Former UCSF doctor claims university defamed him in 2022 report on unethical prison experiments

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – A San Francisco dermatologist and longtime professor at the University of California, San Francisco, is fighting allegations that he conducted unethical research experiments in prison in the 1960s and 1970s, claiming the university “knowingly and maliciously” lied about his role in the popular studies to protect itself from reputational damage.

In one suit filed in San Francisco Superior Court, Dr. Howard Maibach, now in his late 90s, says UCSF used Maibach as a “scapegoat” for experiments UCSF faculty conducted at the California Medical Institution, a state prison medical facility in Vacaville, California, in the 1960s and the investigative report on Maach. “Deliberately skewed to present a premeditated false narrative” about the doctor.

“The report conspicuously insulates UCSF from any real responsibility for the CMF research while mercilessly ‘throws (Dr. Maibach) to the wolves’ (according to USCF’s dermatology department chair) with false, malicious and highly defamatory allegations that he allegedly engaged in improper CF research and practice 50-60 years ago,” Maibach said in the complaint filed Tuesday.

of REPORTreleased on December 12, 2022, by the UCSF Program on Historical Consent, found that there was little evidence that Maibach had obtained approval from a UCSF committee for his research, nor did the records show that there were protocols informing participants about informed consent or the risks of the research.

The report also said Maibach “practiced questionable research methods,” citing experimental methods including “local application and intravenous dosing of pesticides and herbicides,” mosquito studies that placed mosquito cages near or directly on participants’ skin, and “experimentation with medications to determine their therapeutic effectiveness.”

“Based on our archival search of the records of the California State Internal Human Subjects Research Review Board(s) and hearings proceedings, PHR has concluded that Maibach and others engaged in questionable informed consent practices in prison, particularly prior to 1969,” the report states.

In one paper at the UCSF dermatology department on December 15, 2022, Dr. Jack Resneck Jr., chairman of the UCSF Department of Dermatology, said that “much of the research described clearly contradicts the ethical values ​​of our community… While this research may have been accepted by some at the time, it is essential that we now acknowledge our harm and ignorance of CSF values.”

A few days later, on December 20, 2022, Maibach said in a press release regarding the report that “I regret having participated in research that did not meet contemporary standards” and “the work I did with colleagues at CMF was considered by many to be adequate by the standards of the day, although in retrospect those standards were clearly evolving.”

However, in the complaint filed Tuesday, Maibach disputed the allegations against him, saying that UCSF faculty were already conducting research at CMF when he joined the university in 1961 and that most of the individuals incarcerated at CMF were white and had not claimed to be suffering from his work.

Maibach also argued that his CMF studies were “carefully planned to avoid any harm to the participants” and the defendants had public records that “I confirm CMF research was low risk .” He further said that all of his superiors at UCSF and relevant government agencies knew about the federally funded studies he conducted at CMF and that records show that “UCSF’s approval was . . . not needed ” for such studies.

Maibach claims that rumors that he conducted unethical research at CMF arose only after the University of Pennsylvania denounced Dr. Albert Kligman, a former university dermatology professor, in 2021 for reported unethical experiments on black prisoners beginning in the 1950s.

Maibach alleges that his previous relationship with Kligman fueled “rumors of guilt by association” against him and other UCSF faculty members, which led then-UCSF Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Daniel Lowenstein to demand that he acknowledge and apologize for his alleged unethical behavior.

“To appease these claims and without any investigation or due diligence regarding the rumors based on Kligman … Defendant Lowenstein approached Dr. Maibach and demanded that he make a public, reputation-destroying, career-ending admission and apologize for the unspecified wrongdoing he did not commit in connection with the CMF complaint,” he said in the complaint.

“When Dr. Maibach rightly refused, Defendant Lowenstein conceived and fashioned the PHR as a specific ‘mechanism’ for dealing with the situation.”

Maibach says he got the evidence after a judge BOOKED The UC Board of Regents’ release of public records about the PHR and its investigation shows that Lowenstein “directed” the PHR to “focus” on Maibach, intending the group and its findings to “provide a ‘justification’ for UCSF to publicly condemn and denounce Dr.

Maibach adds that if he had admitted to the conduct, “Defendant Lowenstein has confirmed under oath that ‘the whole matter would have been well resolved’ and there would have been no need to form the PHR.”

Maibach names several defendants in the complaint along with Lowenstein, including Resneck; Brian Dolan, PHR director and professor at UCSF; Aimee Medeiro, PHR director and associate professor at UCSF; Regents of the University of California; and 50 unidentified defendants.

It alleges that the defendants defamed through three publications, including the 2022 report, Resneck’s letter to UCSF Dermatology and the press release announcing the report. He also asserts civil falsehood and conspiracy claims.

Maibach is asking the court to stop the defendants from publishing the allegedly defamatory statements, as well as to award damages.

A representative for UCSF said they do not comment on pending litigation.

Representatives for the UC Board of Regents or Maibach did not respond to a request for comment.