Probes Targeted UCI Researcher

Alleged ethical and financial breaches by Dr. Steven G. Potkin drew scrutiny but no sanctions. The professor defends his activities.

August 13, 2006|Christian Berthelsen | Times Staff Writer

TV news personality Jane Pauley had a message to deliver in April when she spoke at a fundraiser for UC Irvine's Brain Imaging Center.

She told the 140 guests at the Island Hotel in Newport Beach about her battle with mental illness and spoke in support of the research being done by the center's director -- and Pauley's brother-in-law -- UCI psychiatry professor Steven G. Potkin.

For The Record
Los Angeles Times Thursday September 07, 2006 Home Edition Main News Part A Page 2 National Desk 2 inches; 86 words Type of Material: Correction
UCI probe: An article in the Aug. 13 California section about investigations into UC Irvine researcher Steven G. Potkin's work stated that Steven Mee, who conducted a clinical trial with Potkin and psychiatry department co-chairman William E. Bunney, had been a medical school student under the two doctors. In fact, Mee did not study under Potkin. In addition, the article stated that Mee did not return a telephone call seeking comment. Mee said he had never received a voicemail message left for him at his office.
For The Record
Los Angeles Times Sunday September 10, 2006 Home Edition Main News Part A Page 2 National Desk 2 inches; 83 words Type of Material: Correction
UCI probe: An article in the Aug. 13 California section about investigations into UC Irvine researcher Steven G. Potkin's work said Steven Mee, who conducted a clinical trial with Potkin and psychiatry department co-chairman William E. Bunney, had been a medical school student under the two doctors. In fact, Mee did not study under Potkin. In addition, the article said Mee did not return a telephone call seeking comment. Mee said he never received a voicemail message left for him at his office.

Potkin is one of UCI's biggest stars. The 60-year-old psychiatrist is among the university's most prolific researchers. He brings in lucrative contracts from some of the world's biggest drug companies and has presided over as many as a dozen clinical trials at a time.

Recently, his investigation into nicotine's effects on the brain received national attention. And in March, the university proudly trumpeted his role in heading a $24-million National Institutes of Health project that will be headquartered at UCI.

But at the same time Potkin has attracted funding and recognition for UCI, he has also been investigated three times by the university for alleged ethical or financial breaches, according to more than 300 pages of documents obtained by The Times. And although Potkin says he was not disciplined as a result the investigations, each raised serious questions about his practices and how UCI dealt with the issues.

Most recently, administrators found in 2004 that the professor had skirted the school's patient safety review board to test a drug for a pharmaceutical company without the required university approval. When UCI learned of the research, it ordered Potkin to immediately halt the study.

Seven years earlier, administrators looked into why Potkin had directed drug companies to pay more than $2 million in research funds to a firm his family owned. The payments were related to studies he was performing at UCI. The university concluded that the company may have been set up to avoid UCI overhead fees, and it prohibited Potkin from using the company in future research projects.

UCI launched its first investigation of Potkin's work in 1989, four years after the psychiatrist arrived at the university from the National Institutes of Mental Health, where he specialized in schizophrenia research. Fellow UCI doctors accused Potkin of wrongfully billing Medi-Cal for his research. Although Medi-Cal rejected some billings for the clinical trial, the state and UCI concluded that Medi-Cal was not defrauded.

Despite the repeated investigations, Potkin's star has continued to rise, and this summer he was given a raise and a promotion.

The grants that researchers such as Potkin bring are an important source of funds for universities. The publicity brings prestige that attracts students, professors and donors, which is especially important for a school such as UCI, which is still trying to build its reputation.

UCI's medical programs have been racked by problems in the last decade, including the theft of eggs and embryos from patients, cancer research violations, illicit sales of body parts and shortcomings in its liver, kidney and bone marrow transplant programs. In each case, critics say, warnings were ignored and serious problems downplayed.

Dr. Mike Samoszuk, a former pathology professor who left UCI late last year to work as the chief medical officer for a medical device division of a drug company, said that although he had no knowledge of the Potkin case, the university's thirst for research funding may have caused it to look the other way when ethical lapses were discovered.

"Even though clinical research is a noble and worthy activity, it's very easy to lose your moral compass if your primary goal is the dollar amount of grant funding that you generate," Samoszuk said.

UCI said it couldn't discuss specifics of personnel matters. Potkin, in an hourlong interview, defended his activities, saying that UCI administrators approved his business dealings and that his work helped patients and the university.

But documents provided by the university suggest that some of Potkin's activities had not been approved by UCI.

In 2004, Potkin and psychiatry department co-chairman William E. "Biff" Bunney applied to the university board that monitors human research for permission to test an Alzheimer's drug for Praecis Pharmaceuticals, a small company in Waltham, Mass. The request was not immediately approved.

The professors went ahead anyway, using a private company they had previously formed to conduct the research at an assisted-living facility for Alzheimer's patients in San Juan Capistrano.

The professors had previously signed an agreement with the university allowing them to consult on clinical trials through their company but not to work as principal investigators on a study through the firm. The agreement was later modified to allow the professors to supervise principal investigators through their company.

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|