| ... |
| San Diego Education Reportv |
UC San Diego Ranked 8th Best Public University
Nationwide
by Chris Jennewein
Times of San Diego
September 9, 2014
The University of California, San Diego was ranked as the 8th best public
university in the nation by U.S. News & World Report in its 30th annual college
report released Tuesday.
The publication’s 2015 Best Colleges report ranks UC San Diego the 37th best
university in the U.S. among more than 200 public, private and for-profit
institutions...
Nationwide
by Chris Jennewein
Times of San Diego
September 9, 2014
The University of California, San Diego was ranked as the 8th best public
university in the nation by U.S. News & World Report in its 30th annual college
report released Tuesday.
The publication’s 2015 Best Colleges report ranks UC San Diego the 37th best
university in the U.S. among more than 200 public, private and for-profit
institutions...
UCSD (University of California San Diego)
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |
UCLA
UCLA
UCLA Radiology and
Medical Records
UCLA CareConnect
UCLA Compliance
Dr. Robert Pedowitz
wins $10 million for
retaliation by UCLA for
blowing whistle on
industry payments to
doctors
Dr. Eugene
Washington, dean of
medical school
Dr. Andrew Saxon,
author of paper on
harmlessness of
indoor mold
UCLA conflict of
interest
UCLA Cull case
UCLA culture:
contempt and racism?
UCLA Dermatology
UCLA Patient
Advocates
UCLA Patrick Harron
to be arraigned in
burning death in
chemistry lab
UCLA contract
with Kaiser for
kidney transplants
UCLA Radiology and
Medical Records
UCLA CareConnect
UCLA Compliance
Dr. Robert Pedowitz
wins $10 million for
retaliation by UCLA for
blowing whistle on
industry payments to
doctors
Dr. Eugene
Washington, dean of
medical school
Dr. Andrew Saxon,
author of paper on
harmlessness of
indoor mold
UCLA conflict of
interest
UCLA Cull case
UCLA culture:
contempt and racism?
UCLA Dermatology
UCLA Patient
Advocates
UCLA Patrick Harron
to be arraigned in
burning death in
chemistry lab
UCLA contract
with Kaiser for
kidney transplants
| News, information and ideas about our education system, courts and health care by Maura Larkins |
Alzheimer’s data dispute gets even more tangled
Science.
By Emily Underwood
7 August 2015
The federally funded Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS) didn’t inspire
much cooperation this week between the University of California, San Diego
(UCSD), and the University of Southern California (USC) in Los Angeles. Instead,
the two schools battling over control of the study dug in further for what’s shaping
up as a vitriolic legal battle, even as a California judge and research sponsor Eli Lilly
aligned with opposite sides in the unusual academic spat...
Science.
By Emily Underwood
7 August 2015
The federally funded Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS) didn’t inspire
much cooperation this week between the University of California, San Diego
(UCSD), and the University of Southern California (USC) in Los Angeles. Instead,
the two schools battling over control of the study dug in further for what’s shaping
up as a vitriolic legal battle, even as a California judge and research sponsor Eli Lilly
aligned with opposite sides in the unusual academic spat...
Is it all about money for UCSD? New criminal case involving
UCSD researcher pops up as civil suit over research dollars
seems to be coming to a close
UCSD's ethics conundrum continues as backstage
deals loom
Alzheimer's legal settlement pending,
physicist's criminal case to follow
By Matt Potter
San Diego Reader
Jan. 8, 2016
As yet another academic scandal emerges at UCSD, court records show that the
school is on the verge of cutting a deal with the University of Southern California,
sued last summer by UCSD over the departure of Paul Aisen, who took UCSD's
lucrative Alzheimer’s research program to the university's bitter Los Angeles rival.
Paul Aisen
As previously reported here, after flinging accusations of theft and dishonesty at
each other for months, the two institutions agreed to sit down together January 4 at
a so-called Early Neutral Evaluation Conference, conducted by federal magistrate
judge Jill L. Burkhardt.
