A little while ago, we discussed questions raised by the pre-existing financial relationships of Dr Laurie Glimcher, the new incoming Dean of Weill Cornell Medical School. Dr Glimcher is also the longest serving director of Bristol-Myers-Squibb, and has a number of other financial relationships with drug and device companies.
A new interview with Dr Glimcher suggested that what is most interesting about the coverage of her ascension to the Cornell Deanship is what it did not mention, especially whether she has any goals other than promote relationships with and do product development for corporate health care.
So let me review what has been made public about the interests and goals of Weill Cornell Medical College's new Dean.
The New York Times: To Develop "Research Capacity" and a "New High-Tech Campus"
The New York Times article focused on the new Dean's conflicts of interests, but found no doubts about these conflicts among the university leadership to whom the new Dean would report. Instead,
However, while it emphasized how university leaders defended Dr Glimcher's conflicts of interest, the New York Times article said nothing about the university leadership's educational or clinical expectations for Dr Glimcher.
The Cornell Sun: To "Strengthen its Relationship with Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Companies"
Similarly, according to the Cornell Daily Sun, the university leadership regarded the new Dean's relationships with industry as strengths, not weaknesses,
So,
The Sun did briefly note,
However, there were no further details about what Dr Glimcher would do for clinical care or education.
The Cornell Press Release: To Achieve "Preeminence in the Biomedical Sciences"
This press release emphasized Dr Glimcher's corporate skills even more than did the Times or Sun articles,
However, it said nothing substantive about Dr Glimcher's educational or clinical goals or interests. (Perhaps, because Mr Weill thought that the school had already achieved preeminence in these areas, he also thought no further goals in these areas are needed.)
Crain's New York Business: "Critical that the Pharmaceutical Industry has Input from the Biomedical Industry"
Now Crain's New York Business just published an interview with Dr Laurie Glimcher, the Dean to be of the Weill Cornell Medical College with a singular emphasis. It introduced Dr Glimcher thus,
The interviewer asked, can New York become "a more competitive research hub?" Dr Glimcher opined,
Then, with an instructive tilt, why are you so comfortable taking research funding from drug makers? Her answer included the usual rationale, but with a twist:
The next question was, does this mean that more collaboration with drug companies are ahead for Weill Cornell? Her answer was no surprise,
At this point, it should be no surprise that this interview of this erstwhile leader of "biomedical industry" mentioned nothing substantive about clinical care or medical education.
Summary: Education and Patient Care Disappear into the Maw of the "Biomedical Industry"
In summary, so far, all the hoopla about the new Dean of Weill Cornell Medical College has been about her anticipated ability to align the school with the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry. Amidst the hoopla, neither the new Dean nor anyone within the Cornell leadership has said anything about her interests, goals, or positions relevant to education or clinical care. Yet education is the most fundamental mission of a medical school and of academic medicine. Instead, on one occasion, the new Dean suggested that she would be leading not a medical school, but part of the "biomedical industry."
So it appears that the brave new version of the Weill Cornell Medical College is not merely more focused on doing product development for industry than on its traditional mission of education, research more broadly defined, (e.g., which also may include basic biomedical research, clinical research, and epidemiological and public health research), and patient care. It appears that applied research for product development has become its only important goal. How else should one interpret what the new Dean and her supervisors have said? Not one of them has said anything about education or patient care other than to acknowledge that these endeavors exist. (Also, not one of them discussed the other kinds of research that medical schools and academic medical centers have traditionally done.)
If Cornell's Board Chairman, President, and Medical College Dean are only interested in being part of the "biomedical industry," why should anyone want to attend what is still called their "Medical College?" Why should anyone want to serve as a house officer in one of the "Medical College's" hospitals? Why should anyone want to attend one of the "Medical College's" continuing medical education courses? If Cornell's Board Chairman, President, and Medical College Dean are only interested in being part of the "biomedical industry," that is, doing applied research for product development, why would any patient want to go to their hospital,s clinics, and other facilities?
We now see not merely academic medical leadership chosen because of, not despite their conflicts of interest with health care corporations. We now also see academic medical leadership who appear only interested in corporate product development, and not even interested in talking about education or patient care (or traditional biomedical, clinical, and epidemiological research.)
Of course, all this discussion is based only what has been published so far about the new leadership of Weill Cornell. Maybe the publications have been woefully incomplete and full of errors. I eagerly hope that to be the case (nooffense intended to the journalists involved.) But I fear that we are seeing the final common pathway for the corporate academic medical center, its transformation into the "Biomedical Industry."
If academic medical leaders no longer care about education or patient care, the downward spiral of our health care system has only just begun.
A new interview with Dr Glimcher suggested that what is most interesting about the coverage of her ascension to the Cornell Deanship is what it did not mention, especially whether she has any goals other than promote relationships with and do product development for corporate health care.
So let me review what has been made public about the interests and goals of Weill Cornell Medical College's new Dean.
The New York Times: To Develop "Research Capacity" and a "New High-Tech Campus"
The New York Times article focused on the new Dean's conflicts of interests, but found no doubts about these conflicts among the university leadership to whom the new Dean would report. Instead,
Cornell University’s president, Dr. David J. Skorton, said he believed Dr. Glimcher had the skills to carry out the medical school’s plan to double its research capacity and to help the university compete to develop a new high-tech campus proposed by the Bloomberg administration.
However, while it emphasized how university leaders defended Dr Glimcher's conflicts of interest, the New York Times article said nothing about the university leadership's educational or clinical expectations for Dr Glimcher.
The Cornell Sun: To "Strengthen its Relationship with Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Companies"
Similarly, according to the Cornell Daily Sun, the university leadership regarded the new Dean's relationships with industry as strengths, not weaknesses,
As the longest-standing member of the corporate board of biopharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squibb, [Dr Laurie] Glimcher has 'extensive experience' in corporate finance, governance and management, according to a University press release.
