USC Vs. UC San Diego In Fight Over Alzheimer's Research 120
New submitter BVBigelow writes: In Southern California, a legal skirmish between USC and UC San Diego is escalating into into a full-blown fracas, replete with restraining orders, loyalty oaths, and accusations of computer piracy, intimidation, and interference in federal grant awards. The two universities are fighting over control of an Alzheimer's program that coordinates about $100 million in research grants. The lawsuits began after USC recruited scientist Paul Aisen from UC San Diego, where he has been director of the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study since 2007. The study has been based at UC San Diego since 1991, and and UCSD expected to retain control. But Aisen's team took root command of the computer system (including 24 years' worth of clinical trial data) and won't give it back.
Backups -- not just for hardware failures (Score:4, Insightful)
All that clinical data better be on tape somewhere amirite?
Re: (Score:3)
If it is, those backups better be encrypted. Depending on that, they may be useless for "non-authorized" recovery.
Tape drives have supported hardware-level encryption for many years now. Typically the admin who controls the backups manages the passwords (typically auto-generated strong passwords, stored somewhere in a DB with some additional level of encryption). Encrypted tape is designed to be very strong against the tapes being stolen (or lost), not against an insider threat. And that's generally the right answer. If they had backups, they wouldn't be useless.
Wait (Score:2)
Can't they just settle this with a football game?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Can't they just settle this with a football game?
Most of us like soccer more than football. It's a West Coast thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect that in the end, the data will be copied and both institutions will continue-on. The institution that lost the staff member probably has some legitimate claim to the data since the staff member was not working alone and was using university resources to pursue the work, and the staff member that left has legitimate claim to the work that he has done.
Re: (Score:2)
The data was paid for out of taxes. Federal rules on privacy apply, but any researcher authorized to see the data by the feds should have access to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why this data isn't just shared publicly to anyone who cares to inspect it. What's gained by hiding it?
Alzheimer's costs the US economy over $100B/yr, and that amount is likely to soar as the population ages. If a university finds a cure, or even a prevention, they stand to reap billions in patent license fees. The stakes here are very high.
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, you can't share the data gathered from living subjects or even deceased individuals when the data includes their DNA and detailed medical history.
There are strict protocols about this.
Which is why I laugh when vendors try to sell me "cloud solutions".
Re: (Score:2)
The data is probably already anonymized.
Re: (Score:1)
sadly, the totality of data on a longitudinal basis means if you have any of the keys you can fairly accurately identify. some trials ran into that problem with people with certain rare disorders. the existence of the allelles mean we know it's one of maybe 200 people in the world, so any of the other data deanonymizes it. had to remove data submissions in certain cases, as that would go against protocol.
It's a problem only recently realized, and partly brought on by the nature of people who become cases an
A Lot at Stake (Score:2)
I don't understand why this data isn't just shared publicly to anyone who cares to inspect it. What's gained by hiding it?
Alzheimer's costs the US economy over $100B/yr, and that amount is likely to soar as the population ages. If a university finds a cure, or even a prevention, they stand to reap billions in patent license fees. The stakes here are very high.
If the disputing parties or a family member develops dementia (high probability) and if the disease could have been mitigated or cured by the sharing of data the stakes are a LOT higher than a dollars. What good is Billion dollars if you can't recognize a family member or even remember your own name. Stupid people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If he is PI, he should have the data.
If taxes paid for it, the data should be available to anyone the feds approve to view the data, which is generally determined by the PI.
So yes, it's an academic hissy fit, that one university lost a PI on a government funded study and the project moved with him as it should.
My wife was in the position of running a government funded education study. Education departments in universities know nothing about securing or protecting data, so it fell to me to do the crypto and
Re: (Score:2)
That certainly is not universally true.
