Tag Archives: CPRIT

MD Anderson faculty express frustration with leadership

Posted on by
Reply

Ron DePinho, the president of  MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, is under fire, after an internal survey found frustration among the institution’s faculty over its leadership and direction.

The survey, obtained and posted by the Cancer Letter, documents what the newsletter calls a “decline of morale” among the 514 people who responded to the survey. They represent roughly one-third of the institution’s 1,592 faculty.

The faculty who responded to the survey appear concerned with what they perceive as an unreasonably high clinical workload, departure of leaders who have nurtured the institution, concern over DePinho’s US$3-billion ‘Moon Shots’ programme, focused on eight cancers, and dissatisfaction with what one faculty member called DePinho’s “dictatorial” and “imperious” style.

Particularly troubling to the faculty have been continuing conflict-of-interest issues linked to DePinho that have drawn negative publicity to the institution.

In May, the state-taxpayer-funded Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT), based in Austin, said that it would review a grant that it had awarded to DePinho’s wife, Lynda Chin, who had been named scientific director* of the Institute for Applied Cancer Science, a drug-discovery centre created by DePinho. The grant, worth $18 million a year, had not undergone a scientific review.

Then, in June, DePinho apologized for promoting on television the stock of a company that he co-founded, without disclosing his involvement with the company.

One faculty member writes in the survey of being “so tired of having to answer questions from other Houstonians about why MD Anderson is going downhill/always in the [Houston] Chronicle.”

DePinho responds in an e-mail to the Cancer Letter than the feedback was “humbling”.

“That survey was taken during a tough period at MD Anderson, and the results reflect it,” DePinho said in an e-mail, the Cancer Letter reports.

“I am committed to conducting a future scientific survey of faculty to make sure we continue this open channel for feedback. This is a period of change for healthcare and science, but also one of unprecedented opportunity,” DePinho told the Cancer Letter.

The Cancer Letter notes that it is difficult to tell whether the sentiments expressed in the survey reflect those of the majority of the faculty.

In response to a previous article in the Cancer Letter, the publication notes, a group of 36 faculty from the institution objected to the publication’s ongoing coverage of the MD Anderson controversies.

“The complaints of a few have led to inaccurate articles that have unfairly tarnished the institution’s reputation by presenting a false picture of what is actually taking place,” the group asserts.

*This post was corrected to reflect that Chin is the scientific director, and that Giulio Draetta is the director, of the Institute for Applied Cancer Science.

Texas cancer institute gets no funds for new grants in proposed budget

Posted on by
Reply

The Texas legislature has left grant money for the state’s conflict-hobbled cancer institute out of the state’s preliminary budget plans.

A joint legislative committee recommended that the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT), based in Austin, should receive only US$5 million a year, down from nearly $300 million a year, according to the Houston Chronicle.

Early budgets often differ substantially from final budgets. Nonetheless, the cancer agency’s allotment is a clear sign of the lawmakers’ displeasure. CPRIT was voted into existence by a large majority of Texas voters in 2007, charged with funding research and education to stop cancer.

But 2012 was a bumpy year. The chief scientific officer, along with many of the agency’s high-profile grant reviewers, resigned in protest, saying that independent peer review had been disrespected. Chief among these concerns was an $18-million grant awarded to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center without scientific peer review. Subsequently, CPRIT announced that another $11-million grant had been awarded to a biotechnology company without peer review, and the district attorney began a criminal investigation, in part because of ties between a political campaign contributor and recipients of poorly reviewed grants.

Since then, both CPRIT’s chief commercial officer and executive director have resigned. A prominent cancer biologist, Margaret Kripke, left retirement to become the agency’s new chief scientific officer.

CPRIT’s new executive director, Wayne Roberts, told the Chronicle that CPRIT would work over the next few months to assure the legislature that CPRIT could allocate money appropriately.

Sands keep shifting at Texas cancer agency: grants stalled, new execs

Posted on by
Reply

Days after declaring a voluntary moratorium on grants, the US$3-billion Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) has announced the appointment of two interim leaders with expertise in state finance. Wayne Roberts is a former associate vice-president for public policy at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. Former Texas Deputy Comptroller Billy Hamilton will serve as an adviser. Earlier in December, the Austin-based CPRIT announced that it had hired a new chief scientific officer.

On Wednesday, CPRIT leadership agreed to a request from Texas governor Rick Perry, lieutenant governor David Dewhurst and House speaker Joe Straus. The politicians said that the confidence of Texas taxpayers should be restored before new funds are dispersed (now-funded grants should not be affected). Shenanigans at CPRIT have given the citizens of Texas much reason to doubt the state-financed funding agency (see ‘Banish cronyism’).

Meanwhile, CPRIT is under a criminal investigation because grantees that were funded despite low review scores had ties to a major campaign contributor backing the Texas governor and lieutenant governor.

In October, the chief scientific officer and many peer-reviewers resigned because of concerns about the integrity of peer review, in particular an $18-million grant awarded without scientific review.

In November, the chief commercial officer left amid revelations that an $11-million grant had been awarded without review. The executive director left in December, two days after a new chief scientific officer, Margaret Kripke, was hired. She will certainly have a lot on her plate for 2013.