Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

The deferiprone controversy: time to move on

C. David Naylor
CMAJ February 19, 2002 166 (4) 452-453;
C. David Naylor
Dr. Naylor is Dean, Faculty of Medicine, and Vice Provost, Relations with Health Care Institutions, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The Editor has asked me to comment on the report1 issued by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) on the controversy surrounding the trials of the iron-chelation drug deferiprone (L1) at the Hospital for Sick Children (HSC).

The CAUT Inquiry report is yet another in a series of reports and commentaries on what has been an exceedingly protracted and difficult dispute. Authored by Jon Thompson, Patricia Baird and Jocelyn Downie, it revisits some of the ground covered in an earlier review commissioned by the HSC in late 1998 from Arnold Naimark, Frederick Lowy and Bartha Maria Knoppers.2 The CAUT report is highly critical of both certain conclusions drawn by Naimark and colleagues and the actions of a number of individuals. Responding to the CAUT Inquiry in December 2001, Naimark, Knoppers and Lowy characterize it as “in large measure, a grievance investigation designed to find fault, lay blame and call for redress” as contrasted with the “prospective and constructive purposes” of the HSC Review.3

The self-characterization of the original HSC Review as “prospective and constructive” will be contested by those who see that report as underpinning a decision by the Medical Advisory Committee (MAC) of the HSC to investigate Nancy Olivieri's conduct during the L1 trials. In the spring of 2000 the MAC referred its unresolved concerns to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO). Similar concerns were referred to the Faculty of Medicine for investigation as potential research misconduct. The HSC and MAC widely publicized both referrals, ignoring the Faculty's policy that referrals about misconduct should be made confidentially to protect the scientific and scholarly reputations of our colleagues. The CPSO has now investigated and dismissed those concerns, and the Faculty of Medicine has dismissed the parallel allegations pursuant to the CPSO decision.

The CAUT Inquiry faults the HSC Review for proceeding without the involvement of Olivieri and her supporters, who refused to participate in its work. In turn, Naimark and colleagues “take particular note of the fact that the CAUT Inquiry Committee did not invite any of the Review Panel members to meet with it to provide clarification or other assistance about matters concerning the HSC Review that seem to have perplexed the Inquiry Committee.”3 Indeed, virtually none of the individuals who are criticized in the report or others identified with the administrations of the HSC and the University participated in any way with the CAUT Inquiry report.

This non-participation reflected a reasonable apprehension of bias, given the sponsorship and composition of the panel. CAUT represents faculty unions and the dwindling number of non-unionized faculty associations in Canadian universities. Among its affiliates is the University of Toronto Faculty Association (UTFA). UTFA has legally and financially supported Olivieri and her local allies in litigation against HSC officials and grievances against the University administration. Hence, as Naimark and colleagues put it, “The Inquiry Committee was no more independent than the Review Committee. Both were constituted unilaterally and both were limited because of non-participation of key individuals.”3

Some matters covered in the CAUT report relate to confidential proceedings, and University officials cannot comment on them. Others are the subject of grievances before University tribunals. For reasons given above, the University views the report as representing primarily the perspective of the grievors and will comment on the relevant facts and issues as appropriate in the setting of University grievance proceedings.

For context, it is perhaps helpful to observe that iron-chelating compounds such as deferiprone are primitive and palliative “half-way technologies”4 in the management of thalassemia major — a genetic disease of global importance and impact. Incalculable amounts of time and money have now been spent on repeated cycles of public relations gamesmanship, media manoeuvres, lawsuits, misconduct proceedings and academic tribunal activities related to a dispute about a single drug that has, at best, uneven efficacy and uncertain toxicity. It is surely time for some positive process of settlement that may, if good sense prevails, close those local issues that remain unresolved, and allow energy to be redirected to research that might someday yield more definitive gene-based treatments for thalassemia.

In the meantime, the University and hospitals have moved on. The general lessons of the L1 dispute regarding the ethical and independent conduct of industry-sponsored research have been drawn in the original HSC Review by Naimark and colleagues, and amplified both in a related 1999 HSC Research Policy Review Task Force report5 and the CAUT Inquiry report. As I report elsewhere in this issue,6 the University and all the Toronto teaching hospitals are making steady progress in implementing various of those recommendations. We look forward to exchanging ideas and experiences with other Canadian universities and hospitals taking similar steps.

𝛃 See related article page 453

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: Dr. Naylor was based at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences and Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre until the summer of 1999. He was not involved in the matters discussed in this commentary, nor had he worked directly with any of the principal disputants, until his appointment as Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto in August 1999. He was not involved in the 1998 HSC Review report nor in the subsequent response by that group to the CAUT Inquiry in 2001, nor did he meet with the CAUT Inquiry panel.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Thompson J, Baird P, Downie J. Report of the Committee of Inquiry on the Case Involving Dr. Nancy Olivieri, the Hospital for Sick Children, the University of Toronto, and Apotex Inc. Ottawa: Canadian Association of University Teachers; 2001. Available: www.caut.ca/english/issues/acadfreedom/olivieri.asp (accessed 2002 Jan 18).
  2. 2.↵
    Naimark A, Knoppers B, Lowy FH. Clinical trials of L1 (deferiprone) at The Hospital for Sick Children: a review of facts and circumstances. Available: www.sickkids.ca/L1trials/revcontents.asp (accessed 2002 Jan 18).
  3. 3.↵
    Naimark A, Knoppers B, Lowy FH. Commentary on selected aspects of the Report of the Canadian Association of University Teachers Committee of Inquiry on the Case Involving Dr. Nancy Olivieri, the Hospital for Sick Children, The University of Toronto and Apotex Inc. Available: www.sickkids.ca/MediaRoom/CAUTfinal2ed.pdf (accessed 2002 Jan 18).
  4. 4.↵
    The Hospital for Sick Children Research Policy Review Task Force report. Available: www.sickkids.ca/taskforcereport/default.asp (accessed 2002 Jan 18).
  5. 5.↵
    Thomas L. On the science and technology of medicine. In: Knowles JH, editor. Doing better and feeling worse. New York: WW Norton; 1977. p. 35-46.
  6. 6.↵
    Naylor CD, for the Research Committee and Clinical Study Agreements Working Group of the Toronto Academic Health Science Council. Early Toronto experience with new standards for industry-sponsored clinical research: a progress report. CMAJ 2002;166(4):453-6.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ
Vol. 166, Issue 4
19 Feb 2002
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The deferiprone controversy: time to move on
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The deferiprone controversy: time to move on
C. David Naylor
CMAJ Feb 2002, 166 (4) 452-453;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
The deferiprone controversy: time to move on
C. David Naylor
CMAJ Feb 2002, 166 (4) 452-453;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Early Toronto experience with new standards for industry-sponsored clinical research: a progress report
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Better governance in academic health sciences centres: moving beyond the Olivieri/Apotex Affair in Toronto
  • Independent inquiry
  • I beg to differ
  • I beg to differ
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Revisiting the concept of urgency in surgical prioritization and addressing backlogs in elective surgery provision
  • Antiviral treatment for COVID-19: ensuring evidence is applicable to current circumstances
  • Who is Black? The urgency of accurately defining the Black population when conducting health research in Canada
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Journalology & publication ethics

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2022, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire