UCSD is suing USC over a professor and his Alzheimer’s research center.
http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-ucsd-lawsuit-20150706-story.html
Poor UCSD… It’s a shame they have to resort to lawsuits… Faculty move from one school to another all the time, this will get laughed out of the court, only fool can’t see that…
It won’t get laughed out of court, there is a lot of funding, data, and rights to those at stake.
Agreed that this should have settled. From what I’ve read so far, USC did nothing wrong or that is actionable in court. It all gets down to the contract between UCSD and the researchers and the extent to which they have rights in the data at issue.
“lot of funding, data, and rights to those at stake” of course there is but that’s always the case and there is no lawsuits. Poor UCSD getting raided, first two top researches to rice and now this?? Are they getting massive austerity in the UC system?
Looks like karma and hypocrisy to me:
“Looks like karma and hypocrisy to me:”
Of course… the fact that they are suing is beyond absurd especially considering all the UCs engage in massive poaching from other schools…
I read the complaint and have the following comments:
- There are two private company contracts in addition to at least two grants involved.
- They all relate to and provide funding for the relevant research.
- Dr. Aisen was a signatory to the private contracts and one of the grants. He's not a named party, but under contracts law that doesn't matter. He's got rights and obligations under the contracts. That applies to the one grant as well. His duties can't be delegated.
- Under the contracts, both companies can terminate the agreements if he leaves. Under one of the grants, the grantor may transfer the grant to another institution if Dr. Aisen leaves, subject to UCSD's release. It's clear he's an integral part of the grants and contracts.
- The data are jointly owned by and belong to UCSD and the companies. UCSD gets first publication rights. NIH and the other grantor retain no license in the data. Dr. Aisen has no license or other ownership interest in the data; however he has a boatload of obligations under all agreements. He also has regulatory obligations as the principal investigator.
- The data under one of the grants must be shared with a global Alzheimer's computer network managed by USC's Dr. Toga.
- The NIH grant is part of a larger award to a consortium of schools conducting similar or related research, including USC.
- UCSD's lead lawyer at Crowell and Moring is a USC (BS) graduate.
- There is no mention whether Dr. Aisen has a separate and related contract with UCSD.
IMO, based on the above, the two companies will or should terminate the contracts. They will be partially reimbursed under the contracts and will follow Dr. Aisen to USC. The NIH and other grantor likely will follow him too and UCSD will release him. UCSD will have access to the data and Dr. Aisen and his team must assist UCSD in such access. He gets a limited license because he’s a beneficiary of the data, which must be shared. But he has no first publication rights in the data. The grants are reset once the original contracts and grants are terminated or amended. In short, Dr. Aisen will be forced to turn over the data to UCSD, subject to his regulatory requirements.
and UCSD on their websites continues to brag about how many “great” faculty they have poached from other schools. What a bunch of sore losers.
Any federally funded product is publicly owned. Of course UCSD will have access to the data, as will other researchers who request it. I believe that there are two important federally funded projects at east coast schools that are using these data. Sadly UCSD has sued. This is rare. And for a university like UCSD, which has boasted over the years about their poaching of prominent faculty from other schools, it is also hypocritical.
Admittedly I know very little about UCSD but my research indicates it’s a heavily research oriented school in the life sciences. At the undergraduate level, most kids are science majors and the social sciences are weak by comparison. Given the focus on graduate scientific research, UCSD has received major NIH funding relative to USC. UCSD’s vulnerability, in fact, is based upon its lopsided focus on scientific research and over-reliance on federal grants, reflected by its small endowment. Aside from taxpayer funding, UCSD has little demonstrated interest in private fundraising.
It comes as no surprise, given its dependency on federal grants, that USC is seen as such a threat in San Diego. Indeed, UCSD is trying hard to prevent USC from gaining any threshold in the area. UCSD just entered into another collaboration with a local research institute that USC had been courting. It appears UCSD is doing its best to monopolize life and biological sciences in San Diego County and overtly prevent USC from establishing any academic foothold in the area. Unfortunately, this predatory and exclusionary behavior is very bad for scientific research. In short, USC is threatening UCSD’s monopoly on federal research in the area. No wonder UCSD sued USC, and it all does come down to federal research dollars.
Fortunately for USC, Dr. Aisen and several of his fellow ex-UCSD researchers will help establish USC’s new institute in San Diego. From a business perspective, I’m certain large pharmaceutical companies will support USC’s efforts in the long run, if only to spread their risks and diversify their investments in Southern California. Companies would be nuts not to invest in USC in addition to UCSD.
USC’s focus on San Diego is a prudent, brilliant and sound long term investment as well.
What we are witnessing is nothing more than a predictable but futile effort to monopolize an industry in San Diego.
USC is an LA school and should stick to that but having said that the entire education community basically agrees that UCSD should not have been able to block Dr. Aisen.
“USC’s focus on San Diego is prudent,brilliant”??? what?? USC should stick to LA. You are in favor of this disturbing trend where Universities behave like corporations and move all over the country and even the world. Why? LA needs all the investment it can get…
Science and investments have no boundaries. Have you ever heard of the internet or remote sourcing? San Diego is in USC’s backyard and UCSD is too dependent on federal grants and our tax dollars. That’s UCSD’s Achilles heel.
Btw, Northeastern University opened a Seattle campus in 2013. I’ve seen it while walking about. Should UW be paranoid like UCSD? Me thinks not.
I think NYU Abu Dhabi takes the cake in that department, along with Carnegie-Mellon’s Silicon Valley campus. San Diego is in USC’s back yard by comparison, especially considering that USC has operated a satellite office in Orange County for years.
UCSD is just scared and acting like a wounded animal, that’s all. And they know they’re going to lose.
NYU in Abu Dhabi is a joke and an embarrassment… Northeastern U in Seattle?? AHAHAA laughable… CM at silicon valley… ok maybe and same with USC in San Diego but really USC needs to focus on developing LA. President N. has said he wants USC and Los Angeles to be a new power house in Biotech which is a good initiative but seriously stay out of San Diego.
USC has filed a countersuit against UCSD and I won’t go into the nitty gritty details, but upon further examination of the contracts at issue, it appears Dr. Aisen has a “full, unrestricted right to use the Clinical Study Results”, including the computer data at issue, for academic, non-commercial purposes, at least under the contract to which he, Toyama Chemical Co. Ltd., and UCSD are parties. That is a key fact because UCSD now claims Dr. Aisen violated California Penal Code Sec. 502, which provides criminal penalties against anyone who:
“[k]nowingly accesses and without permission takes, copies, or makes use of
any data from a computer, computer system, or computer network, or takes or
copies any supporting documentation, whether existing or residing internal or
external to a computer, computer system, or computer network.”
The problem with this argument is that Dr. Aisen was not only given permission to access the data base, i.e., a license and key to access the data, but one of the two contracts gives him the “full, unrestricted” right to do so. The Lilly contract, NIH grant and Alzheimer’s Association grant also require his management of the data base as the Principal Investigator; in fact, a license to access and use such data is a fundamental requirement of his duties as PI.
Accordingly, all of the bluster about Dr. Aisen allegedly committing a crime is without basis in fact or reality. He not only had permission to access the data base, but a contractual right to do so. This doesn’t even include his professional duties - and HIPAA requirements – as a doctor to protect personal identifying information of his patients.