A group of professors at the University of Minnesota says it’s concerned that a review of the U’s practices regarding clinical research on humans might be compromised by conflicts of interest.

The review was sparked by concerns over the 2004 death of Dan Markingson, a West St. Paul man who killed himself after enrolling in a clinical trial of an antipsychotic drug at the U.

Twelve members of the U Faculty Senate who called for the probe in December have sent a letter to U officials also expressing concern that the investigation needs to examine past missteps, including in the Markingson case.

That will be problematic, they argue, given conflicts involving the organization hired to do the review, the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs Inc., and several individuals associated with it.

AAHRPP is not a disinterested party, the professors argue, given that it also accredits the U’s research protection programs.

Karen-Sue Taussig, an associate professor of anthropology and a signatory to the letter, said she hopes there will be a rigorous investigation but is concerned the U might wind up wasting its money on a review that can be discredited.

A spokeswoman for the U’s vice president for research said in a statement that the office has sought “a thorough, professional, independent and transparent review of our human subjects research practices.

AAHRPP submitted the strongest proposal to administratively manage this process; it is not conducting any portion of the review. The review will be undertaken by a group of independent, internationally recognized experts in the field of human subjects research protection. As part of this process, potential conflicts of interest will be managed appropriately.”

Leigh Turner, associate professor at the U’s Center for Bioethics, said it’s “disingenuous” to argue AAHRPP is not conducting the review.

“AAHRPP chose to bid on the University of Minnesota’s ‘Request for Proposals’ and agreed to the restrictive terms that limit the inquiry to a review of ‘current’ research practices and policies. AAHRPP selected the reviewers, will provide reviewers with documents, will arrange meetings with particular individuals at the University of Minnesota, and will pay the reviewers for their services,” Turner wrote in a July letter to AAHRPP that was distributed Monday by the group of professors.

Turner criticized the review and questioned the selection of AAHRPP after the hiring was announced this summer.

Elyse Summers, president and CEO of AAHRPP, issued a statement Monday saying the group has assembled a panel of “world-renowned experts” to do the U review. “AAHRPP has logistically managed the work but has played and will play no role in the substantive analysis, decision-making, conclusions or recommendations of the expert team. As an organization committed to identifying and promoting the highest level of human research protections, we at AAHRPP are as eager as anyone to learn from the findings of the independent expert panel,” she said.

The six-month review, which is expected to cost $141,900, will include recommendations for remedying any deficiencies found in the U’s clinical research program. A final report will be made public.

Doug Belden can be reached at 651-228-5136. Follow him at twitter.com/dbeldenpipress.