SAFS Letter to Provost Doug Owram
Professor Doug Owram
Dear Provost Owram:
I am writing to you as President of the Society for Academic Freedom.
Our society is committed to the preservation of academic freedom and the
merit principle in decisions about faculty and students. A description
of our organization is provided on our website: www.safs.niagara.com. It
is our policy to solicit clarifying information from all parties whenever
we are informed of a possible abuse of academic freedom. It is in that
spirit I am writing to you.
One of your faculty members, Professor Louis Pagliaro, has sent us a
number of documents regarding charges the University of Alberta has made
against him. The documents include correspondence between yourself and
Professor Pagliaro, Professor Dixon, Professor Smith, and Mr. Beresh, newspaper
reports of comments Professor Pagliaro has made, a copy of Article 16 of
the current Faculty Agreement, a copy of Section 96 of the Policy and Procedure
Manual adopted by the General Faculties Council, Professor Pagliaro’s vita,
and Professor Dixon’s report of his initial investigation into the charges.
As I understand it, Professor Smith, Vice-President (Research), made
two complaints against Professor Pagliaro. The first charged that Professor
Pagliaro did not have ethics approval for research he was conducting, and
the second charged that Professor Pagliaro failed to meet "stringent standards
of honesty and scholarly and scientific practice in the collection, recording,
and analysis of data...in the dissemination of information, findings, and
discoveries."
Your appointed investigator, Professor Dixon, recommended to you that
both charges be dismissed. You agreed to drop the first, but asked Professor
Dixon to continue the investigation into the second.
My evaluation of the material that I have in hand tends to support Professor
Dixon’s conclusions. As Professor Pagliaro’s statements to the media were
not based on current research, but were instead based on his experience
as a drug researcher for many years and his informal contacts, he does
not appear to be guilty of violating ethical guidelines regarding the conduct
of research or of the reporting of research. It seems that he was merely
offering his expert opinion on drug use in the schools. Of course, we take
no stand on the validity of Professor Pagliaro’s claims; that is an issue
for those with expertise in the matter to decide.
It is understandable that those who disagree with Professor Pagliaro’s
opinions on the extent of drug use in the schools would want to dispute
his conclusions or to engage him in debate. It is less clear why the University
of Alberta took formal steps to charge him with research misconduct, and
to request that he stop talking to the media. It may appear to some that
the actions of the University of Alberta are attempts to intimidate, censor,
or otherwise abridge Professor Pagliaro’s academic freedom.
We recognize, of course, that we have received information on this issue
from only Professor Pagliaro. There may be other information that would
alter the interpretation of Professor Pagliaro’s case. Whenever feasible,
but particularly when all the facts are not known, it is our practice to
contact the parties directly involved before commenting publicly on the
academic freedom aspects of a case of this nature. Accordingly, we invite
you to give us your side of the case.
We are particularly interested in your answers to three questions:
Sincerely,
Clive Seligman
Vice-President (Academic) and Provost
Office of the Provost
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2E1
Thank you for your attention in this matter, and we look forward to receiving
your prompt reply.
President