With the litigation threatening to expose more embarrassing lab laundry, pressure
was reportedly growing on both sides to come up with some sort of accommodation,
which, judging from a January 7 order by Burkhardt, is likely to soon be made public.
"The parties shall lodge with the Court a PDF document containing the terms of the
agreement reached by the parties during the Early Neutral Evaluation Conference
no later than 4:30 PM on Friday, 1/8/2016,” says the instruction by Burkhardt.
In addition, Burkhardt's order says, a motion “containing the terms of the parties'
agreement, as well as any other language the parties agree is necessary and
appropriate for purposes of the stipulation" is to be filed in the case by the end of
Monday, January 11.
The courthouse war of science broke out last July following Aisen's abrupt
decampment to USC.
"May 22nd, Dr. Aisen told all the staff at the [Alzheimer's program] he's moving to
USC and that they're going to lose their jobs," maintained UCSD's attorney, Dan
Sharp.
"And on May 23rd, Dr. Mobley called Dr. Aisen into his office and said that was
wrong to do and took away his computer access, because Dr. Mobley was
concerned about Dr. Aisen stealing the data, and that's exactly what he did."
USC lawyers countered that its rival had “pressured Dr. Aisen to move [the
Alzheimer’s program] to the UCSD campus so that UCSD could collect indirect costs
of up to 55 percent, a move which would have crippled the program financially by
diverting too much grant funding from research projects into UCSD’s
Administration.”
Whether Monday's settlement is intended to mark a final end to the wrangling is yet
to be seen.
Meanwhile, UCSD has been confronted with other questions of ethics arising from
the guilty plea made by former space physics research professor Homayoun
Karimabadi to federal charges of grant fraud.
According to a January 7 news release by the U.S. Attorney's office here,
Karimabadi and SciberQuest, Inc., a corporation he operated, received "$6.4 million
under 22 separate grants or contracts. Of those, eight were Small Business
Innovation Research grants with a value of about $1,760,000."
To obtain the federal support, which was provided by the Air Force, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation, the
professor "made false statements to government officials," the release says.
"Specifically, in award proposals, Dr. Karimabadi failed to disclose all of his and
SciberQuest’s current and pending grants or contracts, thereby overstating the
time he and SciberQuest could devote to the projects he was applying to receive."
Additionally, "Dr. Karimabadi also falsely certified in [Small Business] award
proposals submitted to NASA and USAF that he was primarily employed by
SciberQuest. In truth, he was employed full-time at UCSD both at the time of the
award submission and during the performance of the grant.”
According to the document, “Dr. Karimabadi and SciberQuest made these false
statements to be awarded grants or contracts that they likely would not have
received but for the deception. As a result, from 2005 to 2013, Dr. Karimabadi
received over $1.9 million in salary from SciberQuest due, in part, to the
fraudulently obtained grants or contracts."
NASA inspector general Paul Martin was quoted as saying, "Individuals who
fraudulently obtain federal research funds earmarked for small businesses deprive
others of an opportunity to pursue meaningful technological discoveries.”
Added U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy, "Dr. Karimabadi took advantage of his trusted
positions at SciberQuest and UCSD to deceive government agencies into awarding
federal grants or contracts."
She continued, "Federal research funding is an important stimulus to local
economies, especially in San Diego, which has a large research university
presence. Fraud in the award process threatens to undermine confidence in the
continued federal funding of research and innovation.”
Sentencing for SciberQuest is set for March 18, with the firm and Karimabadi
agreeing to forfeit $180,000.
In addition, the release says, Karimabadi will be in court January 15, 2016, "for
further proceedings to enter a Deferred Prosecution Agreement for his role in the
matter."
