Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    A Culture of Cybersecurity
    Opportunities in the Hard Sciences
    Career Preparation
Sign In
News

A Brown U. Professor Took On Big Pharma. His University Pulled Him From the Classroom.

By Francie Diep January 16, 2020
David Egilman, a clinical professor at Brown
David Egilman, a clinical professor at BrownKen Richardson

David Egilman, a clinical professor at Brown University who frequently testifies in lawsuits against powerful corporations, is no stranger to controversy. But in December 2017, something especially fateful happened. He published a peer-reviewed paper.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

David Egilman, a clinical professor at Brown University who frequently testifies in lawsuits against powerful corporations, is no stranger to controversy. But in December 2017, something especially fateful happened. He published a peer-reviewed paper.

The paper argued that a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, DePuy, had run a poorly designed study and had manipulated data in order to make its hip replacements seem more effective. To support his thesis, Egilman used documents that he had seen and analyzed as an expert witness on behalf of patients who were suing DePuy, alleging that their hip replacements had failed and left them unable to walk.

At the bottom of his paper, Egilman disclosed his role in the litigation. He also wrote that the lawyers for the plaintiffs weren’t involved in, and didn’t pay for, his paper, which appeared in the journal Accountability in Research.

The paper sparked a chain reaction: Johnson & Johnson demanded a retraction, Brown ordered the professor to distance himself from the institution, and a volley of claimed conflicts of interest ended with Egilman’s removal from the classroom. A nine-member faculty committee eventually found no direct evidence that any company had pressured Brown to take action against Egilman, but the committee members wrote that the “fact pattern is inherently suspicious.”

Brown denied that any outside meddling had forced its hand. “We fully and unequivocally reject any suggestion of any external influence at all on our process or decision making,” Brian E. Clark, a Brown spokesman, wrote in an email to The Chronicle.

The case highlights the conflicts for universities that employ researchers who study — and engage in advocacy against — powerful companies. It underscores the risks to researchers, like Egilman, who are not tenured. And it shows how, even in the absence of obvious, extensive financial ties between universities and companies — in documents The Chronicle obtained about Egilman’s case, there’s no mention of any particular relationship between Johnson & Johnson and Brown — a dispute like this “opens the door to the perception of corporate influence,” as the faculty committee wrote.

That door opened when Johnson & Johnson asked Accountability in Research to retract Egilman’s paper. The DePuy study that Egilman had criticized was scientifically sound, Jim Lesko, a biostatistician at Johnson & Johnson, wrote in a letter to the journal’s editor in chief, Adil E. Shamoo, that STAT first published.

Moreover, Lesko wrote, Egilman hadn’t fully disclosed his own conflicts of interest: In addition to being a professor at Brown, Egilman, a physician and epidemiologist, has his own firm, Never Again Consulting, which does research for advocacy groups and lawyers. (Other authors of the paper are noted as working for Never Again Consulting.)

While professors at other universities analyze company documents to reconstruct controversial events and reveal motivations, as Egilman does, few in medicine and public health have taken their research as far into advocacy as he has. By one estimate, Egilman has given more than 600 depositions and testimonies over a 35-year career, earning more than $5 million, part of which, he told Science, he gives to charity.

Accountability in Research reviewed its own process for publishing Egilman’s paper, to see if anyone on the staff had made mistakes. “The paper went through the normal process exactly, and we had competent reviewers,” Shamoo said. “As far as we’re concerned, the case was over.” He found no need even to make edits, or to add notes. The paper remains unretracted.

‘Inherently Suspicious’

Then Brown got involved.

In January 2019, university officials sent Egilman two letters demanding that he remove the notation of his Brown affiliation from the Accountability in Research paper. Brown policy encourages faculty members to engage in private consulting, including founding and running their own businesses, and says they should disclose if a publication resulted from outside paid work. It doesn’t say faculty members shouldn’t indicate their Brown ties at all.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Chronicle asked Clark, the spokesman, if the letters had been intended to tell Egilman to stop affiliating himself with Brown. Clark said he couldn’t answer that question directly, nor others about this series of events.

I believe that the course was canceled as a consequence of complaints about me made by corporations or their agents.

“We are not at liberty to disclose details related to personnel, which we do not consider public,” he wrote in an email. “For that reason, I can’t share internal documents or respond to all of your questions in depth.” Still, he wrote, “all professors with faculty appointments (regardless of their employee status) are permitted to use their faculty titles to identify themselves in professional communications they make.”

But then, in February 2019, Brown officials discontinued Egilman’s course, “Science and Power,” which covers the corporate misuse of science. Egilman had taught the elective in the School of Public Health in the spring and fall semesters of 2018, and at the medical school from 2012 to 2016.

ADVERTISEMENT

Last summer Egilman filed a grievance. “I believe that the course was canceled as a consequence of complaints about me made by corporations or their agents due to my expression of opinions that were adverse to their economic interest in the course and/or in public,” Egilman wrote in July 2019 in a complaint to the university’s grievance committee that The Chronicle obtained. Egilman declined to be interviewed by The Chronicle.

