June 19, 2013 William P.

Donohue General Counsel University of Minnesota 360 McNamara Alumni Center 200 Oak Street S.E. University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN, 55455 Dear Mr. Donohue: I am pleased to learn that you are not going to engage in further communication concerning Mary Weiss and Mike Howards petition supporting an investigation of possible research misconduct at the University of Minnesota. The stated mandate of the Office of the General Counsel is to zealously represent the University of Minnesota. You and your colleagues defend the University of Minnesota in litigationsuch as the lawsuit brought against the University by Mary Weiss and it is disingenuous to suggest that the Office of the General Counsel also conducts independent, impartial investigations into allegations of research misconduct at the University of Minnesota. In addition, there is no credible reason why you and other representatives from the Office of General Counsel function as the University of Minnesotas de facto spokespersons in response to calls for an investigation into Dan Markingsons death. Such requests should not be directed to your office and you should not respond to them. Your decision to cease communicating about this matter is therefore a positive development. You are correct when you state that I am questioning the judgment of others who have reviewed the matter of Dan Markingsons death. (Some might argue that you have provided a brief job description of what faculty members are supposed to do when you note that I am not obediently accepting what you and other authorities have decreed.) My May 13 and June 5 letters to President Kaler provide detailed, evidence-based arguments justifying the case for a thorough investigation of Markingsons death, the clinical trial in which he was enrolled, and possible research misconduct here at the University of Minnesota. In response, I have received from you and President Kaler nothing but the usual boilerplate text.

2 I am sure you know that you have a conflict-of-interest when you claim that the Office of General Counsel has investigated these matters and found nothing of concern. Im confident you also know that obtaining summary judgment from a court on the basis that the University of Minnesota is statutorily immune from liability does not mean that the Hennepin Country District Court investigated and exonerated the University of Minnesota. The Minnesota Board of Medical Practice, as I already explained, does not investigate university and institutional review boards. The inspection report issued by the FDA, as I already mentioned, failed to acknowledge the various reports documenting that Dan Markingson was psychotic and lacked the capacity to make his own medical decisions. The FDA investigators failure to interview Mary Weiss is also highly troubling. In response to the detailed objections in my previous letter you respond with discredited talking points. University officials inadequate response to calls for an investigation into Dan Markingsons death and possible research misconduct at the University raises serious questions about leadership and institutional governance at the University of Minnesota. Your reply to my lettercoupled with President Kalers failure to support an independent investigation into Markingsons death and allegations of research misconductheightens my fears concerning how senior administrators at the University of Minnesota are conducting themselves in response to these allegations of research misconduct. Yours sincerely, Leigh Turner, PhD Associate Professor University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics N520 Boynton, 410 Church Street SE Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55455 Phone: 612.626.4830 Email: turne462@umn.edu cc: Dr. Eric W. Kaler, President, University of Minnesota