So,
Under Glimcher’s leadership, Weill hopes to strengthen its relationship with biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, develop innovative cures and bolster research, the University stated.
The Sun did briefly note,
In a press release, [Cornell University President David J] Skorton said he was 'honored and delighted' that Glimcher accepted the position.
'Her passion for accomplishment and her many research and clinical strengths make her ideally suited to build on Tony Gotto’s strong foundation and lead Weill Cornell’s bright future in clinical care, education and translational research,' Skorton said.
However, there were no further details about what Dr Glimcher would do for clinical care or education.
The Cornell Press Release: To Achieve "Preeminence in the Biomedical Sciences"
This press release emphasized Dr Glimcher's corporate skills even more than did the Times or Sun articles,
Her service with the biopharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squibb, where she is the longest-standing member of the corporate board of directors and of its audit committee, has afforded her extensive experience in management oversight, corporate governance, corporate finance, accountability, leadership and the practical aspects of running a business and bringing therapeutics to the marketplace.
'This is great news for the medical school and for the city,' said Sanford I. Weill, chairman of the medical college's board of overseers and a member of the board of trustees of Cornell University. 'With her thorough appreciation of the management and financial challenges of complex organizations, I am confident she will lead the college with the same creativity and acumen she demonstrated when she pioneered the establishment of Bristol-Myers' science and technology committee, which is widely credited for transforming its stake in research. With a state-of-the-art biomedical research facility under construction and Dr. Glimcher at the helm, Weill Cornell and New York are on course to achieve a preeminence in the biomedical sciences that has already been achieved in clinical medicine and first-rate medical education.'
However, it said nothing substantive about Dr Glimcher's educational or clinical goals or interests. (Perhaps, because Mr Weill thought that the school had already achieved preeminence in these areas, he also thought no further goals in these areas are needed.)
Crain's New York Business: "Critical that the Pharmaceutical Industry has Input from the Biomedical Industry"
Now Crain's New York Business just published an interview with Dr Laurie Glimcher, the Dean to be of the Weill Cornell Medical College with a singular emphasis. It introduced Dr Glimcher thus,
She is the longest-serving member of the board at Bristol-Myers Squibb and has been a big earner from her work with drug companies. Snaring Dr. Glimcher is a coup for Cornell University, which is using her status to bolster its proposal to build a science and engineering campus on Roosevelt Island.
The interviewer asked, can New York become "a more competitive research hub?" Dr Glimcher opined,
I think New York City is going to be the next greatest center for biomedical research.
Then, with an instructive tilt, why are you so comfortable taking research funding from drug makers? Her answer included the usual rationale, but with a twist:
I think it's critical that the pharmaceutical industry has input from the biomedical industry. I believe it is essential to have partnerships to accomplish our goals.The implication, and the twist is that she apparently sees herself as leading not a medical college, but an entity within the "biomedical industry."
The next question was, does this mean that more collaboration with drug companies are ahead for Weill Cornell? Her answer was no surprise,
Harvard probably has more ties to pharmaceutical companies than Weill Cornell, but Weill Cornell definitely has connections that I hope we can leverage.
At this point, it should be no surprise that this interview of this erstwhile leader of "biomedical industry" mentioned nothing substantive about clinical care or medical education.
Summary: Education and Patient Care Disappear into the Maw of the "Biomedical Industry"
In summary, so far, all the hoopla about the new Dean of Weill Cornell Medical College has been about her anticipated ability to align the school with the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry. Amidst the hoopla, neither the new Dean nor anyone within the Cornell leadership has said anything about her interests, goals, or positions relevant to education or clinical care. Yet education is the most fundamental mission of a medical school and of academic medicine. Instead, on one occasion, the new Dean suggested that she would be leading not a medical school, but part of the "biomedical industry."
So it appears that the brave new version of the Weill Cornell Medical College is not merely more focused on doing product development for industry than on its traditional mission of education, research more broadly defined, (e.g., which also may include basic biomedical research, clinical research, and epidemiological and public health research), and patient care. It appears that applied research for product development has become its only important goal. How else should one interpret what the new Dean and her supervisors have said? Not one of them has said anything about education or patient care other than to acknowledge that these endeavors exist. (Also, not one of them discussed the other kinds of research that medical schools and academic medical centers have traditionally done.)
If Cornell's Board Chairman, President, and Medical College Dean are only interested in being part of the "biomedical industry," why should anyone want to attend what is still called their "Medical College?" Why should anyone want to serve as a house officer in one of the "Medical College's" hospitals? Why should anyone want to attend one of the "Medical College's" continuing medical education courses? If Cornell's Board Chairman, President, and Medical College Dean are only interested in being part of the "biomedical industry," that is, doing applied research for product development, why would any patient want to go to their hospital,s clinics, and other facilities?
We now see not merely academic medical leadership chosen because of, not despite their conflicts of interest with health care corporations. We now also see academic medical leadership who appear only interested in corporate product development, and not even interested in talking about education or patient care (or traditional biomedical, clinical, and epidemiological research.)
Of course, all this discussion is based only what has been published so far about the new leadership of Weill Cornell. Maybe the publications have been woefully incomplete and full of errors. I eagerly hope that to be the case (nooffense intended to the journalists involved.) But I fear that we are seeing the final common pathway for the corporate academic medical center, its transformation into the "Biomedical Industry."
If academic medical leaders no longer care about education or patient care, the downward spiral of our health care system has only just begun.
PLEASE HELP US SHARE THIS ARTICLE
About Health Care
0Awesome Comments!