UCI Needs a Sharp Eye on Labs

UC Irvine has come under deserved scrutiny for its uneven handling of the case of a cancer researcher who was hired while under investigation for allegedly falsifying research data. There are lessons for the long term about tightening review procedures.

When Dr. John C. Hiserodt first was hired, some at the university’s medical school knew the federal government was investigating his prior conduct at the University of Pittsburgh. But top UC Irvine officials were not alerted at first. They should have been.

The federal Department of Health and Human Services later found Hiserodt had engaged in “scientific misconduct” in Pennsylvania. The department barred him for five years from participating in federally funded cancer research projects.

The pathology department chairman at the UCI medical school said he and others did look at the matter in depth themselves and concluded that the federal government had been too harsh. He said he subsequently told that to UCI officials, including the chancellor. University officials said they kept tabs on Hiserodt from then on and sent three letters warning him to steer clear of federally funded projects. That was appropriate.

Yet after investigating a whistle-blower’s complaints, UC Irvine concluded in 1996 that Hiserodt was violating regulations and padlocked his laboratory. The investigation also found that Hiserodt had shipped an experimental drug to Florida to treat the brain tumor of an 8-year-old girl, an alleged violation of laws against shipping unauthorized medical treatments across state lines. This may have been a humanitarian gesture from Hiserodt’s perspective. However, individual doctors cannot determine which cases are so heart-rending that rules or laws can be broken.

Hiserodt was allowed to resign in the wake of the investigation. But in a troubling development, the pathology department chairman retained Hiserodt as a volunteer lecturer to medical students until this week.

The federal government is investigating Hiserodt’s actions at UC Irvine. To avoid similar problems in the future, the school would do well to use this case as an occasion to review its hiring practices and the oversight of laboratories.