Argus reports "SDSU's cozy deal questioned"

[JimmyJack]

Re: Argus reports "SDSU's cozy deal questioned"

I am a little disturbed at the idea that those asking questions are being vilified. I guess in my mind, when someone accepts a position as a public official--whether elected, appointed, or hired--they serve the people first.

If there is a potential for conflict of interest, I would certainly hope a state senator would do some sniffing around. I certainly wish a few in the U.S. house and senate would have done some sniffing about 6-10 years ago and maybe we wouldn't be in such an economic mess.

Oooh, but the BOR said it was OK. Well then, that is that. Except, maybe the BOR have potential conflicts with this situation. What happens if Monsanto donates a large sum of money for a new events center in Sioux Falls? I believe Mr. Boulan has some substantial input there.

In my experience, conflicts of interest are never an issue--until they become an issue. IE, some would say having a vice president who was on the board of a large corporation is no big deal. And it wasn't until the government started awarding no-bid contracts.

Sorry for the political references, I thought they seemed appropriate.

I don't have anything against the president or anyone else making large sums of money. I am genuinely glad for him, and it is a pretty big deal to get on the board for a company the size of Monsanto. However, there is NOTHING WRONG with asking questions about their relationship and whether or not there could be potential conflicts of interest.

Of course there is nothing wrong with asking questions. But some of the people who are upset about this seem to be ignoring the answers:

Is there a conflict of interest? No. Anybody who thinks that President Chicoine's associations will alter how research is done at SDSU doesn't understand how university research works. If you think the president controls what projects are funded or what happens with the findings, you're dreaming. Maybe some Monsanto money comes in, but the researchers doing the work operate independently and aren't subject to the president's affiliations.

Is this uncommon? No. It's actually extremely common. It's just new to South Dakota.

Has it distracted the president? No. Take a look at all that he's accomplished in a short time. SDSU is in good hands.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: Argus reports "SDSU's cozy deal questioned"

No offense JJ, but actually the question of whether or not any research decisions are changed is considered by most involved in the field (research compliance) as being irrelevant to the determination as to whether a conflict of interest exists. However, the fact that a conflict exists does not mean that anyone has done anything wrong. You can find many definitions of a conflict of interest, but I like the one the Institute of Medicine recently published in its Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education,
and Practice recommendations because it is a definition that can be used in any field:

"A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interests."

I think it is key to understand that in looking at situations, that people remember that it is just that: looking at situations and whether a risk is created. A conflict of interest exists whether or not an individual/institution is influenced by the secondary interest. It also needs to be remembered that all risks are not equal, and that risks, even large ones, can be effectively managed. However, the failure to realize the situation exists causes a problem.

Conflict of Interest policies and management plans should have as their focus to protect the integrity of the research, the researcher and the institution. Integral to protecting the integrity of the research is protecting human subjects if they are involved. In almost all federal granting situations, individual conflicts must be disclosed and virtually every publication requires that individual conflcits be disclosed as a condition of publication.

But at issue here is the role of institutional conflicts, which are sets of circumstances where the institution or its key personnel have a secondary interest that presents the risk of influencing the primary interest. These are much, much harder to define and distinguish when a decision between two primary interests are being evaluated, or when a primary and secondary interest are being evaluated. For example, an investigator that gets paid individually by a sponsor is different (not better or worse, different) situation than if SDSU accepts a donation from that sponsor. Institutional conflicts in academia can range from how much lab space a researcher gets to how much money the institution puts into their research.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Monsanto Board position is a conflict of interest for SDSU, because the "key person" is in a situation where a secondary interest (Monsanto) has the risk or influencing a primary interest. But that is only the first step in the process and I believe it is unfair to make judgments on the BOR, SDSU, or Dr. Chicoine based on this information alone. I do not know what type of management plan has been instituted by the BOR so I have to trust that the members and staff have thoroughly researched the situation and are satisfied with the result.

Finally, I would add that this is an area (institutional conflicts) that is rapidly changing and currrently there is very little guidance in the regulatory scheme that helps people to make decisions that will not later be judged as "bad." In fact, on May 8th, the NIH asked for comments under the rule making process as to how institutional conflicts should be defined and what policies that address institutional conflicts should include. Whether Pres. Chicoine was on the Monsanto board or not, this is an issue that will be addressed by the BOR again in the near future.

[JimmyJack]

Re: Argus reports "SDSU's cozy deal questioned"

No offense JJ, but actually the question of whether or not any research decisions are changed is considered by most involved in the field (research compliance) as being irrelevant to the determination as to whether a conflict of interest exists. However, the fact that a conflict exists does not mean that anyone has done anything wrong. You can find many definitions of a conflict of interest, but I like the one the Institute of Medicine recently published in its Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education,
and Practice recommendations because it is a definition that can be used in any field:

"A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interests."

I think it is key to understand that in looking at situations, that people remember that it is just that: looking at situations and whether a risk is created. A conflict of interest exists whether or not an individual/institution is influenced by the secondary interest. It also needs to be remembered that all risks are not equal, and that risks, even large ones, can be effectively managed. However, the failure to realize the situation exists causes a problem.

