The latest investigative report into the University of Minnesota’s psychiatric research practices was “scathing,” reported Forbes in a two-part story. Journalist Judy Stone also wrote that she was “suprised” by the strength of the criticisms, in light of the fact that the report from the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs was actually “bought and paid for” by the university itself.
“Given President Kaler’s repeated goal (and seeming belief) of a research program that is ‘beyond reproach’,” wrote Stone, “it is particularly damning that the AAHRPP concluded, ‘the University’s efforts with regard to human subjects protections do not consistently reflect ‘best practices’ and are not, at this point, even remotely ‘beyond reproach’.”
The story has been extensively written about by MIA Blogger Carl Elliott. The Forbes articles looked first at what the report found, and then at what it missed.
UMN’s Clinical Research Practices: Far From ‘Beyond Reproach’ (Forbes, March 10, 2015)
What A Scathing External Report On Protections In Research Missed — Or Ignored (Forbes, March 11, 2015)