Jay D. Amsterdam: The Paroxetine 352 Bipolar Study Ethical Conduct
18. Attachment U (Letter to the Office of Research Integrity – Lawyer’s
On July 5, 2001, Dr. Gyulai sent a letter of apology to Dr. Amsterdam. In that letter, Dr. Gyulai explained that control of the paper had been taken away from him and that GSK published the paper without circulating the draft to all the participants and only allowed him (Dr. Gyulai) to see a near-final draft "when only minor changes could be done." (Attachment L.)
Fourteen days later, Dr. Amsterdam sent an email to Dr. Rickels stating that the apology was not sufficient in light of the "deliberate misappropriation and publication of [his] data" without his knowledge. Dr. Amsterdam was insistent that some sort of reprimand was necessary to ensure "plagiarism" of a colleague's data never happens again. (Attachment U.)
e-mail sent 07/19/01
As you know, Dr. Gyulai sent me a letter on 7/05/01 regarding the SmithKline data and publication issue. I would like to inform you (as his Section Chief) that his letter is certainly NOT acceptable as an apology to me for his deliberate misappropriation and publication of my data.
This matter was certainly NOT a "misunderstanding" on my part; nor was Dr. Gyulai the "primary investigator of the Penn site..." In fact, if Dr. Gyulai would simply read the Penn IRB- approved consent form for this study, he would clearly see that Dr. Amsterdam was listed as the "Co-Principal Investigator" on this study (not to mention the highest patient enroller in the study).
Additionally, this study was NOT conducted at only one Penn site, but was conducted primarily from bipolar patients recruited from the Depression Research Unit under my direction!
Finally, I have no idea of whether Dr. Gyulai ever wrote (or did not write) several drafts of the manuscript, or whether "the paper was taken away ..." from him, because Dr. Gyulai sequestered ALL available data and drafts of ALL manuscripts and NEVER communicated any information to me (the Co-PI) regarding any of these issues.
Thus, if you (as Dr. Gyulai's Section Chief) feel that his "apology" is sufficient to assuage this degree of uncollegial and unethical culpability in this matter, and neither you nor the Chairman feel that a letter of reprimand admonishing Dr. Gyulai NEVER to plagiarize a colleague's data ever again, is appropriate, then I will certainly take this troubling matter further.
Please feel free to communicate your feelings to me regarding this issue in the very near future at your convenience.
December 2, 2021