Conflict of Interest policies and management plans should have as their focus to protect the integrity of the research, the researcher and the institution. Integral to protecting the integrity of the research is protecting human subjects if they are involved. In almost all federal granting situations, individual conflicts must be disclosed and virtually every publication requires that individual conflcits be disclosed as a condition of publication.

But at issue here is the role of institutional conflicts, which are sets of circumstances where the institution or its key personnel have a secondary interest that presents the risk of influencing the primary interest. These are much, much harder to define and distinguish when a decision between two primary interests are being evaluated, or when a primary and secondary interest are being evaluated. For example, an investigator that gets paid individually by a sponsor is different (not better or worse, different) situation than if SDSU accepts a donation from that sponsor. Institutional conflicts in academia can range from how much lab space a researcher gets to how much money the institution puts into their research.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Monsanto Board position is a conflict of interest for SDSU, because the "key person" is in a situation where a secondary interest (Monsanto) has the risk or influencing a primary interest. But that is only the first step in the process and I believe it is unfair to make judgments on the BOR, SDSU, or Dr. Chicoine based on this information alone. I do not know what type of management plan has been instituted by the BOR so I have to trust that the members and staff have thoroughly researched the situation and are satisfied with the result.

Finally, I would add that this is an area (institutional conflicts) that is rapidly changing and currrently there is very little guidance in the regulatory scheme that helps people to make decisions that will not later be judged as "bad." In fact, on May 8th, the NIH asked for comments under the rule making process as to how institutional conflicts should be defined and what policies that address institutional conflicts should include. Whether Pres. Chicoine was on the Monsanto board or not, this is an issue that will be addressed by the BOR again in the near future.

Could you find a broader definition of conflict of interest? By that definition, pretty much any secondary concern creates a conflict. And that definition presupposes that there is some perfectly objective state that one might achieve. There is not. It also presupposes that there are no institutional controls to avoid those conflicts. There are.

Specifially in this case, you're suggesting that the conflict exists in the form of one person's affiliations. If you think that President Chicoine is involved in research decisions at SDSU, you must know something I don't know. The entire research program at a university is isolated from from outside concerns. Nobody would fund research at SDSU if they believed there was a conflict that wasn't accounted for by institutional processes. And it might interest everyone to know that sponsored research is at an all-time high at SDSU. Why would those funding agencies choose to sponsor research at a university that is so clearly in the tank for Monsanto? Perhaps because they're stupid? Or perhaps it's because SDSU, like every research university, has built in controls that insulate research from outside influences as much as is humanly possible. It's not like we're new to this stuff. We don't have to reinvent the wheel.

I think a lot of this skepticism is based in people's fundamental dislike of intellectual workers and distrust of those with Ph.D. degrees. Because intellectual work doesn't involve banging storm doors together, it must be easy, right? And therefore, it must be easily compromised, right? After all, it isn't real work. Not saying you believe that, 1stRow, but that is not an uncommon worldview.

[filbert]

Re: Argus reports "SDSU's cozy deal questioned"

I think we've reached the core of the entire argument:

Resolved: that paid membership on a corporate board is, without regard to any other consideration, a conflict of interest.

Those who think it is, won't easily be convinced otherwise. Those who think it isn't, won't either.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: Argus reports "SDSU's cozy deal questioned"

JJ,
I think we really don't have that much of a difference of opinion. Part of the issue is that IOM report is about 350 pages and I did major condensing other than the one quote. As for broader definitions, they are out there. I don't have it handy, but one has four variations 'has the potential to' in it's one sentence definition. I was just trying to shed some light on how these things are addressed from a compliance aspect.

The institutional controls that you spoke of are created by the policies I referenced. It is unlikely that any entitiy's top official will be excluded from COI rules regarding research, if for nothing else the overall budget. The issue of institutional coi's is very complex; where do job responsibilities intersect into decisions that affect research departments throughout the entity.

As for research being isolated from outside interests, you appear to agree with me when you say "as much as humanly possible." Right now there are institutions that may have all of their federal funding pulled because of "the lack of institutional control." I know that SDSU has very good people in the infrastructure for research. In fact, several of them were at a regional conference on sponsored research with me the day the Argus ran its first story.

Also, I do not think that I said that SDSU was in the tank for Monsanto. I said the fact that he is on the board is not enough to judge anything and that I don't have the information to make any judgments. I tried to make clear that, from a compliance aspect, that the existence of a conflict does not imply anything negative but is just neutral. I understand the popular perception of the phrase 'conflict of interest' is not neutral.

I had hoped to bring the two views Filbert referenced together because as I saw them each side was talking past each other. I obviously didn't succeed. I didn't post earlier because I was not sure that I could adequately explain a very technical part of compliance in this format. I should have went with my gut instinct.

[JimmyJack]

Re: Argus reports "SDSU's cozy deal questioned"

1stRow: Gotcha. I think your posts were definitely helpful in understanding this situation. I'm guessing those who hadn't thought much about this now have some information to help them come to their own conclusions.

