Purdue President Mung Chiang has been signaling a shift in research funding in recent months, ahead an expanded partnership with Eli Lilly. Plus, LPD officers cleared in fatal shooting May 1.
I support Purdue building industry partnerships, but the coverage of the Lilly deal deserves far more scrutiny. Labeling it the “largest ever” without clarifying how much of the $250 million is actually guaranteed—and how much is contingent—gives a distorted impression, especially since this deal largely replaces an agreement already in place through 2027. In my view, media should go beyond repeating the Mung administration’s talking points, especially given its track record of being casual with the truth.
What’s missing from the coverage is any detail about how the Lilly funds will be governed or what safeguards are in place to protect against corporate influence over research agendas, publication rights, or intellectual property. That’s a crucial oversight—particularly when you consider Lilly’s history with the antipsychotic drug Zyprexa during Daniels' tenure. The company paid $1.4 billion in one of the largest healthcare fraud settlements in U.S. history after being accused of illegally marketing the drug and downplaying serious side effects. At least 32 states filed lawsuits related to Zyprexa, with allegations that Lilly prioritized profits over patient safety.
That history makes transparency non-negotiable, especially when Lilly’s CEO sits on Purdue’s board and stands to influence both sides of this deal. These are exactly the kinds of situations where clear conflict-of-interest policies and public accountability should be front and center. Purdue’s faculty and students—and Indiana taxpayers—deserve to know how research priorities will be protected and whether public interests are being upheld in this partnership.
I have no quarrel with your first and third paragraphs, but am unsure what specific concerns arise from the Zyprexa story. I do not know the details, but think that was a postapproval issue that basically did not involve Lilly scientists, and in general would not have involved anyone at a university (particularly one without a medical school).
There are always at least two parties in these agreements. Let's say a psychologist wanted to seek money to run a study a hypothetical link between suicide and a Lilly compound. The outcome of that study could show no meaningful link. Would that psychologist want to risk reputational damage by having to disclose that Lilly supported the research? (Here is the true value of disinterested federal research support, it was great while it lasted.) Obviously, Lilly might want to stay away from that issue entirely but Sanofi or AZ might be eager to write a check.
As for IP concerns, there is a little outfit called PRF that would be happy to beat a funder about the head and shoulders with the Bayh-Dole Act if they thought they could claim rights to the change between your sofa cushions.
My bias is from good experiences, having had several corporate research grants that produced publishable results but nothing of commercial interest. One year went interestingly sideways and they were not only cool with it but sent along an extra $35K. Prepublication reviews took less than a week. Best grants ever.
Lilly knows how research goes. They want a pipeline of future employees who are not entranced by coastal alternatives. It might make sense for them to support graduate student fellowships in one department and hypothesis-based projects in another. It might be premature to write a first-refusal deal with Purdue as a whole... is that the concern you have?
I support Purdue building industry partnerships, but the coverage of the Lilly deal deserves far more scrutiny. Labeling it the “largest ever” without clarifying how much of the $250 million is actually guaranteed—and how much is contingent—gives a distorted impression, especially since this deal largely replaces an agreement already in place through 2027. In my view, media should go beyond repeating the Mung administration’s talking points, especially given its track record of being casual with the truth.
What’s missing from the coverage is any detail about how the Lilly funds will be governed or what safeguards are in place to protect against corporate influence over research agendas, publication rights, or intellectual property. That’s a crucial oversight—particularly when you consider Lilly’s history with the antipsychotic drug Zyprexa during Daniels' tenure. The company paid $1.4 billion in one of the largest healthcare fraud settlements in U.S. history after being accused of illegally marketing the drug and downplaying serious side effects. At least 32 states filed lawsuits related to Zyprexa, with allegations that Lilly prioritized profits over patient safety.
That history makes transparency non-negotiable, especially when Lilly’s CEO sits on Purdue’s board and stands to influence both sides of this deal. These are exactly the kinds of situations where clear conflict-of-interest policies and public accountability should be front and center. Purdue’s faculty and students—and Indiana taxpayers—deserve to know how research priorities will be protected and whether public interests are being upheld in this partnership.
Fair points.
I have no quarrel with your first and third paragraphs, but am unsure what specific concerns arise from the Zyprexa story. I do not know the details, but think that was a postapproval issue that basically did not involve Lilly scientists, and in general would not have involved anyone at a university (particularly one without a medical school).
There are always at least two parties in these agreements. Let's say a psychologist wanted to seek money to run a study a hypothetical link between suicide and a Lilly compound. The outcome of that study could show no meaningful link. Would that psychologist want to risk reputational damage by having to disclose that Lilly supported the research? (Here is the true value of disinterested federal research support, it was great while it lasted.) Obviously, Lilly might want to stay away from that issue entirely but Sanofi or AZ might be eager to write a check.
As for IP concerns, there is a little outfit called PRF that would be happy to beat a funder about the head and shoulders with the Bayh-Dole Act if they thought they could claim rights to the change between your sofa cushions.
My bias is from good experiences, having had several corporate research grants that produced publishable results but nothing of commercial interest. One year went interestingly sideways and they were not only cool with it but sent along an extra $35K. Prepublication reviews took less than a week. Best grants ever.
Lilly knows how research goes. They want a pipeline of future employees who are not entranced by coastal alternatives. It might make sense for them to support graduate student fellowships in one department and hypothesis-based projects in another. It might be premature to write a first-refusal deal with Purdue as a whole... is that the concern you have?