Explains the document, "A deferred prosecution agreement is an agreement
between a criminal defendant and the United States Attorney’s Office wherein the
defendant admits to the facts constituting a criminal offense, but the United States
agrees to suspend the entry of judgment for a period of time and agrees to dismiss
the charges if, during that period, the defendant complies with certain conditions
set forth in the agreement."
UCSD researcher pops up as civil suit over research dollars
seems to be coming to a close
UCSD's ethics conundrum continues as backstage
deals loom
Alzheimer's legal settlement pending,
physicist's criminal case to follow
By Matt Potter
San Diego Reader
Jan. 8, 2016
As yet another academic scandal emerges at UCSD, court records show that the
school is on the verge of cutting a deal with the University of Southern California,
sued last summer by UCSD over the departure of Paul Aisen, who took UCSD's
lucrative Alzheimer’s research program to the university's bitter Los Angeles rival.
Paul Aisen
As previously reported here, after flinging accusations of theft and dishonesty at
each other for months, the two institutions agreed to sit down together January 4 at
a so-called Early Neutral Evaluation Conference, conducted by federal magistrate
judge Jill L. Burkhardt.
With the litigation threatening to expose more embarrassing lab laundry, pressure
was reportedly growing on both sides to come up with some sort of accommodation,
which, judging from a January 7 order by Burkhardt, is likely to soon be made public.
"The parties shall lodge with the Court a PDF document containing the terms of the
agreement reached by the parties during the Early Neutral Evaluation Conference
no later than 4:30 PM on Friday, 1/8/2016,” says the instruction by Burkhardt.
In addition, Burkhardt's order says, a motion “containing the terms of the parties'
agreement, as well as any other language the parties agree is necessary and
appropriate for purposes of the stipulation" is to be filed in the case by the end of
Monday, January 11.
The courthouse war of science broke out last July following Aisen's abrupt
decampment to USC.
"May 22nd, Dr. Aisen told all the staff at the [Alzheimer's program] he's moving to
USC and that they're going to lose their jobs," maintained UCSD's attorney, Dan
Sharp.
"And on May 23rd, Dr. Mobley called Dr. Aisen into his office and said that was
wrong to do and took away his computer access, because Dr. Mobley was
concerned about Dr. Aisen stealing the data, and that's exactly what he did."
USC lawyers countered that its rival had “pressured Dr. Aisen to move [the
Alzheimer’s program] to the UCSD campus so that UCSD could collect indirect costs
of up to 55 percent, a move which would have crippled the program financially by
diverting too much grant funding from research projects into UCSD’s
Administration.”
Whether Monday's settlement is intended to mark a final end to the wrangling is yet
to be seen.
Meanwhile, UCSD has been confronted with other questions of ethics arising from
the guilty plea made by former space physics research professor Homayoun
Karimabadi to federal charges of grant fraud.
According to a January 7 news release by the U.S. Attorney's office here,
Karimabadi and SciberQuest, Inc., a corporation he operated, received "$6.4 million
under 22 separate grants or contracts. Of those, eight were Small Business
Innovation Research grants with a value of about $1,760,000."
To obtain the federal support, which was provided by the Air Force, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation, the
professor "made false statements to government officials," the release says.
"Specifically, in award proposals, Dr. Karimabadi failed to disclose all of his and
SciberQuest’s current and pending grants or contracts, thereby overstating the
time he and SciberQuest could devote to the projects he was applying to receive."
Additionally, "Dr. Karimabadi also falsely certified in [Small Business] award
proposals submitted to NASA and USAF that he was primarily employed by
SciberQuest. In truth, he was employed full-time at UCSD both at the time of the
award submission and during the performance of the grant.”
According to the document, “Dr. Karimabadi and SciberQuest made these false
statements to be awarded grants or contracts that they likely would not have
received but for the deception. As a result, from 2005 to 2013, Dr. Karimabadi
received over $1.9 million in salary from SciberQuest due, in part, to the
fraudulently obtained grants or contracts."