Your post just prompted me to point out a few things that have been bugging me about this discussion, in particular the notion that a university president could impose his or her will on the academic and research communities on a campus. It just isn't the case. There are institutional controls (and, yes, as with any human endeavor, there is the potential for conflict, but there are institutional controls that minimize that potential to the extent it is possible to do so.)

Bottom line: whether or not Sen. Kloucek or anybody else imagines a conflict here that would require action, the key is that outside funding agencies won't see a conflict and the money for research will keep flowing.

[zooropa]

Re: Argus reports "SDSU's cozy deal questioned"

I'd like to point out that Chicoine's appointment really doesn't create a 'contrasting background.' If anything, Chicoine stood out as different because he was -not- on a board.

If merely accepting a position on the board of directors of a major corporation were sufficient to establish a detrimental 'conflict of interest', then a number of extremely well regarded (and productive) institutions would, by now, be dysfunctional.

IMO the only question is whether this impacts what is done at SDSU.

Inasmuch as Chicoine is in favor of building a corps of 'research professors' who would be expected to write their own grant applications and obtain their own funding, it seems the risk of corporate meddling through the office of president is pretty minimal.

---

Regarding Filbert's earlier post of a study saying that gov't support = inefficient universities, I question the methodology of the studies: specifically, the criteria did not include any undergraduate success metrics.

[Nidaros]

Re: Argus reports "SDSU's cozy deal questioned"

I have to agree this discussion has turned out to be enlightening thanks to 1st row. It make's it more of a complex issue, but I have to agree with JJ, in that research does have independance from funding and adminstrative sources.

In my mind Monsanto is such a perfect fit for SDSU for partnership in research since one of the strong departments at SDSU is Plant Science and Agronomy. I dont think we would be able to parade out all those big checks at the cereal bowls if certain parties across the state did not have respect for the research conducted at SDSU. The crop improvement and trade associations amongst crop producers may have some concerns, but I really don't think they are going to be hurt by our relationship with Monsanto. The world is getting smaller. Cooperation rather than competition is becoming more the norm especially in agriculture.

If the Engineering Department were to somehow strike a deal with General Electric and appointed a profile person from SDSU to their board of directors, would there be this much concern? No doubt most would see this appointment as a door opening to economic developement and jobs for South Dakota. Who would argue conflict of interest in that situation? Not me.

[West-River_Jack]

Re: Argus reports "SDSU's cozy deal questioned"

I thought that this was old news that had long been resolved and put to rest. Today, I noticed this article in the local paper. The Meade County Commission is being requested to sign a letter to the South Dakota Board of Regents in opposition of allowing President Chicoine to serve on boards outside of his job as president of South Dakota State University. Here is a link to the article:

http://www.blackhillsweeklygroup.com...8637139409.txt

I find it interesting that the petitioner cited another effort against Monsano's round up ready alfalfa in his request to denounce President Chicoine's service on the Monsanto Board. Perhaps there is significance. Perhaps there is not.

[Nidaros]

Re: Argus reports "SDSU's cozy deal questioned"

I thought that this was old news that had long been resolved and put to rest. Today, I noticed this article in the local paper. The Meade County Commission is being requested to sign a letter to the South Dakota Board of Regents in opposition of allowing President Chicoine to serve on boards outside of his job as president of South Dakota State University. Here is a link to the article:

http://www.blackhillsweeklygroup.com...8637139409.txt

I find it interesting that the petitioner cited another effort against Monsano's round up ready alfalfa in his request to denounce President Chicoine's service on the Monsanto Board. Perhaps there is significance. Perhaps there is not.

Being on the board of directors is not being an employee, so the comments about have two employers does not hold water. Since the President collects a certain amount of director fees, I would hope he would turn around and donate these fees to the SDSU Foundation. I suppose the conflict of interest would still linger in some SD minds.

[jackmd]

Re: Argus reports "SDSU's cozy deal questioned"

Being on the board of directors is not being an employee,

That seems to be a difficult distinction for some people to make. Prominent individuals in our society are frequently asked to serve on boards. Due to limited time and vast amounts of responsibility they are often compensated for that service in order to help secure their commitment. If there is a conflict of interest I'm pretty sure President Chicoine would address it.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: Argus reports "SDSU's cozy deal questioned"

I suppose the conflict of interest would still linger in some SD minds.

This is an old topic and has been thoroughly discussed before. However, the primary question is not does a conflict appear to some SD minds, but has the BOR set up a process to manage conflicts in the minds of the federal regulators that oversee the various research being done on the campus. I believe the answer to that is yes.

[jackmd]

Re: Argus reports "SDSU's cozy deal questioned"

This is an old topic and has been thoroughly discussed before. However, the primary question is not does a conflict appear to some SD minds, but has the BOR set up a process to manage conflicts in the minds of the federal regulators that oversee the various research being done on the campus. I believe the answer to that is yes.

I've reviewed the BOR policy regarding this question and I think it was sufficient as written 10 years ago. My opinion, the media and the Argus in particular were/are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Time to leave this issue and focus on real news.