The subject privacy rules also grant access to people not institutions. Even if an institution has the data, it doesn't mean the institution has people who are authorized to see the data. the customer (the government probably) has an interest in the data it has paid for being in the hands of the authorized investigators. Principally the PI, which is why that person is called the PI.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
why can't we all just get along? (Score:3)
Seems easy to me (Score:2)
Re:Seems easy to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Not quite so easy. Half the time these federal grants are tied to the individual, not the university. Heck, applying for a research position at my university is a waste of time unless you already have a grant. Side-note: Yep, they're having staffing problems.
The interesting thing is the computers. If they were on site, then it doesn't matter about root access. Pull the plug, and restore from backups or change to single user mode. If they're cloud servers paid for with federal grant money, then it becomes a tricky issue...
Re: (Score:2)
Well it also depends on who owns the computers. Computers used in research are usually tied into the research grant, at least at the uni I work at, therefore the professor could probably just come get, everything. The way the grant is written is going to be key, how ever the professor really screwed up here. I dont know how this school works, but I know at mine the uni tries to keep a good relationship with the professors who move on.
Re: (Score:1)
Depends on what you believe. The court doc's filed by Aisen et al a few weeks back assert that UCSD didn't provide support commensurate with the indirects charged on the dollars that came through the door. (Indirects are the taxes the university charged on grant dollars to cover things like building infrastructure and keeping the lights, network, and A/C on.... I don't know what the indirect rate is on the ADCS grant at UCSD is, but I wouldn't bat an eye at 40% ... I think the record was Stanford in the 8
Re: (Score:2)
At my uni is is either 26 or 52% depending on if it is primarily off/on campus research grants, how ever I am not sure how that claim will hold. Computer equipmnet is normally in the grant, if not the school computers were probably used. You normally have tech support services, datacenters, and a whole host of other things available to you, but if you chose to use cloud computing that is really on you, and does not lower the cost to maintain the other services in case you need them.
BTW it looks like the ind
Re: (Score:2)
hey guys, The Cloud is secure right? (Score:2)
The computers in question, I believe, are in the cloud (if I remember the Aisen et al filing correctly.)
Hey guys, the cloud is secure right? Lets put our accounting details in there too and not have backups.
Re: (Score:2)
assert that UCSD didn't provide support commensurate with the indirects charged on the dollars that came through the door.
Who cares? You don't get to steal IP just because your bosses are dicks..
Re:Seems easy to me (Score:5, Insightful)
But, honestly, without being familiar with all the details:
Hired to administer an existing program ... that sort of screams you can't suddenly claim ownership of it and bring it with you when you leave.
If this many players have been involved that long, one guy can't suddenly claim it's his and lock everybody else out.
Re: (Score:2)
However if you read it the NIH grants are actually made to both
Principal investigators (PIs) on an NIH grant must contact NIH through their institution to seek prior approval for a change of institution. NIH grants are made to institutions, not to individuals. When a PI moves to another institution, the original grantee institution frequently agrees to relinquish the grant to the PIs new institution but NIH must approve this transfer. If the original grantee institution does not wish to relinquish the grant, they must seek NIH approval to appoint a new PI to the grant. NIH must assess whether the project can continue under the new scientific leadership at the original institution, and if so will approve a change in PI. If not, the grant is terminated
Re: (Score:1)
Additionally, any copyrights and patents usually derive to the actual research university which first worked on it. Not the PI.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Appropriate (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
work-for-hire does not work here. The professor got the grant, and the grant is typically tied to the professor, not the university, in fact a lot of times you get hired specifically because YOU have grants. At the CSC department for the school I work for I would get in computers from other schools (computers tied to the grant not owned by the school) to attach to our network every time a new professor transfered in. As for staff, it too is usually tied to the grant. Grad students are paid by grant money th
Re: (Score:2)
I resend this partially. It seems the school owned the research but the professor is still tied to many of the grants. It is going to be a bumpy ride.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They forgot how to spell. Looks like they're just in time for this round of studies!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're going to lose this one (Score:3)
UC San Diego alleges that Aisen and at least eight colleagues (who have joined Aisen at USC) changed computer passwords to retain their custody and root control of the ADCS system, essentially locking out UCSD from administrative control of the Alzheimer’s study.
