Eric Topol loses provost/chief academic officer titles at Cleveland Clinic and Lerner College
December 12, 2005 | Shelley Wood

Cleveland, OH - Dr Eric Topol may no longer be the provost of the medical college he helped establish and has lost his title as chief academic officer at the Cleveland Clinic, a result of institutional "reorganization," the renowned cardiologist was told one week ago today. Topol was informed that the change was "effective immediately," despite the fact that the board of trustees will only today be voting on the restructuring plan; the clinic is refusing to issue a formal statement until the trustees have voted.

Conspicuously, Topol's ostensible loss of authority—staff and researchers at the college will now report directly to the CEO—came days after a federal jury heard Topol's videotaped deposition in the latest Vioxx lawsuit. In it, Topol accused Merck of "scientific misconduct" and testified that Merck's former chair, Raymond Gilmartin, had in the past called fellow Harvard MBA alumnus Malachi Mixon, the chair of the clinic's board of trustees, to complain about Topol's vocal anti-Vioxx stance.

Topol received word of the "administrative streamlining" after details of his testimony appeared in the Wall Street Journal [1].

"It's a little hard to believe it was a coincidence, " Topol told heartwire. "I'm not trying to say that the Vioxx/Merck thing was the only reason this occurred; I'm just saying it contributed and certainly the timing of it had to play a role, unquestionably."


Timing not a coincidence, Topol says

With the change, Topol will no longer oversee the Lerner College of Medicine or be the primary contact for the relationship he established between Lerner College and Case Western Reserve University. He is still chief of cardiovascular medicine for the Cleveland Clinic and remains a professor of medicine at the college and a professor of genetics at Case Western. (Topol is also editor-in-chief of theheart.org.)

It's a little hard to believe it was a coincidence.

Topol first heard that his provost and chief academic officer positions were being dissolved early on the morning of December 5, 2005. At the same time, he was told not to attend an 8 AM board of governors meeting that day, since he was no longer on the board, his appointment there being a function of his five years as chief academic officer. An official statement to professional staff at the Cleveland Clinic explaining the restructuring plan was drawn up on Tuesday, December 6, 2005 and approved by Topol but has still not been circulated. Ultimately, details of the news were leaked to the Cleveland Plain Dealer [2] and picked up by other news media, including the New York Times [3], which ran the story on Saturday, December 10.

In it, Eileen Sheil, a spokesperson for the Cleveland Clinic, is quoted as saying that Topol was not being punished for his Vioxx testimony but rather lost his title as part of a broader administrative reorganization. "The organization made the decision that that position was no longer needed," Sheil is quoted in the Times. The Plain Dealer refers to "tension" between Topol and Cleveland Clinic CEO Dr Toby Cosgrove, who won the CEO position sought by both men last year.

If the board hadn't approved the darn thing, they shouldn't have told me it was effective immediately.

Topol questions why the change had to be made so urgently. "All I can say is, if you have a table of organization changed, it doesn't need to be done on an immediate basis like this. My appointment naturally would have run out at the end of the calendar year, so it could have been set up that, in January, we'd start off with this different configuration. . . . The emergency action is very peculiar, and the fact that it was not even approved first by the board of trustees—you'd have thought that this would have been approved before they told me. If the board hadn't approved the darn thing, they shouldn't have told me it was effective immediately. So this is what's troubling about this whole thing: why did this have to be such a rush?"

Topol told heartwire he is getting a lot of support from colleagues and students. "I've been here almost 15 years and there are a lot of tight relationships and a lot of big projects. The flagship NIH grant on the genomics of heart disease is here, and I've just recruited 25 cardiologists," bringing the number of faculty on staff to more than 95.

For now, Topol could not say what his future holds. "At the moment I'm a little stunned, and it will take a little bit of time to figure out what to do."

Sources
  1. Won Tesoriero H. Cardiologist accuses Merck of Vioxx 'misconduct.' Wall Street Journal, December 4, 2005. Available at: http://www.wsj.com.
  2. Treffinger S. Cardiologist loses post at medical school. Plain Dealer, December 9, 2005. Available at: http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer.
  3. Berenson A. Doctor suggests Merck trial may have led to demotion. New York Times, December 10, 2005. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/10/business/10vioxx.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1134389860-uep9JJJTCLIGtpqDlHVkig.