Brown’s university grievance committee, made up of nine faculty members, formed a medical-school subcommittee to deal with the med-school portions of Egilman’s complaint. The Chronicle obtained the main committee’s report but not the med-school subcommittee’s. The main committee interviewed and sent written questions to those who had made the decisions about Egilman’s affiliation and course — deans in the School of Public Health and administrators in the Office of the Vice President for Research.

The committee found no direct evidence of corporate pressure in Brown’s treatment of Egilman, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, according to David Lowe, a professor of physics and the committee’s chair. The committee was “limited in its investigative powers,” Lowe wrote in an email to The Chronicle, and couldn’t rule out the possibility of undue influence.

The case seemed to escalate more quickly and drastically than the known facts would suggest it merited, Lowe and the other committee members wrote in their report. In light of the controversy over Egilman’s Accountability in Research paper, the journal’s publisher, Taylor & Francis Group, sent a “rather trivial query” to Brown’s Office of Research Integrity.

ADVERTISEMENT

“If there were concerns about Dr. Egilman’s conflict-of-interest statement or affiliation on the article, this should have been worked out in discussions between Dr. Egilman, the chair of his department, Dr. Jeffrey Borkan, and the Office of Research,” the grievance-committee report says. Borkan is chair of family medicine, the department in which Egilman has his appointment. “Instead, neither Dr. Borkan nor Dr. Egilman were consulted, and the situation escalated into Dr. Egilman being issued a cease-and-desist letter and having his course canceled. This fact pattern is inherently suspicious and opens the door to the perception of corporate influence.”

President’s Rejection

Brown’s president rejected the grievance committee’s findings — and its recommendations that the letters sent to Egilman be retracted and his course reconsidered.

The committee “found no evidence that Johnson & Johnson or any other corporation or any identified ‘external considerations’” had influenced the letters and course cancellation, the president, Christina H. Paxson, wrote. She upheld every decision the committee recommended overturning.

Lowe maintains his position. “The committee stands by our report, which disagrees with some of President Paxson’s conclusions,” he wrote to The Chronicle. “The report offers support to the contention that if the retraction request from the Johnson & Johnson employee had not been made, then the course PHP 1050 would not have been canceled when it was.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Still, Lowe sympathized with Paxson’s caution: “The evidence was not 100-percent clear, so I can understand how President Paxson would disagree if she applied a more exacting standard of proof.”

The committee stands by our report, which disagrees with some of President Paxson’s conclusions.

The grievance committee also saw potential evidence that the university’s reaction was disproportionately harsh. “Science and Power” was discontinued in large part because deans in Brown’s School of Public Health, who met to talk about the course, had believed Egilman’s affiliation with Brown was going to be terminated, the committee found.

Egilman has had various appointments in Brown’s medical school since 1986. But committee members couldn’t quite figure out how real was the possibility of his nonrenewal. “It remains unclear whether this was simply a mistake, or whether there had been an expression of intention not to renew his position in the medical school,” they wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Not allowing Egilman to cite his affiliation in papers is out of step with the usual practice for Brown’s clinical faculty members, the committee wrote, and ending “Science and Power” was a loss: “The course was well reviewed by the students, and described by Dean Operario, chair of the Public-Health Curriculum Committee as a ‘compelling’ course for undergraduates interested in public health. It is also one of the few public-health courses that focuses on the topic of ethics.”

Nevertheless, Paxson wrote, there had been no guarantee that the class would be renewed. Egilman wasn’t owed due process in that decision. Brown hadn’t violated his academic freedom, as the grievance committee concluded. She accepted only recommendations from the med-school subcommittee, meant to clarify clinical professors’ rights and responsibilities. “The university,” wrote Clark, “is fully confident in the decisions made in this recent grievance matter.”

A version of this article appeared in the January 31, 2020, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Teaching & Learning Scholarship & Research
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
IMG_0023-removebg.png
About the Author
Francie Diep
Francie Diep is a senior reporter covering money in higher education. Email her at francie.diep@chronicle.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Harvard University
'Deeply Unsettling'
Harvard’s Battle With Trump Escalates as Research Money Is Suddenly Canceled
Photo-based illustration of a hand and a magnifying glass focusing on a scene from Western Carolina Universiy
Equal Opportunity
The Trump Administration Widens Its Scrutiny of Colleges, With Help From the Internet
Santa J. Ono, president of the University of Michigan, watches a basketball game on the campus in November 2022.
'He Is a Chameleon'
At U. of Michigan, Frustrations Grew Over a President Who Couldn’t Be Pinned Down
Photo-based illustration of University of Michigan's president Jeremy Santa Ono emerging from a red shape of Florida
Leadership
A Major College-President Transition Is Defined by an About-Face on DEI

From The Review

Illustration showing a valedictorian speaker who's tassel is a vintage microphone
The Review | Opinion
A Graduation Speaker Gets Canceled
By Corey Robin
Illustration showing a stack of coins and a university building falling over
The Review | Opinion
Here’s What Congress’s Endowment-Tax Plan Might Cost Your College
By Phillip Levine
Photo-based illustration of a college building under an upside down baby crib
The Review | Opinion
Colleges Must Stop Infantilizing Everyone
By Gregory Conti

Upcoming Events

Ascendium_06-10-25_Plain.png
Views on College and Alternative Pathways
Coursera_06-17-25_Plain.png
AI and Microcredentials
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin