Artvoice: Buffalo's #1 Newsweekly
Home Blogs Web Features Calendar Listings Artvoice TV Real Estate Classifieds Contact

Committee on Open Government Disputes UB Foundation Ruling

Five years after the Honorable Patrick H. NeMoyer, J.S.C. ruled that the UB Foundation is not a public body and therefore not subject to the Freedom of Information Law, the Committee on Open Government (COOG) has issued an advisory opinion disputing that decision. Artvoice covered the case on March 31, 2011, in a story that raised eyebrows all over New York State. Click here to read it.

On Thursday, February 18, responding to a request from Manhattan-based good government group Reinvent Albany, COOG concluded that the Court’s decision was “inconsistent with judicial precedent.”

cover1

Here is the advisory opinion, with links to referenced documents:

We are in receipt of your inquiry regarding the application of the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) to the University of Buffalo Foundation, Inc. (UB Foundation).

You include in your e-mail a copy of a response to a recent FOIL request to the UB Foundation, wherein the Foundation replied that “[b]ased on various decisions of the New York State courts, please be advised that the UB Foundation and its affiliates, including FNUB, Inc., are not subject to the FOIL.” The Committee respectfully disagrees with that conclusion.

While it is accurate that the Court in Quigley v. University at Buffalo Foundation, Supreme Court, Erie County, March 2, 2011, held that the UB Foundation is not an “agency” subject to FOIL, nor is it a “public body” subject to the Open Meetings Law, it is our opinion that this decision is inconsistent with prior judicial determinations regarding “foundations” chartered by the Regents of the State of New York created to support and promote the activities and programs of the State University of New York (SUNY) and the City University of New York (CUNY).

The Committee has rendered several opinions relating to this matter which are available on our website (See FOIL Advisory Opinions, Letter “S,” scroll down to “SUNY or CUNY Foundation.” http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/foil_listing/fs.html

Perhaps most analogous to the situation described is a decision in which it was held that a community college foundation associated with a CUNY institution was subject to FOIL, despite its status as a not-for-profit corporation. In so holding, the Court in Eisenberg v. Goldstein, Supreme Court, Kings County, February 26, 1988 stated:

“At issue is whether the Kingsborough Community College Foundation, Inc. (hereinafter ‘Foundation’) comes within the definition of an ‘agency as defined in Public Officers Law §86(3) and whether the Foundation’s fund collection and expenditure records are ‘records’ within the meaning and contemplation of Public Officers Law §86(4).

The Foundation is a not-for-profit corporation that was formed to ‘promote interest in and support of the college in the local community and among students, faculty and alumni of the college’ (Respondent’s Verified Answer at paragraph 17). These purposes are further amplified in the statement of ‘principal objectives’ in the Foundation’s Certificate of Incorporation:

‘1 To promote and encourage among members of the local and college community and alumni or interest in and support of Kingsborough Community College and the various educational, cultural and social activities conducted by it and serve as a medium for encouraging fuller understanding of the aims and functions of the college.’

Furthermore, the Board of Trustees of the City University, by resolution, authorized the formation of the Foundation. The activities of the Foundation, enumerated in the Verified Petition at paragraph 11, amply demonstrate that the Foundation is providing services that are exclusively in the college’s interest and essentially in the name of the College. Indeed, the Foundation would not exist but for its relationship with the College.”

In another decision relating to SUNY foundations, Siani v. The Research Foundation of the State University of New York, Supreme Court, Albany County, March 26, 2007, the Court concluded that the SUNY Research Foundation is an agency required to comply with FOIL. Specifically, the Court found that:

“The powers and duties of the Research Foundation as found in its charter are to assist in developing and increasing facilities of the State University of New York by making and encouraging gifts, grants and donations of real and personal property, to receive, hold and administer gifts, grants and to finance studies and research of benefit to and in keeping with the educational purposes and objectives of the State University.”

“Given the functional relationship between the Research Foundation and the State University, the importance of the role played by the Research Foundation in the educational efforts of the State University and the power it has with respect to sponsored programs of the State University, the Research Foundation exercises a governmental function and is therefore, subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Law.”

The Court in Hearst Corporation v. Research Foundation of the State of New York, Supreme Court, Albany County, September 17, 2010 followed the decision in Siani.

In a case involving SUNY and the Empire State College Foundation, Kelber v. University of the State of New York, Empire State College and Empire State College Foundation, Supreme Court, Albany County, April 14, 2010, after lengthy analysis, the Court directed Foundation to comply with FOIL and disclose records sought.

As in the case of the foundations in Siani and Eisenberg, the UB Foundation would not exist but for its relationship with SUNY Buffalo. Due to the similarity between the history (“chartered in 1962 by the Regents of the State of New York as a non-profit educational corporation in the same year in which the private University of Buffalo became part of the State University of New York (SUNY) system.” http://www.ubfoundation.buffalo.edu/about) and mission (“to support and promote the activities and programs of the University at Buffalo, State University of New York.”) of the UB Foundation and the foundations presented in Siani and Eisenberg, as well as the functions of the Foundation and its relationship to the University, I believe the Court’s decision in Quigley that the UB Foundation is not subject to FOIL is inconsistent with judicial precedent.

