Sanford Remz of Yurko, Salvesen & Remz, P.C. in Boston and his colleague, former U. S. Attorney Donald K. Stern, conducted a months-long investigation into the relationship between Tufts University, on the one hand, and the Sackler family and its privately-owned company, Purdue Pharma, on the other. The report [link] was publicly released on December 5 at the same time that Tufts announced, inter alia, that it is removing immediately the Sackler name from its Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, its Center for Medical Education and other named funds [link to press release]. Tufts is the first university to remove the Sackler name in light of widespread controversy over the role of Purdue and the Sackler family in the longstanding opioid crisis in the U. S. and elsewhere.
Tufts engaged YSR early in 2019 to assess the relationship between the University and Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin, and the Sackler family. YSR reviewed thousands of documents of various kinds, from within the University, as well as public records, court filings, discussions of best practices and a limited number of confidential Purdue Pharma documents. Stern and Remz also interviewed 33 people from within and outside Tufts. YSR’s 34-page report focused on whether Purdue or the Sacklers exercised improper influence over Tufts, including research or its academic program. In particular, the review and report focused on a Master’s program with the Tufts University School of Medicine in Pain Research, Education and Policy that was funded primarily by Purdue for eight years starting in 1999. YSR’s report found no violations of University policies or rules and no quid-pro-quo whereby Purdue or any of the Sacklers provided funding conditioned upon certain outcomes in research, program or curricula. The report did find certain influence by Purdue and the Sacklers, whether direct, indirect or through the appearance of influence. However, the report found that such influence did not appear to materially affect research or academic program so as to compromise academic integrity. The report also contains a number of recommendations focused primarily on donor relations and conflicts of interest emphasizing a greater need for specific guidelines, due diligence, careful review and transparency.
The report, together with Tufts’ announcement of the removal of the Sackler name, received widespread publicity in hundreds of media outlets, including the Boston Globe https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/12/05/tufts-will-remove-sackler-name-from-its-buildings-programs/XmHCApo9wyeoPbN768Y6qJ/story.html , New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/us/tufts-sackler-name-opioids.html , Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/12/05/tufts-removes-sackler-name-campus-creates-endowment-combat-addiction/, AP https://apnews.com/2f3dc58d75e068749b849cb48354dbb5 , CNN Tufts University to remove Sackler name from buildings and programs; the Chronicle of Higher Education, https://www.chronicle.com/article/Tufts-Will-Remove-the-Sackler/247671?cid=wcontentlist_hp_latest and many others. We expect that the recommendations and the actions taken by Tufts will be the subject considerable discussion and reflection within higher education and philanthropy circles.