Courts have traditionally taken a dim view of that strategy. Hostage taking is almost never the answer, regardless of the nature of the dispute. Had he taken a copy of the database, that would have been more palatable. Something is always hinky when one person sets themselves up as the lone guardian of data purity.
... this can't be legal. (Score:3)
Just running off with the data and going "tee hee"... I don't get how that works if you can put your hands around his scrawny neck.
I suspect UC has less of a claim on it than they thought or the court case to get the professor to give the data back is going to be short and hilarious.
The Future (Score:2)
And 100 years from now, will anyone even remember this?
Re:The Future (Score:4, Funny)
Of course not, by the time we're 100, we'll all have Alzheimer's and won't remember a thing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Giving both institutions every tool they need (ie the data) the work will progress better than giving just one institution protected access to the data. Compete for solutions and share the data.
Grants to Researchers vs Institutions (Score:5, Interesting)
The issue is a general one with research. Who owns the research project and the grants – the institution (UCSD) or the researchers (Prof. Aisen and his team). [disclosure: I'm a university professor myself]
To me it seems clear that Prof. Aisen's research is his, and if he moves universities he takes his project with him (especially the data). It's true that formally the university administers the grant (the granting agency write them a check, equipment bought with the money is university property etc). But the project itself is an intangible concept, which runs with the people and not with the university.
Since grants are formally made to institutions, of course approval of the granting agency is needed to move the grant, but this should generally be routine. It's not like USC lacks the ability to administer this research. In particular, I'm quite troubled by the idea that "the original grantee institution [may] not wish to relinquish the grant". Grant-making decisions are primarily based on scientific criteria -- the potential contributions of the researchers -- not on the identity of their home institution, so this rule seems preposterous to me. "UCSD wants to resume its management of the study" -- but I doubt anyone from UCSD other than the research team actually managed the study – by definition the PIs manage the study. UCSD provided administrative services (financial oversight, for example) and facilities (for which the grant is charged overhead), but this is not a unique contribution of UCSD.
Some grants are political (Congressional earmarks) and then it may make sense not to move them if the researcher moves, but NIH grants shouldn't work like that (and in any case these earmarks are illegitimate).
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Grants to Researchers vs Institutions (Score:5, Insightful)
This program has been in existence since 1991. The professor has been in charge of the program since 2007. Please enlighten us as to how all of the data can be his when he has only been in charge of the program for 7-8 years of it's 24 year existence. If anything he would only have a right to the past 7-8 years worth of data not the other 17 years of data that was collected before he joined the project.
Re: (Score:2)
"Ownership" of Data (Score:4, Informative)
I agree on the studies that are currently ongoing -- the grant was awarded to the PI, not to the institution.
But this whole question of who 'owns' the data from research has been coming to ahead for a while. Common arguments are for one of:
* The PI
* The PI's institution
* The funder
The problem is that for years, the disposition of the data was never spelled out clearly in the RFPs. Most people had never heard of a DMP (Data Management Plan) until NSF started requiring them a few years ago.
So ... we get into the problem that because each grant can come up with a different DMP, we have to look to those to see who is the gatekeeper of the data. In some cases, the data is handed off to an IR (Institutional Repository; typically something managed by the library), and if that's spelled out in the DMP, then I'd say that the institution keeps control of the data. In some cases, it all needs to be sent back to the funder (NASA instrument contracts are like this, where the 'final data' must be deposited back to an ARC (Archive Resource Center)). But there might be other ones where the PI is personally responsible for access to the data.
Personally, I prefer the IR or funder, just because most scientists have no clue what they're doing when it comes to archiving data. See Data Sharing and Management Snafu in 3 Short Acts [youtube.com]. You also run into problems when PIs retire / die / move / whatever. ... but I don't deal with medical data where you need to have an active gatekeeper (IRB, Institutional Review Board, or similar) where you might need someone with better understanding of the data.