 


UB Law Professor Seeks Distance from Dean Mutua

Charles P. Ewing

Charles P. Ewing

To follow up on yesterday’s post

Click here to read the Motion filed on August 13, 2014 in support of Charles P. Ewing’s request for a separate trial—apart from the proceeding brought by former UB Professor Jeffrey Malkan against outgoing UB Law School Dean Makau Mutua.

From the Motion:

This Memorandum is submitted in support of Defendant Charles P. Ewing’s (“Ewing”) Motion for Separate Trials. Plaintiff Jeffrey Malkan’s (“Malkan”) claims against Dean Makau Mutua (“Mutua”) should be tried separately to avoid foreseeable “spill-over effect” and indelible prejudice to Ewing, who truly is an innocent bystander to the events that led to Malkan’s § 1983 employment claim. Ewing played no role in Mutua’s decision to non-renew Malkan’s term appointment as Clinical Professor. Ewing entered the picture later, as part of a good faith process within the Law School to try to resolve in a collegial fashion differences among faculty members. Instead of getting a reward for his selfless service and professionalism, his good deed has been punished. Lest the punishment become even worse, he asks for a separate trial.

The Motion describes how the account of events given by several faculty members present at an April 28, 2006 vote by the Committee on Clinical Promotion and Renewal (CCPR)—regarding Malkan’s promotion to the position of a clinical full professor from his position as clinical associate professor—is at odds with the account sworn by Dean Mutua.

Seven UB Law Professors who were present at the meeting testified under the penalty of perjury that Malkan had been approved for the promotion by that vote.

Also according to the Motion, Mutua testified “that the CCPR did not vote on whether Malkan should be promoted to Clinical Professor; rather he testified that the CCPR voted to keep Malkan as Director of the Research and Writing Program for an additional year.”

Mutua appears to be the only one who recalls events this way. Again and again, the 14-page document appealing for a separate trial for Professor Ewing paints Mutua in a very unfavorable light.

The Motion offers a recent passage from Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, on the importance of providing truthful testimony in court.

The Motion closes like this:

One would think that Justice Sotomayor’s admonition applies with particular force when the public employee is the Dean of the only state law school in New York. False testimony stains the legal process and the judicial system. It strips legal institutions of their integrity and undermines their standing in the community by inhibiting their capacity to render justice. False testimony by one co-defendant unnecessarily bears the potential to prejudice his co-defendant and deprive him of the opportunity to fairly and truthfully offer his own defense.

Ewing should not be compelled to assume the risk that a reasonable jury will: (1) readily conclude that Mutua, his co-defendant and the Dean of a Law School, has twice offered false testimony under oath against the interests of the plaintiff in the current action; and (2) thereafter give Ewing’s defense less weight than it deserves because of his previous close working relationship with Mutua at the Law School.

Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, Charles P. Ewing respectfully requests that this Court grant his Motion for Separate Trials and order that Malkan’s claims against Mutua be tried separately.

Click here to read it for yourself.

More on this story here and here.


McCarley Gardens, Fruit Belt Residents Petition UB

Here is a petition just posted at Change.org:

The Burnie C. McCarley Gardens is a successful moderate to low-income Housing and Urban Development (HUD) assisted property in Buffalo, New York. Built in 1978, the 150 apartments unit is home to stable families and caring neighbors. Lawns are green and well kept; the properties are graffiti and trash free. And the property sits in the Fruit Belt neighborhood where the University at Buffalo wishes to expand its medical campus. The area’s future is being planned by an Economic Opportunity Panel that includes no one from McCarley Gardens or from the surrounding neighborhoods.

We Petitioners want the current panel dissolved and a new one convened that includes the voice of residents. McCarley Gardens and the Fruit Belt neighborhood deserve to be part of the decision making. Tell the University at Buffalo, the Oak-Michigan Housing Development Corporation, and the Economic Opportunity Panel to listen to the residents of McCarley Gardens and the Fruit Belt by signing this petition.

HUD’s mission is to create strong, sustainable, stable communities of quality affordable homes, which McCarley Gardens exemplifies. We ask that the University at Buffalo listen to the dignified residents of the McCarley Gardens and the Fruit Belt. Dissolve the current panel immediately and impanel a new decision-making group made up of those who live in the development and the surrounding neighborhoods. Residents are concerned about parking, litter, impact on the current sewer system, and other quality of life issues. The University at Buffalo is not privileged to make decisions about the Fruit Belt and Hospital Hill neighborhoods. The residents of McCarley Gardens and the Fruit Belt have the right to use their deserved voice regarding this neighborhood planning.

We, the undersigned Property Owners, Taxpayers, Residents, and concerned individuals for the human rights and dignity for all, petition the University at Buffalo, the UB Council, the Oak-Michigan Housing Development Corporation, the Economic Opportunity Panel, and the SUNY Board of Trustees, to declare a moratorium on any and all future developments in the McCarley Gardens/Fruitbelt Community area until a Master Plan is developed by a body which includes a majority of residents, property owners and tax payers of the McCarley Gardens/Fruitbelt Community. Such master plan will address the impact on the area’s sewer system, traffic, density, recreational facilities and type of property, to ensure that the McCarley Gardens/Fruitbelt citizens’ health, safety, livability and environmental concerns are properly met.

