Tufts Will Remove the Sackler Name From Its Programs and Buildings

Updated (12/6/2019, 11:34 a.m.) with comment from Jillian Sackler.

Updated (12/5/2019, 11:55 p.m.) with a response from a lawyer for members of the Sackler family.

Earlier this year Tufts University was hit with one of the worst charges a research institution can face. Attorney General Maura Healey of Massachusetts did not accuse Tufts of any wrongdoing, but she said Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, was using the university to burnish its reputation and promote its highly addictive painkillers among medical professionals.

Purdue’s funding of Tufts, Healey said, was part of the drugmaker’s effort to market its drugs, with the ultimate goal of getting OxyContin prescribed to more people. The courtship was part of a decades-long scheme that led to the opioid crisis, according to the attorney general.

Anthony P. Monaco, the Tufts president, promised to review those claims, which he called “deeply troubling.” On Thursday the university released a 34-page report, conducted by a law firm, that found no wrongdoing by the university or university employees and no violations of university policies.

Still, Monaco said on Thursday, Tufts will drop the Sackler name from its programs and buildings. That means the name will be removed from the Sackler School of Graduate and Biomedical Sciences, the Arthur M. Sackler Center for Medical Education, the Sackler Laboratory for the Convergence of Biomedical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, the Sackler Families Fund for Collaborative Cancer Biology Research, and the Richard S. Sackler, M.D., Endowed Research Fund.

Tufts will also establish a $3-million endowment to fund “education, research, and civic-engagement programs aimed at the prevention and treatment of substance abuse and addiction.” And the university will create an exhibit that describes the history of the Sackler family’s relationship to Tufts.

“While the financial support that the Sacklers and Purdue provided was intended for charitable support of academic and research activities,” Monaco said, “we feel now the association of the Sackler name with the opioid epidemic means that it just conflicts with those charitable intents.”

A lawyer for members of the Sackler family wrote in an emailed statement that they would be seeking to have Tufts’ decision reversed “and are currently reviewing all options available.”

“We appreciate that after a careful inquiry, Tufts determined what has been true all along,” the statement said, “that Purdue and the Sackler family conducted themselves properly, and no wrongdoing or threat to academic integrity was found.”

Jillian Sackler, the wife of Arthur Sackler, a member of the family who died before OxyContin was developed, wrote in an emailed statement that her husband should not be blamed for actions taken by his family members.

“He did not profit from OxyContin,” Jillian Sackler said. “None of his philanthropic gifts were in any way connected to opioids or to deceptive medical marketing.”

A Close Relationship

The Sacklers have given money to many colleges, including Yale, Columbia, and New York Universities. But their relationship to Tufts was close and specifically funded medical research, including for pain management. Healey detailed that relationship in her complaint, filed in January as part of a lawsuit against Purdue Pharma and certain members of the Sackler family. The attorney general accused them of creating the opioid crisis by deceiving doctors and their patients about the dangers of opioids in order to get more people addicted.

Purdue Pharma, which is not connected to Purdue University, was almost the only outside funder of Tufts’ M.S. in pain research, education, and policy, and it supported the program from 1998 to 2007, according to the report. The program ended due to low enrollment, and its last class will graduate in 2020.

Healey’s complaint said that Purdue employees had taught a seminar about opioids as part of the master’s program and had worked with people at Tufts to develop a publication for patients, “Taking Control of Your Pain.” Purdue and Tufts employees met and “discussed ways in which they could better coordinate their activities,” the complaint said, and in November 2017, when opioids were well known for their addictive and destructive effects, Purdue’s chief executive offered to meet with Monaco “to promote Purdue’s contentions about opioids.” On Thursday, Monaco said he did not accept that meeting.

Tufts hired a former U.S. attorney, Donald K. Stern, in February to review the university’s programs that receive money from Purdue and the Sackler family. His review found that Sackler family members and Purdue had donated a total of $15 million to Tufts since 1980. Though he found no wrongdoing, Stern wrote that “Purdue intended to use the relationship with Tufts to advance its own interests, and in a few particular instances, there is some evidence that it was successful in exercising influence.”

Richard S. Sackler, a former chairman and president of Purdue, served on the Tufts medical school’s Board of Advisers for 20 years, until 2017, “when he resigned after discussions with university officials,” the report said. But Stern said he had found no evidence that Sackler ever discussed opioids or tried to advance Purdue’s business as a board member.

As for the master’s program in pain management, it was approved by Tufts before it got any funding from Purdue, according to the report. Purdue went on to give $330,000 annually for five years, then $500,000 more in 2004. Purdue ended its funding in 2007.

According to the report, the funding agreement “provided Purdue with the potential for direct influence” on what was taught. The company could name one person to the committee that oversaw the program. It could also collaborate on research and help develop the curriculum. But, the report said, the potential for influence wasn’t exercised.

“Purdue did not actively participate on the steering committee, if at all; there were no joint research projects,” the report said. “Curriculum was not approved or reviewed by Purdue.”

The report analyzed the appointment of a senior Purdue executive, J. David Haddox, as a lecturer at Tufts. Part of his job at Purdue was “in ‘educating’ the medical profession and the public and in promoting Purdue’s perspective,” the report said. At Tufts he gave lectures on the mechanisms of pain, on opioids, and on drug regulation. But he disclosed his position with Purdue and did not appear to have “material” influence over the curriculum, according to the report.

The report recommended several steps Tufts could take to ensure the university’s reputation doesn’t suffer as a result of its relationship to the Sacklers. Stern recommended that Tufts:

• Create a gifts-policy committee to review big donations that raise questions of conflicts of interest. The panel could include administrators, the general counsel, trustees, and faculty members, and would review anonymous gifts.
• Adopt and publish standards for accepting major donations.
• Appoint a university compliance officer.
• Establish an institutional conflict-of-interest policy. The university has policies that apply to individuals, but they don’t cover the conflicts an institution might face.
• Improve transparency around funders of programs and research. The alumni whom the investigators interviewed didn’t know that Purdue had funded their program, the report said.

Monaco said the university would carry out the recommendations. He said Tufts was “moving with many other institutions” as they face increasing criticism for their financial relationships.

Nell Gluckman is a senior reporter who writes about research, ethics, funding issues, affirmative action, and other higher-education topics. You can follow her on Twitter @nellgluckman, or email her at nell.gluckman@chronicle.com.