No retreat from full Fred Hutch disclosure

E-mail this article Print this article

Given the reputation of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, its refusal to take a hard, skeptical look at its own performance in past clinical trials is disappointing.

Instead of a candid assessment of two controversial experiments, the research center has substituted a narrowly focused audit of current practices. That may be the pragmatic advice of attorneys in the face of lawsuits, but more forthright models exist.

The University of Pennsylvania and the University of Oklahoma have had their own problems with clinical trials, but each mounted fuller explorations of all the complexities, including informed consent and financial conflicts of interest, even in stormy legal environments.

The Hutch has retained four experts to look at relatively routine questions about current compliance with federal laws, meeting standards within the research community, possible areas of improvement, and the future for research and practice standards.

The Hutch serves such an extraordinary public function in the Pacific Northwest, which makes it all the more troubling that the citizen director of the inquiry, the Rev. William Sullivan, former president of Seattle University and a Hutch board trustee, is not open about the panel's work.

Certainly, the spirit was different last March, when in full-page newspaper ads the leadership of The Hutch pledged to make the findings of its expert consultants and the Committee on Patient Protection in Research Trials available to patients, volunteers, staff and the public.

That is a basic promise to keep. A full airing of the findings is especially important in light of the sympathetic inclinations of the panelists, distinguished all, but insiders with close, often emotional, ties to the institution.

This current round of introspection is a grudging response to Times reports that at least two dozen patients died prematurely in two failed clinical trials between 1981 and 1998 using drugs in which Hutch doctors had a financial interest, and that the patients were not fully informed about risks. Two lawsuits against The Hutch soon followed.

The Hutch is a venerated Northwest institution that rightfully enjoys strong loyalties. Those strengths should not be embraced to insulate The Hutch from scrutiny. What is expected is a facility that not only takes on the toughest challenges but is also strong enough to look at itself.

Hunkering down like a boxer to absorb blows is no way to advance knowledge or rebuild confidence in how The Hutch does business.

Rigorous review and sharing what the experts discover are part of the expectations The Hutch set in motion.