Click here to visit the petition web page and register your support for these disenfranchised Buffalonians who are trying to have their voices heard.


More on that UB Letter…

denialConcerning yesterday’s blog post

Click here to see the actual reply that was sent to Veronica Hemphill-Nichols by UB Assistant Vice President for Government and Community Relations Michael Pietkiewicz on January 23.

It fails to address the requests made by Fruit Belt and McCarley Gardens residents in this letter sent to UB Foundation chairman Francis Letro on January 15.

The January 15 letter was sent after face-to-face requests for the same information were made by George K. Arthur at a December 13 meeting with members of the Economic Opportunity Panel (EOP) that is supposedly interfacing with residents of the Fruit Belt and McCarley Gardens. Although panel members promised to convey the requests to the UB Foundation and UB President Satish Tripathi, the January 3 deadline for a reply (imposed by Arthur) came and went with no response. Hence the need to send the request in writing on January 15 to the chairman of the private UB Foundation—who apparently punted and assigned the job of responding to state employee Pietkiewicz, who writes in his January 23 reply:

“As you know, the University at Buffalo is actively engaging multiple stakeholders around the Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus, including Fruit Belt and McCarley Gardens residents, on a variety of issues. Separately St. John Baptist Church has facilitated numerous meetings with tenants of the McCarley Gardens during this process and will continue to do so in the future. The Economic Opportunity Panel (EOP) has offered multiple opportunities for public input through dozens of individual and group interviews and meetings where residents and neighbors have been encouraged to voice their concerns.”

It’s one thing to hold meetings and let people voice their concerns. It’s another thing to communicate those concerns back to people in power—which the EOP apparently failed to do after the December 13 meeting. Either that, or they communicated residents’ concerns, and the people in power decided the proper response was to ignore them.

 

 

 

 

 

 


UB Closes Shale Institute

Satish K. Tripathi, president of the State University of New York at Buffalo, sent an email to all university employees this afternoon, announcing his decision to close the much-criticized Shale Resources and Society Institute at UB—less than eight months after its existence was revealed to the public.

Dear University Community:

            Issues related to energy and the environment represent a critical, broadly defined area of inquiry in the 21st century, one of tremendous and growing scientific, social, and economic importance.  There is therefore a vital need for the highest quality of research, scholarship, and educational initiatives in these areas.

            Given our geographic situation as well as our extensive faculty expertise in issues related to energy, water, and the environment, the University at Buffalo is positioned to play a leading research role in these areas.  Understanding and addressing these issues effectively therefore requires a program of sufficient scale to encompass the scope and complexities of this topic.

To fulfill UB’s mission of academic excellence, it is imperative that our research is of appropriate scope, and that it has strong faculty presence.  Moreover, conducting research that has such profound environmental, societal, public health, and economic implications requires that we adhere to the utmost standards of academic integrity and transparency.  It must be remembered that the issues associated with natural gas production from shale are broad and complex, with extensive public implications.  It is with these considerations in mind that we must assess the mission and practices of the Shale Resources and Society Institute.  

After consultation with faculty and our academic administration, Provost Zukoski, Dean Pitman and I concur that:

·         Research of such considerable societal importance and impact cannot be effectively conducted with a cloud of uncertainty over its work.
·         While UB’s policies that govern disclosure of significant financial interests and sources of support are strong and consistent with federal guidelines, these policies are in need of further clarification and because of this lack of clarity were inconsistently applied. (To remedy this, UB has established a committee with participation of the faculty senate with the goal of developing recommendations to strengthen and clarify our policies in these areas.)
·         The institute lacks sufficient faculty presence in fields associated with energy production from shale for the institute to meet its stated mission.
·         Conflicts-both actual and perceived-can arise between sources of research funding and expectations of independence when reporting research results.  This, in turn, impacted the appearance of independence and integrity of the institute’s research.
 
The university upholds academic freedom as a core principle of our institutional mission. With that being said, academic freedom carries with it inherent responsibilities. The Shale Resources and Society Institute’s May 15, 2012 report, “Environmental Impacts during Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling: Causes, Impacts, and Remedies,” led to allegations questioning whether historical financial interests influenced the authors’ conclusions.  The fundamental source of controversy revolves around clarity and substantiation of conclusions. Every faculty member has a responsibility to ensure that conclusions in technical reports or papers are unambiguous and supported by the presented data.  It is imperative that our faculty members adhere to rigorous standards of academic integrity, intellectual honesty, transparency, and the highest ethical conduct in their work.  

Because of these collective concerns, I have decided to close the Shale Resources and Society Institute.