So anyway ... without there being something specifically in the grants, the institution likely can lay claim to keeping a copy of the data ... but I don't know if they can necessarily stop the PI from taking a copy with him, or even the server holding it (if the hardware was paid for through his current grants). They *might* be able to get the IRB involved, and insist that they need to review what's being done with the data that's being moved.
In this particular case, though ... it's not only an NIH grant (which are clearly to the institution), but the PI has only been there for 8 years -- so he's taking data that was collected by previous PIs before him. I'd say that his trying to take all data from the department, and not just that which he was PI for is a rather sleazy move.
(disclaimer : I'm one of the moderators on StackExchange's Open Data site [stackexchange.com] )
RTFA: "Ownership" of Data (Score:3)
UCSD—not Aisen— “is contractually obligated by its agreements with the NIH and research partners to maintain and safeguard data from clinical studies conducted by ADCS. ”
Re: (Score:3)
[disclosure: I've applied for and received an NIH grant]
Re: (Score:2)
Aye, this does seem to the crux of the dispute. Many researchers have always acted as if the PI is the owner ... but that's not what the grant language typically actually says.
So I conjecture that is what the Court(s) will have to decide "is the grant language (and germane government policy documents) to be read as written, or reinterpreted as has been the custom?"
Once upon a time, Courts gave a lot of weight to the language as written. Sometimes they still do. Other times, they seem willing to pretty much
Re: (Score:2)
“Principal investigators (PIs) on an NIH grant must contact NIH through their institution to seek prior approval for a change of institution. NIH grants are made to institutions, not to individuals. When a PI moves to another institution, the original grantee institution frequently agrees to relinquish the grant to the PIs new institution but NIH must approve this transfer. If the original grantee institution does not wish to relinquish the grant, they must seek NIH approval to appoint a new PI to the grant. NIH must assess whether the project can continue under the new scientific leadership at the original institution, and if so will approve a change in PI. If not, the grant is terminated.”
RTF Comment you are replying to (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Access to research data (Score:2)
I actually think you should start with the ownership.
I believe that, like the research results themselves, all the underlying data of publicly funded research belong to the general public. The researchers must have a right to keep their data secret for a while so they get first dibs to produce results from it, but eventually everybody else should get to try their hand at the data.
Several different agents should work on this. The granting agencies should insist all research data is properly curated and hos
Re: (Score:2)
I used to be a government scientist overseeing grants. I was always astounded that professors did such a poor job reading and understanding their contracts (and budgets). Industry was always much better at this, and university administrators were usually ok, but professors had no idea whether shifting money around would get them a slap on the wrist or potential jail time (tip: it's both). Aisen committed a crime here, if NIH wants to pursue it. You HAVE to clear this kind of thing with your granting age
nope wrong. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's medical research. There's insanely stringent restrictions on how you can release it. Research scientists get special permission (with patient consent) to have personally-identifiable medical info, because it's necessary to their research, but it's so detailed that releasing it for public consumption would be pretty darn bad for the subjects in the study, and they didn't give consent for it. It would also drive research subject recruitment rates way down if that was mandated in the future
This distinc
Re: (Score:1)
I think you mean the pharmas.
They want you to get a "cure" that keeps you functional but doesn't cure you. Very few scientists want that. They want to both cure it and find out how to turn off the triggers or ameliorate them.
A big pile of steaming shit (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this the new weekly version of the "You cows!" thing?
Yawn (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wrote donnybrook! It was turned into fracas by Slashdot!
Dammit! This is going to turn into a kerfuffle if they don't watch out.
Sigh (Score:1)
Very sad.
Most ADRCs use drive to drive backups btw. With multiple site locations. We get quakes here.
Reminds me of... (Score:2)
I wish someone would do the 'children... please... if you squabble like this, you'll both get nothing' thing.
Apparently (Score:1)
Don't upset academics (Score:2)
They'll take you to school.
Research Fight (Score:2)
Lets make this fair. Each university picks champions. They go into a room, whoever walks out... gets the research project.