Just over two weeks ago, the Tufts Committee on Ethics formally rescinded an informal invitation to Paul Thacker, a top aide of Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), deciding not to allow him to speak at Tufts' symposium on conflicts of interest in the medical field in May. Ironically, the committee came to this conclusion because of the conflict of interest regarding the Senator's ongoing probe into a Tufts professor.
Senator Grassley began investigating Dr. Helen Boucher, a Tufts Medical School professor, and her relationship with the pharmaceutical industry last month. Tufts is now one of many institutions under investigation by the senator, joining a list of schools that includes Harvard, Stanford and Emory. Sen. Grassley strongly supports transparency of any payments between professors and medical corporations, and questions the unreported payments by professionals obtained from consultation or investing with the companies. The decision by the committee has sparked debate over the university's dedication to academic freedom.
The invitation came into question when the administration informed the ethics committee that if the senator's aide spoke, no administrator would be allowed to partake in the panel. As students at Tufts, it is crucial for us all to recognize the administration's misstep. While it is understandable that Tufts wants to avoid any conflict regarding the investigation, it seems unreasonable that the topic could not be avoided for the educational purposes the event could provide.
The symposium is intended to provide the audience with multiple views and stances on the medical issues of today. Mr. Thacker has firsthand knowledge and experience about a subject that would have provided a unique and fresh viewpoint at the conference. His voice differs from the professionals of Harvard or Tufts, allowing for some diversity and debate at the symposium itself.
Possibly most outspoken on the issue is ethics committee co-chair Sheldon Krimsky, who removed himself from the issue and the organization of the event when the decision was passed. We praise Krimsky for standing behind his belief and the purpose of the ethics committee as a whole. It is their job to best provide the academic freedom Tufts promotes, but as Krimsky realized, the administration made them incapable of doing so by ultimately making their decision for them. It is clear that although the event may still include knowledgeable and world-renowned panelists, the one opinion missing might be the most telling.
We believe the administration was incorrect by indirectly forcing the hand of the ethics committee. We accept that administrators will provide sufficiently differing views during the event, but in the end, Thacker's direct connection with Sen. Grassley and his investigations would have been extremely informative and provided a great contrast in the panel.