To leverage our university’s considerable faculty expertise in the area of energy and the environment and to address these issues with appropriate breadth and complexity, UB will establish a comprehensive program of scholarship and education that addresses issues in this broadly defined area of research.  Accordingly, I have asked Provost Zukoski to work with academic deans, the vice president for research and economic development, and the faculty researchers across the disciplines who have expertise in this broad field to create a faculty-driven process that provides appropriate scope and scale for UB’s scholarship in energy and environmental sciences.

As a leading research university with a long history of leadership in sustainability, water, and energy-related issues, the University at Buffalo has the potential to be a leading voice in this national and global conversation.  Across the disciplines, we have a number of faculty experts who are conducting vital research in these areas.   We need to bring these faculty together and harness their intellectual energy in order to address these issues in an interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and focused way.  UB can be a key institutional leader in this critical field of energy and the environment.  To do so, we need to be deliberate and thoughtful, with an eye toward the long-range implications of this research, which has tremendous local, national, and global impact.
 
Sincerely,
 
Satish K. Tripathi
President

The Shale Resources and Society Institute—or SRSI—became public on April 5, 2012, when it was first reported by Artvoice. Opposition to the institute grew after its first and only report was thoroughly debunked by the Public Accountability Initiative (PAI). Their critique was picked up by media outlets across the country, drawing increased scrutiny on a national scale. On top of this, a well-organized group of UB faculty, staff, students and concerned community members called the Coalition for Leading Ethically in Academic Research (UB CLEAR)—came together to keep the concern focused on academic integrity at UB. Last week, PAI followed up with another report sent to SUNY Trustees, criticizing president Tripathi’s failure to disclose information pertaining to the founding and funding of SRSI. Over the weekend, an online petition calling for the closure of SRSI had collected over 10,000 signatures.

Now the institute—which was made up of individuals with ties to the natural gas industry, and whose only report was riddled with incorrect math—is no more.

 


Local State University Seeks Global Conquest

Here’s one for Columbus Day

Tearing a page from the Archer Daniels Midland Company, the State University of New York at Buffalo is moving closer to becoming the State University to the World, according to this report in the Buffalo News. Seems the SUNY school has been ranked 198th by Times Higher Education World. It apparently did not place among the same publication’s Reputation Rankings.

According to the News story:

“Moving into the top 200 will enhance UB’s already strong reputation overseas and help us attract outstanding students from around the world,” said Stephen C. Dunnett, a UB professor and vice provost for international education. In the United States, UB consistently places in the top 20 universities in the country for international student enrollment.

Which is quite an accomplishment, considering it’s a goal that is nowhere mentioned in the State University of New York’s mission statement.

(emphasis added)

Mission Statement

The mission of the state university system shall be to provide to the people of New York educational services of the highest quality, with the broadest possible access, fully representative of all segments of the population in a complete range of academic, professional and vocational postsecondary programs including such additional activities in pursuit of these objectives as are necessary or customary. These services and activities shall be offered through a geographically distributed comprehensive system of diverse campuses which shall have differentiated and designated missions designed to provide a comprehensive program of higher education, to meet the needs of both traditional and non-traditional students and to address local, regional and state needs and goals. In fulfilling this mission, the state university shall exercise care to develop and maintain a balance of its human and physical resources that:

—recognizes the fundamental role of its responsibilities in undergraduate education and provides a full range of graduate and professional education that reflects the opportunity for individual choice and the needs of society;

—establishes tuition which most effectively promotes the university’s access goals;

—encourages and facilitates basic and applied research for the purpose of the creation and dissemination of knowledge vital for continued human, scientific, technological and economic advancement;

—strengthens its educational and research programs in the health sciences through the provision of high quality general comprehensive and specialty health care, broadly accessible at reasonable cost, in its hospitals, clinics and related programs and through networks and joint and cooperative relationships with other health care providers and institutions, including those on a regional basis;

—shares the expertise of the state university with the business, agricultural, governmental, labor and nonprofit sectors of the state through a program of public service for the purpose of enhancing the well-being of the people of the state of New York and in protecting our environmental and marine resources;

—encourage, support and participate through facility planning and projects, personnel policies and programs with local governments, school districts, businesses and civic sectors of host communities regarding the health of local economies and quality of life;

—promotes appropriate program articulation between its state-operated institutions and its community colleges as well as encourages regional networks and cooperative relationships with other educational and cultural institutions for the purpose of better fulfilling its mission of education, research and service.

(NYS Education Law, Section 351)

 

But hey, New York ain’t called the Empire State for nothin’, you know what I’m sayin’?


UB Not Sharing Shale Institute Report

According to this report in Business First, the State University of New York at Buffalo is not publicly releasing the report it sent to SUNY Trustees yesterday concerning the Shale Resources and Society Institute (SRSI).

Artvoice has filed Freedom of Information Law requests with both UB and SUNY Trustees, seeking disclosure.

UPDATE: SUNY Director of Communications David Doyle says, via email: “The report the SUNY Board of Trustees requested from UB is under review and once that process is complete it will be made public.”

 


Meet the SRSI Advisory Board

Last week, SUNY Trustees resolved to get answers from UB regarding its controversial Shale Resources and Society Institute (SRSI). The institute has come under fire since its inception, and has produced one widely debunked study that relied on incorrect math, and initially claimed peer-reviewed status for the work—a claim it quickly had to retract. The report was authored by known gas-industry shills.

