University should clear up Potti haze

The recent lawsuit filed against the University and former Duke researcher Dr. Anil Potti adds yet another twist to the researcher’s very public fall from grace. A 73-page report was filed with authorities detailing, in part, the lack of communication that the Duke University Health System and Duke as a whole provided during the Potti controversy.

Among the claims that the lawsuit makes, one stands out as particularly worrisome. The suit alleges that “top Duke administrators, deans and leadership actively work[ed] to cover up the flawed research” by conducting a woefully inadequate internal review of Potti’s research and clinical trials. The University’s persistent silence throughout the course of the Potti saga—the quiet 4 months, for instance, between the realization that Potti falsely claimed to be a Rhodes scholar and his eventual resignation—lends plausibility to this narrative of cover up.

There is much to be said on behalf of the University. Its decision to suspend the clinical trial for three months after scientists raised concerns about the research’s viability is a sign of investigative sincerity. And the organizational re-shuffling at the Institute of Genome Sciences and Policy—Potti’s former employer­—last Spring is a step toward avoiding another scandal in the future.

But we are troubled by the administration’s silence since the plaintiffs filed suit, despite the fact that the personal injury firm HensonFuerst began investigating the Potti case last February. The University has had ample time to plan its legal strategy. We hope its silence does not bespeak a lack of preparation and encourage the administration to communicate its position on the suit to the University community. A clear statement now could go a long way toward clearing the fog that has surrounded the Potti scandal since the beginning.

As an eminent global university, Duke’s academic laurels rest on the successful and accurate production of innovative research. This controversy should have been at the forefront of DUHS’s public relations agenda from the first day that the allegations were raised. The ongoing discreditation of Potti’s research not only invalidates his own research, but it also undermined the accuracy of other researchers’ papers that cited Potti’s results.

Even worse, the thousands of patients that choose to receive their treatment at DUHS for its world-class reputation and facilities may now have doubts about the hospital’s credibility for years to come. Making a statement now could head off future reputational damage.

Regardless of the truth or falsity of the plaintiff’s claims, the University’s reputation moving forward rests on how it responds to the lawsuit. Perhaps the University is trying to avoid repeating the sort of knee-jerk response that characterized the 2006 lacrosse scandal. But there has been more enough time for consideration and evaluation in the Potti case, and continued silence falls far short of the school’s inherent responsibility to students, faculty and alumni to protect its academic reputation.

Radio silence will only prompt more questions about the University’s role in the trials. Making statements about live suits is challenging, but sweeping problems away is never the better option.