Page 3 of 3 2010 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.
adolescent psychiatry until he was indicted in February. He is still an associate professor in themedical school.
From the start, the university has been less than candid in its public statements about the case. In1990, it issued a joint statement with Garfinkel saying only that the study was flawed: "During thestudy, some problems occurred, including difficulties in the recording and preservation of data.Professor Garfinkel deeply regrets the errors which occurred."
That same year, the dean of the medical school, Dr. David Brown, signed a confidential agreementwith Garfinkel to keep the whole matter quiet except for the joint statement.
The university also said in 1990 that no formal disciplinary action was taken against Garfinkel as aresult of its investigation.
In August 1992, the university went a bit further, saying it had found "very substantial irregularities"and "research misconduct" in the study, but no evidence of intentional wrongdoing by Garfinkel. Thistime, however, the university said the dean had disciplined Garfinkel in 1990, docking him a month'spay of $5,250 and limiting his research.
The university made that announcement after being told by the Star Tribune that it planned to reportthat the U.S. attorney was considering criminal charges against Garfinkel.
University officials said that because Garfinkel had agreed to the penalties, they were not formaldisciplinary actions, which would have to be public under state law. In June, however, HennepinCounty District Judge Franklin Knoll ordered the university to give up the file. He wrote that theuniversity apparently made the agreement with Garfinkel "to keep the enormity of the misconductunder wraps."
University general counsel Mark Rotenberg said yesterday that "the university categorically rejectsany insinuation that we covered up any of the serious problems with the Anafranil study. Theuniversity was the first organization to look into this thoroughly, and we produced a lengthy reportwhich was thorough, independent and came to some very grave conclusions."
Rotenberg also said that standards of accountability at the medical school have evolved since then,and that Dean Brown might act differently on the case today. Brown, who stepped down as dean inJune, was not available for comment. President Nils Hasselmo was out of the country and could notbe reached.
Doug Kelley, Garfinkel's attorney, said that his client disagreed with some of the findings in the report,but "concluded that he had made mistakes and that he needed to take responsibility for them."Garfinkel accepted responsibility, Kelley said, as part of the voluntary settlement with the universitythat resulted in disciplinary action against him.
At the time, Garfinkel disputed the findings as unfair and inaccurate. The committee "never adequately investigated the allegations" against him, he wrote in a 1989 rebuttal, which also wasreleased yesterday.
Throughout his 40-page response, Garfinkel lashed out at Rennie, accusing her of dishonesty and"gross dereliction of duty." He wrote that she was a "repeated prevaricator" who no longer could betrusted.
The committee rejected his argument that he wasn't to blame:
"He has characterized himself as the victim of an untrustworthy subordinate. However, the evidenceindicates that, from very early in the study, he had sufficient knowledge . . . of the extent and nature of most of the problems."
GCAT : Political/General News | GHEA : Health | GHOME : Law Enforcement | GSCI :Science/Technology
report investigation u of m research medicine fraud