Meanwhile last week, the results of a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request shed further light on the shady operation. 

Today, let’s look at the SRSI Interim Founding Advisory Board. Functions of the board include the following:

1. Develop and review SRSI bylaws

2. Review policy on ethics and financial conflicts of interest

3. Review the SRSI Prospectus

4. Help determine the procedures for developing funding opportunities and unbiased research

5. Advise the directors in any matters of concern

6. If the Dean should request, review and evaluation of SRSI significant developments

Sounds like a good idea, right? Problem is, the board wasn’t constituted until June and July, months after SRSI was rolled out to the public and subsequently lambasted nationwide for its comical research. The group’s first meeting was only two weeks ago, on September 4. The second meeting is supposed to take place at 4pm today (9/18).

So, let’s look at this post-hoc board UB has assembled to oversee its wild child of an institute. Five of the eight members are from UB.

Paschalis Alexandridis — UB Distinguished Professor, Chemical and Biological Engineering, and Acting Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Education, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences; University at Buffalo. OK, whatever.

Peter F. Biehl — According to his Anthropology Department bio, his research interests include “Neolithic and Copper Age Europe and Near East; Archaeological Method and Theory; Cognitive Archaeology and the Social Meaning of Visual Imagery and Representation; Archaeology of Cult and Religion; Multimedia in Archaeology; Museum Management; Cultural Heritage.” Question: What’s he doing here?

Ernest Sternberg — Professor & Department Chair, Department Urban and Regional Planning; University at Buffalo. Since 2001, his research has been increasingly focused on “the ethics of complex decision making to avert disasters, whether from terrorism or natural or technological hazards…His most recent interest is the study of new radical ideologies affecting perceptions of public affairs.” Question: What’s he doing here? Unless we remember that the gas industry refers to anti-frackers as “insurgents.

Marcus Bursik — UB Geology Professor Bursik’s name appears in the FOILed emails concerning SRSI. Among other things, he co-authored research with Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences Bruce Pitman. Pitman is at the center of the controversy surrounding SRSI, and frequently finds himself in the hot seat when the institute is lambasted by the press.

Michael Joy — an alumnus and Partner at Reed Smith LLP in Pittsburgh. From the link: “A graduate of the State University of New York at Buffalo Law School with certificates of concentration in Environmental Law and in Real Property law, Dr. Joy simultaneously earned a Ph.D. in geology from the same institution. His dissertation research focused on developing structural geological models for the deposition of the Trenton and Black River Group carbonates and Utica Shale along the Taconic Foredeep, Appalachian Basin, from mid-central New York through central Pennsylvania and ultimately south through the Appalachian Basin to Virginia and Tennessee. He currently holds an adjunct faculty position in the SUNY at Buffalo Geology Department. He is a strong advocate of natural gas development and has participated in hundreds of presentations, educational town halls, legislative hearings and been involved in lobbying activity on the natural gas opportunities associated with the Marcellus and Utica shale formations.” Joy was also a featured speaker at UB’s Marcellus lecture series, speaking on the topic of Land Leasing and Property Rights. It was during that lecture series that the idea of SRSI was born.

Bruce Applebaum— From his company bio at Mosaic Resources—a company that provides “Trusted Oil & Gas Technical Analysis for the Investor & Financial Industry”: “Dr. Appelbaum has over forty years experience in the oil and gas industry and is dedicated to helping clients make the right investment opportunities through knowledgeable and trusted technical analysis. Bruce has enjoyed a successful career in the industry, including work with majors such as Chevron/Texaco and serving on the Board of Directors of CQS Rig Finance Fund and Input Output Inc.

In addition, he is a Distinguished Trustee of the American Geosciences Institute Foundation, and has been an advisor to the Department of Oceanography at Texas A&M University and the School of Earth Sciences at Stanford University. He is a Trustee Associate of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists and a Certified Petroleum Geologist. He also serves on the Dean’s Advisory Counsel at he State University of New York at Buffalo.” Mosaic Resources provides “Trusted analysis of oil, gas, and shale plays for the investor and financial industry,” according to its website.

James Ellis — Ellis received his PhD in Geology from UB in 1982. His company, Ellis GeoSpatial, lists Houston’s GSI Environmental as a customer. GSI Environmental released this report, written by GSI and Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation, entitled “Methane in Pennsylvania Water Wells Unrelated to Marcellus Shale Fracturing,” which was published in the trade publication Oil & Gas Industry Journal. The research is devoted to combating conclusions of a Duke University study that found well water in northeast Pennsylvania had been contaminated by fracking. Not so, says Cabot Oil and Gas authors Albert S. Wylie, Jr., and Tom Wagner.

Notice that if you try to download the PDF of the article from this website, you’ll find it’s protected by a password. I had luck downloading it, then opening it in “preview.” But, I couldn’t save it or print it. This report, which is so difficult for the public to access, is shown for what it is at this link.