Your comments
Eric Topol loses provost/chief academic officer titles at Cleveland Clinic and Lerner College
# 1 of 3
December 12, 2005 01:30 (EST)
david filips
There are people behind you
Good luck Dr. Topol I, and my colleagues, have been reading your articles from afar. We admire your stance. There are other "voices in the wind" who don't buy some of the pablum pushed down our throats by the drug companies. (Of course, it's not all bad, but I've seen enough to keep me pretty jaded.) Keep up the good work. - David
# 2 of 3
December 14, 2005 05:26 (EST)
Mark Sada
Something smells bad
Let's see, the guy who does the right thing, calls it like he sees it and maintains objectivity gets canned, but the CEO, Dr. Cosgrove, who has industry ties that he fails to disclose, lingers on. Good thing we don't rely on these institutions for objective research. Shame on the Cleveland Clinic
# 3 of 3
December 14, 2005 10:37 (EST)
JOEL REGINELLI
Don't worry about ET...he'll be fine.
Mark, It would be a mistake to dismiss all research from the Cleveland Clinic based solely on the dirty laundry that has been aired over the last week. Basic and clinical research at the Cleveland Clinic extends far beyond experimental devices within the cardiovascular division. The overwhelming majority of CCF researchers are highly professional and ethical, and it would be a shame if their reputations were stained by the actions of those wayward investigators who are so deep in conflict-of-interest issues that they no longer recognize that a conflict exists in the first place! Moving on to the bigger picture, this is clearly not a Cleveland Clinic-specific phenomenon. Over the last decade, we have relied heavily on the results of large multi-center trials funded by the pharmaceutical industry. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is the incredible speed with which the pharmaceutical-sponsored trials could be designed, implemented, and completed. By comparison, NIH-sponsored trials moved at a snail's pace. While conflict-of-interest issues could, and did, arise with the pharmaceutical-sponsored trials, the design of the trials (multiple centers, a DSMB, double-blinding, independent CECs) made it difficult for one "conflicted" investigator to have a significant impact. These trials were most vulnerable at the point of data analysis and the "spin" used to present the data. Device research is a whole different beast. You can sit at TCT, SCIVR (insert name of any other interventional conference) and hear a respected podium personality sing the praises of the "hottest" new device while they present the "impressive" registry data. What you don't know is that this same "researcher" also has a substantial holding of private stock (mere compensation for their assistance as a "researcher" in collecting registry data needed for FDA approval) that will yield them an enormous payday once the company goes public. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with a prominent interventionalist serving as a consultant to a device company, or acting as a venture capitalist for a device they believe will be successful; however, at that moment, they should have absolutely nothing to do with the associated clinical trials, registries, data analysis, publication, etc. They must choose: Investigator or Investor....but not both. Enough of my soapbox. Back to my original statement, don't worry about Eric Topol. Men of his intellect, drive, and vision are extremely rare, and somehow I'm not losing sleep worrying about his future.....he'll be fine. In regard to the Cleveland Clinic, from an outsider's perspective (who was previously an insider), the institution seems to be drifting slightly as though it has lost its rudder. There are conflicting visions within the highest ranks of leadership, and the challenge to the Board is determining whose vision to embrace. Good Luck. Joel (Cleveland Clinic Apologist Extraordinaire)

You have to be logged in to add a comment to this article
Login
Username 
Password 
  Forgot your password?
 
Remember me on this computer
 
Join theheart.org community
Five reasons to become a member of the most trusted source of cardiology news:
1Be part of the conversation in our blogs and discussion forum
2Share your thoughts on our news or educational programs
3Receive exclusive newsletters related to your field of interest
4Access unique continuous medical education content
5See and read what leaders have to say about cardiology today
It is free and it only takes five minutes to join!
 
button
buttonbutton
button
Previews
Featured CME