dr. Ken Yong-Hing as principal investigator of the project and replaced him with Cassidy, because of the problems that arose over Yong-Hing’s stewardship (leadership) of the research project. Yong-Hing was also reprimanded (sanctioned) by the dean of the college of medicine for his behaviour toward. Cassidy, his staff and graduate students. It is quite true that the university and Cassidy have been named in a lawsuit brought by a former university employee, Emma Bartfay. When the lawsuit was filed, the university immediately struck an independent committee of well-respected scientists to investigate whether there was any evidence of wrongdoing. The committee carefully reviewed all personnel records and other documents and the analyses that had been done on the study to that time. The committee also interviewed personnel involved in the study and concluded that there was absolutely no evidence of research misconduct. It is a matter of public record that the university has countersued Bartfay, claiming that her work performance was unsatisfactory, she had a substantial number of absences from work without authorization, had a limited knowledge of the subject areas in which she was assigned to work and that she wrongfully deleted and/or destroyed and/or removed information, data and statistical results and research which belonged to the university. References to "fraud" in the research have also circulated. The lawsuit does not contain any allegation of research fraud. This is a serious allegation to which the university takes great exception. These references do nothing but discredit hardworking and well-respected members of the university community. The university takes great pride in the caliber and integrity of both its research staff and research work. It is fully supportive of Cassidy’s work and accomplishments. It is a great disappointment to the university that it was unable to retain yet another talented researcher because of our inability to compete with certain larger universities. It is important that the public be aware of the credentials of the scientific journal in which the whiplash study was published. The New England Journal of Medicine is the preeminent medical journal in the world. Only a small percentage of the research papers submitted are accepted and only the most significant studies are published. Before studies are published, they undergo an extensive and detailed peer review process in order to guard against flaws in the data, study procedures or conclusions drawn. Cassidy’s study was published after such an extensive review process and was found to be worthy of publication. Cassidy, the entire research team and the university deserve due credit for such a notable accomplishment. I am quite dismayed at the manner in which this study, and those involved in it, have been so unprofessionally criticized in public forums and the press. Academic debate is always necessary and welcome; however, it is not useful unless engaged in in a scientific manner. The usual channel for academic criticism and debate is for researchers to conduct their own studies and then publish those to corroborate or refute the conclusions reached in any particular study. It does not advance the search for knowledge simply to state disagreement with a study’s conclusions. If indeed accident victims recover more quickly under a no-fault system, is it not in the public’s best interests to confirm this through scientific research? If this conclusion is flawed, this should also be confirmed through further scientific research and study. Emotional public debate having no factual foundations simply does not assist in the search for the answer. This is certainly an important and controversial issue of great concern to the members of the public. However, I would urge that the answer be sought out in a logical and scientific manner.
page. This is a defense Dr. McLennan goes through the Cassidy saga defending the University's position, arguing that emotional arguments rather than science are being used to sully the research and researcher. This is a sad and pitiful attempt because even if he is right the obvious and widely demonstrated judgmental errors made by the University in this and other projects
makes it utterly impossible to sway an opinion to the contrary. In the man's third and fourth paragraphs he explains how the University maintains its academic integrity when a quick click to a University web site shows that the vice president to the Administrative Committee of the study is a company man, Jon Schubert from SGI. McLennan shamelessly attacks Dr. Ken Yong-Hing whom the university replaced with Dr. Cassidy while four years ago Dr. Ken Yong-Hing states "differences arose over SGI personnel's interference in the research work." and "I feel that SGI's interference in the research will expose the results and conclusions of the study, when they are published." Perhaps the most offensive part of Dr. McLennan's statement is that "the manner in which this study and those involved in it, have been so unprofessionally criticized in public forums
and the press." Nobody ever said maintaining your reputation is "fair". If you, as an institution, cross the line, take money from a company to give them favourable research results, your reputation and all that you are is a grease mark on the educational parking lot. The merits of the Cassidy research has been attacked in Ensign and every other form of media, simply because basing medical research upon when a claim file is closed is quite simply foolishness. Cassidy, his research team, the University and the New England medical journal deserve to be called "stupid" for allowing themselves to endorse a procedure that no kid working on a grade six science fair project would ever try. Imagine your belief in the validity of your eleven year old explaining that he timed when eggs were cooked by when his mother turned off the light in the kitchen. When SGI closed the file Cassidy claimed the victim cured. He did not do this a few times, it was the method he used to measure the entire 1.5 million dollar project. On Friday as the University and the Canada Research Council announced their newest development and as I met a young woman working on her masters degree doing bio-research, I really felt bad. Both the CRC and the young woman are investing their time and money, and definitely for the young woman, her future, on the University of Saskatchewan. When the young woman gets her degree will it evoke snickers when she applies for a job? Will research in the new wing funded by the Research Council be disregarded by other research centres because it came from Saskatoon, the second last ranking university in Canada, the one where they do research by measuring successful medical cures by when a bureaucrat closes a file? Reputations are fragile things based on the last piece of work done and only recovered by good solid trusted work not by attacking researchers who quit projects because of company interference, or claiming that " Emotional public debate having no factual foundations simply does not assist in the search for the answer." My condolences to all of you who have the words "University of Saskatchewan" on your bachelors degree or your masters, doctorate, or diploma. Sorry to hear that. The president's wife is in the provincial cabinet. The place and its reputation are worth about the same amount as stock in the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. Timothy W. Shire