Steve Dubovsky — Professor and Chair of Psychiatry at UB, Dr. Dubovsky’s research interests include “Calcium Metabolism in Affective Disorders; Psychopharmacology; Psychosomatic Medicine; Medical Education. Clinical specialties: mood disorders, psychosis, interactions between medical and psychiatric disorders, psychopharmacology, difficult diagnoses, complex clinical entities.” On the face of it, you ask: What does this have to do with a fracking institute?

Here’s an interview with Dubovsky from peer-reviewed journal Primary Psychiatry. (Note the disclosure that Dubovsky receives research support from Eisai, Pfizer, and Sumitomo Pharma.) Click here for this more complete list of his funders. Or, if you don’t feel like clicking the link, here’s a brief overview of the other pharmaceutical companies that have paid for his research, going back to 2000:

GRANTS

January 2012 to January 2014
A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized withdrawal study of lurasidone for the maintenance treatment of subjects with schizophrenia (D1050238). Sunovion
Steven Dubovsky
$200,000
January 2011 to January 2013
A 6-month, open-label,multicenter, flexible-dose extension study to the B2061032 study to evaluate the safety, tolerability &efficacy of desvenlafaxine succinate sustained-release (dvs sr) tablets in the treatment of children & adolescent patient. Pfizer
Steven Dubovsky
$200,000
January 2011 to January 2013
A Fifteen-Month, Prospective, Randomized, Active-Controlled, Open-Label, Flexible-Dose Study of Paliperidone Palmitate Compared with Oral Antipsychotic Treatment in Delaying Time to Treatment Failure in Adults with Schizophrenia Who Have Been Incarcerate
Janssen
Steven Dubovsky
$74,000
January 2011 to January 2013
A fifteen-month, prospective, randomized, active-controlled, open-label, flexible-dose study of paliperidone palmitate compared with oral antipsychotic treatment in delaying time to treatment failure in adults with schizophrenia. Ortho McNeil Janssen
Ortho McNeil Janssen
Steven Dubovsky
$150,000
January 2011 to January 2014
A long-term, multicenter, open-label study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of flexible-dose oral aripiprazole (OPC-14597) as maintenance treatment in adolescent patients with schizophrenia or child and adolescent patients with bipolar I disorder,
Otsuka
Steven Dubovsky
$150,000
January 2011 to January 2012
A Long-Term, Open-Label, Multicenter Study of LY2140023 Compared to Atypical Antipsychotic Standard of Care in Patients with DSM-IV-TR Schizophrenia. Lilly
Steven Dubovsky
$645,000
January 2011 to January 2014
A long-term, Phase 3, multicenter, open-label trial to evaluate the safety and tolerability of oral OPC-34712 as maintenance treatment in adults with schizophrenia. Otsuka
Steven Dubovsky
$150,000
January 2011 to January 2015
A multicenter, open-label study to assess hospitalization rates in adult subjects with schizophrenia treated prospectively for 6 months with aripiprazole IM depot compared with 6-month retrospective treatment with oral antipsychotic in a naturalistic com
Otsuka
Steven Dubovsky
$150,000
January 2011 to January 2013
A Multicenter, Open-label Study to Assess Hospitalization Rates in Adult Subjects with Schizophrenia Treated Prospectively for 6 Months with Aripiprazole IM Depot compared with 6-month Retrospective Treatment with Oral Antipsychotics in a Naturalistic Co
Otskuka
Steven Dubovsky
$200,000
January 2011 to January 2012
A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Parallel Group, Placebo-controlled, Phase III, Long-Term Safety and Tolerability Study of TC-5214 (S-mecamylamine) as an Adjunct to an Antidepressant in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder Who Exhibit an Inade
Astra Zeneca
Steven Dubovsky
$75,000
January 2011 to January 2012
A phase 3, long-term, open-label, flexible dose, extension study evaluating the safety and tolerability of LuAA21004 (15 and 20mg) in subjects with major depressive disorder. Takeda
Steven Dubovsky
$175,000
January 2011 to January 2013
A Phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 3 doses of LY2140023 monohydrate in the acute treatment of patients with DSM-IV-TR schizophrenia. Lilly
Lilly
Steven Dubovsky
$174,000
January 2011 to January 2012
A Phase III, multi-center, randomized, 12 week, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled study to evaluate efficacy and safety of R04917838 in patients with sup-optimally controlled symptoms of schizophrenia. Genotech
Steven Dubovsky
$150,000
January 2010 to January 2013
A long-term, multicenter, open-label study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of flexible-dose oral aripiprazole (OPC-14597) as maintenance treatment in adolescent patients with schizophrenia (31-09-267). Otsuka:
Steven Dubovsky
$150,000
January 2010 to January 2011
A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel Group, Placebo-Controlled, Phase III, Efficacy and Safety Study of 3 Fixed Dose Groups of TC-5214 (S-mecamylamine) as an Adjunct to an Antidepressant in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder Who Exhibit
Astra Zeneca
Steven Dubovsky
$100,000
January 2010 to January 2012
