And That’s the News from the Department of Psychiatry


And that’s the news from the Department of Psychiatry, where all the nurses are “supportive of research” and “all the patients are reviewed for possible research candidacy”

In the business of clinical trials, the most valuable commodities are the research subjects.  Filling clinical trials is hard, and filling them quickly is even harder. That’s why in 2000 a clinical investigator told the HHS Office of the Inspector General that research sponsors were looking for three things from research sites: “No. 1—rapid enrollment.  No. 2 — rapid enrollment.  No. 3 — rapid enrollment.”

Back in the early 2000s, the University of Minnesota’s Department of Psychiatry was having so much trouble getting research subjects that Quintiles, a Contract Research Organization, had put it on probation.  Perhaps the department’s difficulty convincing subjects to sign up for trials should not have been a surprise, given its alarming history of research scandals.  Yet by December 2003, the Department had managed a 180-degree turn.  In fact, it had become so successful in getting subjects into trials that Quintiles had profiled it in a CAFÉ study webcast.  How did the Department manage to become such an aggressively successful recruiting site?

A hint emerges in this document from the lawsuit against the University of Minnesota brought by Mary Weiss over the suicide of her son, Dan Markingson. The document, dated April 14, 2003, is labeled “CAFÉ Study Coordinator Teleconference,” and it mentions a number of strategies for recruiting subjects.

First, the document references a discussion of “ways to utilize subjects for multiple studies.”  The phrase “multiple studies” should set off a red flag. Enrolling severely mentally ill subjects in multiple industry-funded studies was exactly the strategy of former University of Minnesota psychiatrist Faruk Abuzzahab, who was eventually found to be responsible for the deaths and injuries of 46 patients. 

Second, the document discusses a “newly-added 16 bed psychosis specialty unit” where all nurses and staff are “supportive of research” and “all patients are reviewed for possible research candidacy.”  Every patient?  Remember, patients with psychotic illnesses are among the most vulnerable patients in the hospital. Because of their thought disorders, they are often unable to understand and appreciate the risks of research.  Yet according to this document, every patient on the psychosis unit is evaluated for his or her suitability for research studies — and perhaps even multiple studies.  How exactly do the Minnesota psychiatrists accomplish this?

Apparently one way is to have research staff “attend morning report before inpatient rounds take place,” in order to “identify any possible subjects who might be eligible for studies.” Yet again, this statement should raise alarm bells. Morning report is a time for discussing the care of patients, where private medical information is revealed.  Why should research staff working for pharmaceutical companies and Contract Research Organizations be given privileged access to the private health information of hospitalized patients?  Of course, privacy violations were at the heart of Mike Howard’s complaint about Stephen Olson to the Board of Regents, which was dismissed by the General Counsel.

This is an alarming document, but even more alarming is the fact that nobody at the University of Minnesota is willing to look into the issues it raises – not the Board of Regents, not the Research Subject Advocate, not the Research Integrity Officer, and not the Research Ethics Consultation Service.  At the very least someone should be asking the question: how do we know that the suicide of Dan Markingson in the CAFÉ study was an isolated case?

Note: this was first posted on Fear and Loathing in Bioethics.


Mad in America hosts blogs by a diverse group of writers. These posts are designed to serve as a public forum for a discussion—broadly speaking—of psychiatry and its treatments. The opinions expressed are the writers’ own.


Mad in America has made some changes to the commenting process. You no longer need to login or create an account on our site to comment. The only information needed is your name, email and comment text. Comments made with an account prior to this change will remain visible on the site.


  1. As soon as I glanced over at saw this post, the first thing that popped into my head was “Please, don’t let this be even more about the University of Minnesota and Dan Markingson.”

    This is about your 10th or so post on this subject. Couldn’t you at least dissect the facts of ANOTHER research scandal and write about it?

    Report comment

    • Sorry. I’m sure others are getting impatient as well. But this scandal took place at my own university, which has still done nothing about it. And as I wrote at the end of the post, my fear is that there are others who have been harmed as well. So I’m afraid I feel obligated to keep pressing this issue in any way that I can.

      Report comment

      • I think this is a classic dilemma of breadth vs. depth. I think Carl is picking away at a particular case, and the more he succeeds at it the more potential there is for universal lessons to be learned.

        I’m not sure the public is better served by waiting until some theoretical end-point, and publishing all of the learning then. That might present an illusory end-point. I think a blog offers an unique opportunity to go on the journey with someone of investigating, learning, turning things over and over.

        I think Carl does draw out the learnings and the universalities where he can. But I think it is another opportunity of a blog that the readers have the opportunity to do that collaboratively, as they go on the journey with the blogger. That’s how a blog is different than a magazine or a book; it’s living literature.

        Report comment

  2. Thanks for keeping the searchlight on the U of Minnesota and the Dan Markingson case, Carl.

    Were there other patients injured by these studies? Probably yes, but psychiatry — research and clinical — does not answer for injuries on its watch. For a psychiatrist to be held responsible for patient injury, he or she darn near has to kill a child.

    Report comment

    • I think that eventually we may find that others have been injured, but much of the information surrounding clinical trials is secret, especially in privately funded trials. Even lawsuits are usually settled in secret. Unless research subjects or their families come forward publicly, it is very difficult to get information.

      Report comment

  3. Hello,

    I was a Patient of Dr. Faruk
    Abuzzahab .

    I am kindly requesting all reports on him that are false
    be removed from the Internet.

    He was never Responsible for
    any death of any of his Patients.

    When a person decides to take their own life it is that person who is responsible.

    I read that he was responsible for 46 deaths!

    I just spoke with him, he is fine, he is well, and practicing .

    Please let’s stop false rumors.


    Report comment

  4. I have another comment.

    Yes people are mad in this Mental Health System.

    I believe it is time; some how
    the Mental Health Board ought to re- examine every single law and rules for the consideration of the Patient and Dr.

    Mental illness I believe is thee number one reason there is tragedy every day.
    I know I can not change this World.

    I do know I am one individual that cares deeply
    about this subject.

    I have a Family member whose Friends Husband got Murdered due to a Mentally ill individual who obviously was not treated .

    Please hear me loudly.

    If there is anything I can do to push a shift in this catastrophe of contiois violence, rage, unbelievable acts of insanity.

    I want to help.

    Thank you,


    Report comment