Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Dear Legislator,
Ever since the suicide of Dan Markingson in May 2004, the administration of the University of
Minnesota has maintained a posture of concern and leadership in launching investigations of the
circumstances surrounding the tragedy. The standard response to those who have called for an
independent investigation is contained in the statement given by the Universitys Chief Counsel,
Mark Rotenberg. This version was published on November 13, 2012.
As weve stated previously, the Markingson case has been exhaustively (emphasis mine) reviewed by federal,
state and academic bodies since 2004. The Board of Medical Practice, the Minnesota Attorney Generals office and
the Universitys Institutional Review Board have all reviewed the case. None found fault with the
University. None found fault with any of our faculty.
That statement is quite clear and leaves little reason for confusion. Certainly five reviews that
have been exhaustively conducted ought to satisfy the skeptical.
Frankly, it would satisfy this writer if it were true. With that in mind, lets review each claim
keeping in mind the word exhaustively.
The University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board
Richard Bianco, the University of Minnesota official responsible for overseeing research subject
protection, has testified in a deposition that the IRB did not investigate Markingsons
death. Consider the following passages from his deposition.
Q: Has the IRB done any investigation into the death of Dan Markingson?
A: Not a formal investigation, no.
Q: Has the university done any investigation into the death of Dan Markingson?
A: No.
And later:
Q: To the best of your knowledge, did anyone at the IRB, at the University of Minnesota, or anyone under your
office investigate this case, actually look at the records and see the court documents that Im describing, and if so,
could you give me the name of that person?
A: Not to my knowledge.
Q: Nobody did that.
A: No.
In spite of this statement taken under oath in 2006, the administration continued to propagate the
myth of the exhaustive review by the IRB.
The Hennepin County District Court
It is false to claim that the Hennepin County District Court reviewed the case and found no fault
with University faculty members. In the lawsuit brought by Mary Weiss in Hennepin County
District Court, a judge ruled in a partial summary judgment that the University IRB was
statutorily immune from liability. This is not an exoneration. As Matt Lamkin, a Minnesota
law graduate and member of the faculty at the University of Tulsa Law School has noted, to
suggest that the University of Minnesota was exonerated in this lawsuit is like a diplomat who got
drunk and ran over a child claiming he was "exonerated" by diplomatic immunity.
CAFE study was compromised by virtue of his civil commitment order. It noted that the
witnesses to Markingsons consent to the CAFE study were the principal investigator and the
study coordinator. The report questions also whether Markingson was actually eligible for the
CAF study. In addition, it faulted the halfway house staff for calling the program director rather
than 911 when Markingsons body was discovered after his suicide.
Over the years, the administration and the Board of Regents of the University has maintained
that the Markingson case has been thoroughly and exhaustively investigated by a total of
seven agencies and never was fault found. Ever since the Markingson death in 2004, the
administration and Board of Regents used this claim of numerous exhaustive and extensive
investigations as a hammer against those in dissent. Unfortunately, this weapon worked and it
worked well. Time and again, news stories covering the tragedies and problems with drug testing
at the University contained a paragraph citing these numerous and thorough investigations and a
finding of no fault. What was missing was an examination of the truthfulness of that claim.
The simple fact is that no one wants to believe any administration of higher education would
engage in any conduct that it not representative of the highest standards of truthfulness. As a
society, we view politicians with a certain suspicion and skepticism, but tend to have the opposite
view when it comes to religious leaders, judges and educators.
But, the reality is that any management system can perform below expectations and to some very
low levels regardless of institutional affiliation. That is why the oversight function is vital. In this
case, the Board of Regents was subservient to the wishes of management and hence refused to
hold a public hearing or even listen to the voices of dissent.
But that is why it is imperative that the Legislature start holding hearings now. Contrary to
former Board Chairman Board Chairman, Richard Beeson, six suicides, the conviction and
imprisonment of a professor, the banning by the FDA of certain researchers, allegations of abuse
of enrollees, a host of conflicts of interest, and a barrage of negative publicity do and should rise to
the level of your concern.
I very much appreciate your service.
Respectfully submitted,
Arne H. Carlson
Governor of Minnesota, Retired