NASA inspector general Paul Martin was quoted as saying, "Individuals who
fraudulently obtain federal research funds earmarked for small businesses deprive
others of an opportunity to pursue meaningful technological discoveries.”
Added U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy, "Dr. Karimabadi took advantage of his trusted
positions at SciberQuest and UCSD to deceive government agencies into awarding
federal grants or contracts."
She continued, "Federal research funding is an important stimulus to local
economies, especially in San Diego, which has a large research university
presence. Fraud in the award process threatens to undermine confidence in the
continued federal funding of research and innovation.”
Sentencing for SciberQuest is set for March 18, with the firm and Karimabadi
agreeing to forfeit $180,000.
In addition, the release says, Karimabadi will be in court January 15, 2016, "for
further proceedings to enter a Deferred Prosecution Agreement for his role in the
matter."
Explains the document, "A deferred prosecution agreement is an agreement
between a criminal defendant and the United States Attorney’s Office wherein the
defendant admits to the facts constituting a criminal offense, but the United States
agrees to suspend the entry of judgment for a period of time and agrees to dismiss
the charges if, during that period, the defendant complies with certain conditions
set forth in the agreement."
Does it have to get as bad as the VA before doctors at Kaiser, UCSD and
UCLA and other powerful members of the medical establishment will come forward as
whistle-blowers?
UCLA and other powerful members of the medical establishment will come forward as
whistle-blowers?
Does it have to get as bad
as the VA before doctors at
Kaiser, UCSD and UCLA and
other powerful members of the
medical establishment will
come forward as
whistle-blowers?
as the VA before doctors at
Kaiser, UCSD and UCLA and
other powerful members of the
medical establishment will
come forward as
whistle-blowers?
Update on UCSD v. Aisen, USC
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE IN UCSD V. USC and Dr. Aisen
Case 3:15-cv-01766-BEN-JLB
10/31/16
... UCSD continues to hinder cooperation over the studies that
have since transferred to USC...
UCSD has repeatedly used the threat of contempt
against Defendants (even in the last two months after
the Court denied UCSD’s motion for contempt sanctions) to
impede USC’s management of the Transferred Studies.
Importantly, USC lacks access and control to all critical components of the EDC to
effectively manage the Transferred Studies.
As a result, USC does not receive real time notifications of routine or urgent
infrastructure maintenance that needs to be performed to keep the EDC functioning
properly. In addition, the USC team does not have the ability to edit the Google
spreadsheets used to configure the EDC, which is necessary to update critical aspects
of the study portals or modify user privileges.
This limitation has hindered the progress of the studies and
threatens their continued success if not addressed.
Once again, UCSD has made clear that it is more concerned with using the
preliminary injunction as leverage in the litigation even if it would destroy the
critical research that hangs in the balance.
This Court has already made clear that a primary purpose
and intent of the injunction is to protect the
groundbreaking research for the benefit of the public good.
Any interpretation of the injunction that disregards the rights
of the study sponsors and thousands of patients involved
in these studies, as UCSD suggests, would be contrary to the
public interest.
Without the minor clarifications and/or modifications requested by USC, the
cooperation deemed necessary by the Special Master for the benefit of the research
and the patients involved will be subject to the whim and litigation objectives of UCSD...
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE IN UCSD V. USC and Dr. Aisen
Case 3:15-cv-01766-BEN-JLB
10/31/16
... UCSD continues to hinder cooperation over the studies that
have since transferred to USC...
UCSD has repeatedly used the threat of contempt
against Defendants (even in the last two months after
the Court denied UCSD’s motion for contempt sanctions) to
impede USC’s management of the Transferred Studies.
Importantly, USC lacks access and control to all critical components of the EDC to
effectively manage the Transferred Studies.
As a result, USC does not receive real time notifications of routine or urgent
infrastructure maintenance that needs to be performed to keep the EDC functioning
properly. In addition, the USC team does not have the ability to edit the Google
spreadsheets used to configure the EDC, which is necessary to update critical aspects
of the study portals or modify user privileges.