A Randomized Phase 2A, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of the Efficacy and Safety of CP-601,927 Augmentation of Antidepressant Therapy in Major Depression (A3331017). Pfizer
Steven Dubovsky
$150,000
January 2010 to January 2011
Four week, double-blind, placebo controlled phase III trial evaluating the efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of flexible doses of oral ziprasidone in children and adolescents with bipolar I disorder. Pfizer
Pfizer
Steven Dubovsky
$75,000
January 2010 to January 2012
International, multicenter, study of a twenty-eight week, open-label, titrated oral lixivaptan administration in patients with chronic hyponatremia: Extension to studies CK-LX3401, 3405, and 3430 (CK-LX3431). Cardiokine
Steven Dubovsky
$150,000
January 2010 to January 2012
Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Oral Lixivaptan Capsules in Subjects with Euvolemic Hyponatremia (CK-LX3405). Cardiokine
Steven Dubovsky
$75,000
January 2010 to January 2013
Open-label, multicenter, rollover, long-term study of aripiprazole intramuscular depot in patients with schizophrenia (31-10-270). Otsuka:
Steven Dubovsky
$150,000
January 2010 to January 2011
Randomized phase 2A, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of CP-601,927 augmentation of antidepressant therapy in major depression. Pfizer
Pfizer
Steven Dubovsky
$100,000
January 2009 to January 2010
Antidepressant impact of lurasidone in bipolar depression.
Sumitomo Pharma
Steven Dubovsky
$250,000
January 2009 to January 2010
Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of oral lixivaptan capsules in subjects with euvolemic hyponatremia.
Cardiokine
Steven Dubovsky
$75,000
January 2009 to January 2011
Phase 3, multi-center, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of dimebon (PF-01913539) for up to 26-weeks in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease.
Pfizer
Steven Dubovsky
$150,000
January 2008 to December 2009
A 12-week, multicenter, open label study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of donepezil hydrochloride (E2020) in subjects with mild to severe Alzheimer’s disease residing in an assisted living facility. Esai
Steven Dubovsky
$150,000
January 2008 to January 2010
A 52-week, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the safety, efficacy and tolerability of an intramuscular depot formulation of aripiprazole as maintenance treatment in patients with schizophrenia Otsuka
Steven Dubovsky
$125,000
January 2008 to December 2008
A multicenter, double-blind, flexible-dose, 6-month trial comparing the efficacy and safety of asenapine and olanzapine in stable subjects with persistent negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Pfizer
Steven Dubovsky
$100,000
January 2008 to December 2009
Comparison of divalproex plus olanzapine or placebo in mild to moderate mania. Lilly
Steven Dubovsky
$83,920
January 2008 to December 2008
Phase III, randomized, 6-month, double blind trial in subjects with bipolar disorder to evaluate the continued safety and maintenance of effect of ziprasidone plus a mood stabilizer. Pfizer
Steven Dubovsky
$120,000
January 2008 to December 2010
Phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial to study the safety and efficacy of 3 doses of lurasidone in acutely psychotic patients with schizophrenia. Sumitomo Pharma
Steven Dubovsky
$250,000
January 2008 to January 2012
Rapid Pediatric Psychiatry Consultation Project. Tower Foundation
Steven Dubovsky
$400,000
January 2007 to December 2008
A 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center, parallel-group study of the long-term efficacy, tolerability and safety of agomelatine 25 and 50 mg in the prevention of relapse of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) following open-labe
Steven Dubovsky
$200,000
January 2007 to January 2009
A randomized, parallel group, multiple dose six-week study to evaluate safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of asenapine in elderly patients. Merck
Steven Dubovsky
$150,000
January 2007 to December 2008
A randomized, parallel group, multiple dose, 6-week study to evaluate the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of asenapine in elderly subjects with psychosis. Pfizer: $50,000; 2007-2008
Steven Dubovsky
$100,000
January 2007 to December 2008
A three-week double-blind, multicenter, placebo controlled study evaluating the safety and efficacy of add-on ziprasidone to lithium or divalproex in mania. Pfizer
Steven Dubovsky
$60,000
January 2006 to December 2007
A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Flexible-Dose, 6-Month Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Asenapine with Olanzapine in Stable Subjects with Predominant, Persistent Negative Symptoms of Schizophrenia. Pfizer:
Steven Dubovsky
$150,000
January 2006 to December 2007
A Phase 3, Randomized, 6-Month, Double Blind Trial in Subjects with Bipolar I Disorder to Evaluate the Continued Safety and Maintenance of Effect of Ziprasidone Plus Mood Stabilizer (vs. Placebo Plus a Mood Stabilizer) Following a Minimum of 4 Months Res
Steven Dubovsky
$250,000
January 2006 to December 2007
