Jay D. Amsterdam: The Paroxetine 352 Bipolar Study Ethical Conduct
13. Attachment P (Letter to the Office of Research Integrity – Lawyer’s
On May 11, 2001, Dr. Amsterdam emailed Dr. Rickels and explained that he considered data that he (Dr. Amsterdam) accumulated in his research unit from the study "were misappropriated from me and used and published without my knowledge and without regard to the significant contribution that I made to this study." Dr. Amsterdam complained that the "theft and publication of [his] data should not go unnoticed and uncensured." He proposed that Dr. Gyulai write a letter of apology and be censured in order to ensure "this situation does not happen again." (Attachment P.)
To: Dr. Karl Rickels
From: "Dr. Jay D. Amsterdam" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: SKB Paxil BP study publication
Thank you for your nice email in response to my note to Dr. Evans. I have given a great deal of thought as to how to resolve this extremely troubling matter. As per your investigation there is little doubt that these data were misappropriated from me and used and published without my knowledge and without regard to the significant contribution that I made to this study.
It is certainly not my intention to embarrass any of the authors who will eventually receive all the accolades when this paper comes to print. However, I am sure you will agree that there is little doubt that I was systematically slighted by Dr. Gyulai. His statement to you that he contacted SKB about having my name included as an author does not, unfortunately, comport with what knowledgeable persons at SKB report.
I think that it is important to maintain the highest academic and collegial relationship at an institution such as Penn. Thus, the theft and publication of a professor's data by a junior faculty member should not go unnoticed and uncensured. Therefore, in an effort to assure that this situation does not happen again, I would propose the following:
1. Dr. Gyulai write a letter of apology to me acknowledging his wrong doing and that he will not do this again in the future.
2. That Dr. Gyulai receive a letter of censure from the chairman (copied to me) admonishing him not to engage in this sort of behavior in the future.
3. That Dr. Gyulai receive a letter of censure from you, his section chief (copied to me) admonishing him not to engage in this sort of behavior in the future.
I think that this would resolve the immediate problem in a private, but useful, fashion; and will not result in any embarrassment to people who were uninvolved with the Penn site and unaware of Dr. Gyulai's behavior. It will also serve as a warning that our academic freedom is paramount and should not be compromised by petty, personal vein glory.
I would be happy to discuss these suggestions with you at your convenience.
October 28, 2021