This limitation has hindered the progress of the studies and
threatens their continued success if not addressed.
Once again, UCSD has made clear that it is more concerned with using the
preliminary injunction as leverage in the litigation even if it would destroy the
critical research that hangs in the balance.
This Court has already made clear that a primary purpose
and intent of the injunction is to protect the
groundbreaking research for the benefit of the public good.
Any interpretation of the injunction that disregards the rights
of the study sponsors and thousands of patients involved
in these studies, as UCSD suggests, would be contrary to the
public interest.
Without the minor clarifications and/or modifications requested by USC, the
cooperation deemed necessary by the Special Master for the benefit of the research
and the patients involved will be subject to the whim and litigation objectives of UCSD...
UCSD has been trying very hard to get contempt sanctions
against USC
When UCSD's request for contempt sanctions was denied by the District Court ion
September 7, 2016, UCSD appealed to the 9th Circuit.
Here are some excerpts from the District Court docket:
09/07/2016 128 ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 51 Motion for Contempt
Sanctions. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 9/6/2016. (knb) (Entered: 09/07/2016)
09/23/2016 132 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit as to 128 Order, 129
Order, by The Regents of the University of California. (Filing fee $ 505 receipt number
0974-9440116.) (Notice of Appeal electronically transmitted to US Court of Appeals.)
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-3)(Sharp, J.).
09/26/2016 133 USCA Case Number 16-56397 for 132 Notice of Appeal to
9th Circuit, filed by The Regents of the University of California. (akr) (Entered:
09/26/2016)
09/28/2016 134 ORDER of USCA as to 132 Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit,
filed by The Regents of the University of California. A review of the record
suggests that the USCA may lack jurisdiction over this appeal. While the USDC has
ordered briefing on potential modifications to the preliminary injunction, it is unclear
whether the orders appealed from actually modify or have the practical effect of modifying
any of the preliminary injunction's existing terms. Within 10 days after the date of this order,
appellant shall move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal or show cause why it should not
be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellant elects to show cause, a response may be
filed within 7 days after service of the memorandum. If appellant does not comply with this
order, the Clerk shall dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is
stayed. If necessary, the USCA will establish a briefing schedule for this appeal upon
disposition of this order to show cause. (akr) (Entered: 09/28/2016)
against USC
When UCSD's request for contempt sanctions was denied by the District Court ion
September 7, 2016, UCSD appealed to the 9th Circuit.
Here are some excerpts from the District Court docket:
09/07/2016 128 ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 51 Motion for Contempt
Sanctions. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 9/6/2016. (knb) (Entered: 09/07/2016)
09/23/2016 132 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit as to 128 Order, 129
Order, by The Regents of the University of California. (Filing fee $ 505 receipt number
0974-9440116.) (Notice of Appeal electronically transmitted to US Court of Appeals.)
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-3)(Sharp, J.).
09/26/2016 133 USCA Case Number 16-56397 for 132 Notice of Appeal to
9th Circuit, filed by The Regents of the University of California. (akr) (Entered:
09/26/2016)
09/28/2016 134 ORDER of USCA as to 132 Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit,
filed by The Regents of the University of California. A review of the record
suggests that the USCA may lack jurisdiction over this appeal. While the USDC has
ordered briefing on potential modifications to the preliminary injunction, it is unclear
whether the orders appealed from actually modify or have the practical effect of modifying
any of the preliminary injunction's existing terms. Within 10 days after the date of this order,
appellant shall move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal or show cause why it should not
be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellant elects to show cause, a response may be
filed within 7 days after service of the memorandum. If appellant does not comply with this
order, the Clerk shall dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is
stayed. If necessary, the USCA will establish a briefing schedule for this appeal upon
disposition of this order to show cause. (akr) (Entered: 09/28/2016)
Walter Cronkite: "America's health care system is neither healthy, caring, nor a system."