Friday, March 29, 2013

Another strange reversal in the study document mystery

Remember the strange email that I got from the U on March 27, in response to my Data Practice Act request for the "evaluation to consent" forms for the CATIE study?  If not, let me refresh your memory: the U said I could not get those forms because "no human subjects were ever enrolled at the University of Minnesota" for the CATIE study.

That claim seemed implausible for a number of reasons.  And yesterday, I received a correction.  It seems the records manager made a mistake.  Human subjects were, in fact, enrolled in the CATIE study at the U.  She says she gave me the wrong information because she confused the CATIE study with another study that I had unsuccessfully requested documents for a while back: the notorious Study 41.  (You might remember that the U responded to that request by claiming that it had destroyed all the Study 41 records.)

In any case, I am told I still can't have the "evaluation to consent" forms for the CATIE study, because the forms don't exist.  In the CATIE study, another method of evaluating competence to consent was used.  You can read the increasingly convoluted explanation here.

1 comment:

  1. They certainly seem to have a hard time hiring people who know how to keep important files organized at the University of Minnesota.