A Randomized, Parallel-Group, Multiple Dose, 6-Week Study to Evaluate Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of Asenapine in Elderly Subjects with Psychosis. Janssen:
Steven Dubovsky
$200,000
January 2006 to December 2008
Efficacy of psychiatric consultation to pediatricians treating mental disorders. Tower Foundation:
Steven Dubovsky
$100,000
January 2006 to December 2007
Ziprasidone for adolescent mania. Pfizer
Steven Dubovsky
$210,000
January 2005 to January 2005
Bipolar Disorder in Primary Care
Marcelle Mostert; Dubovsky, S
January 2005 to December 2005
Does levetiracetam lower platelet intracellular calcium ion concentration in bipolar mood disorder? UCB Pharma
Steven Dubovsky
$50,000
January 2005 to December 2006
Extended release memantine in moderate-severe Alzheimer‘s disease. Forest
Steven Dubovsky
$200,000
January 2005 to December 2006
Open-label, flexible-dose, long-term safety and efficacy study of bifeprunox in the treatment of schizophrenia. Solvay
Steven Dubovsky
$100,000
January 2005 to December 2005
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled and risperidone-referenced parallel group efficacy and safety study of two fixed doses of bifeprunox in the treatment of schizophrenia. Solvay
Steven Dubovsky
$150,000
January 2004 to December 2005
Aripiprazole in refractory depression. BMS
Steven Dubovsky
$100,000
January 2004 to December 2004
Paloperidone for schizophrenia. Johnson and Johnson.
Steven Dubovsky
$250,000
January 2004 to December 2004
Prediction of Psychiatric Diagnosis with Brain Imaging Using SPECT. Brain Matters
Steven Dubovsky
$50,000
January 2003 to December 2004
Escitalopram for geriatric depression. Forest
Steven Dubovsky
$150,000
January 2003 to December 2003
Escitalopram for pediatric depression. Forest:
Steven Dubovsky
$150,000
January 2003 to December 2004
Levatiracetam effect on intracellular calcium signaling in bipolar disorder. Pharma
Steven Dubovsky
$50,000
January 2003 to December 2004
Neuramaxane in Alzheimer‘s disease. Forest
Steven Dubovsky
$250,000
January 2003 to December 2004
Neuramaxane plus donepezil in Alzheimer‘s disease. Forest
Steven Dubovsky
$250,000
January 2002 to December 2003
Evaluation of patients with bipolar disorder. Sutherland Foundation
Steven Dubovsky
$49,000
January 2002 to December 2003
Memantine plus donepezil in Alzheimer‘s disease. Forest
Steven Dubovsky
$250,000
January 2002 to December 2003
MK-1 antagonist for major depression. Merck
Steven Dubovsky
$293,000
January 2002 to December 2004
Telemedicine consultation in primary care. Pfizer
Steven Dubovsky
$30,000
January 2001 to December 2002
Ariprazole for psychosis in demented nursing home patients. Bristol Myers Squibb
Steven Dubovsky
$150,000
January 2001 to December 2002
Galantamine in Alzheimer’s disease. Janssen
Steven Dubovsky
$100,000
January 2001 to December 2002
Galantamine in Lewy body disease. Janssen
Steven Dubovsky
$150,000
January 2001 to December 2003
Memantine in Alzheimer‘s disease. Forest
Steven Dubovsky
$200,000
January 2001 to December 2005
NIDA Clinical Trials Network (Paula Riggs, P.I.):
Steven Dubovsky
January 2001 to December 2002
Valproic acid for agitation in demented nursing home patients. Abbott Laboratories
Steven Dubovsky
$100,000
January 2000 to December 2001
5HT1D antagonist in panic disorder. Pfizer
Steven Dubovsky
$150,000
January 2000 to December 2001
CP-448 (5HT1D antagonist) in major depressive disorder. Pfizer
Steven Dubovsky
$150,000
January 2000 to December 2001
Outpatient trial of sertraline in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder. Pfizer
Steven Dubovsky
$97,000
January 1999 to December 2000
Extended study of pregabalin for social phobia. Parke-Davis
Steven Dubovsky
$279,000
January 1999 to December 2000
Fluvoxamine in social phobia. Solvay
Steven Dubovsky
$79,000
January 1999 to December 2000
Injectible olanzapine versus placebo in the treatment of acute mania. Eli Lilly
Steven Dubovsky
$160,000
January 1999 to December 2000
L-deprenyl patch for depression. Somerset
Steven Dubovsky
$109,000
January 1999 to December 2000
Olanzapine versus risperidone in the treatment of agitation and psychosis in demented patients. Lilly
Steven Dubovsky
$150,000
January 1999 to December 2000
Somatostatin analogue in Alzheimer‘s disease. Fugisawa
Steven Dubovsky
$250,000

Dubovsky seems well suited to explain how the taking millions of dollars in corporate money to fund research at a public research university is just how the game is played—whether it’s from big pharmaceutical companies or big oil and gas.

If this is the best lineup UB can come up with to assure the public that SRSI is not a Frackademic Shamstitute designed to produce pro-industry reports, they may have either stopped trying, or they just don’t know anybody associated with environmental, community, governmental or public health interests. 

Will the SUNY Trustees come to the obvious conclusion that no amount of lipstick will dress up this pig? Or will they be swayed by the predictably reassuring hype, distracting details, and absurd claims of “academic freedom” that the UB administration is likely to produce in defense of SRSI—as they have time and again—up to this point?

 

 





Older Posts »