In Response to Allegations Made in USC’s Cross-Complaint
The University of Southern California’s cross-complaint is fundamentally dishonest. It is a collection of misstatements and outright falsehoods designed to distract from a singular truth: While he was on the faculty at UC San Diego, Dr. Paul Aisen, aided and abetted by his future employer USC, illegally seized control of data and computer systems that belong to UC San Diego as the administrator of the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS).
On July 24, Superior Court Judge Judith Hayes agreed, ordering Aisen, USC and co-defendants to safely restore UC San Diego’s rightful property.
This legal dispute has never been about academic freedom. Like all faculty at UC San Diego, Dr. Aisen was always free to pursue career interests and enticements elsewhere. A good faith effort was made to retain Dr. Aisen’s services, including a written letter to match incentives offered by USC and agreeing to a full list of actions desired by Dr. Aisen, but it has become abundantly clear that this good faith was not reciprocated. Dr. Aisen and USC had already formed plans to wrest control of the ADCS from UC San Diego, and knew that they would need control of ADCS data and computer systems to do so. From day one, neither Dr. Aisen nor USC have ever proffered a plausible or legal rationale for their court-recognized misconduct. Now, they have doubled down upon a strategy seemingly based on the notion that falsehoods and fabrications repeated often enough must eventually be believed.
The recent cross-complaint, filed by USC, reflects this. Specifically:
On its “loyalty oath claim”
USC makes much of Dr. Aisen’s taking of a “loyalty oath.” In fact, all public employees in California are required by state law to take an oath to respect and defend the Constitution of the United States before they can begin employment. The requirement is more than half-a-century old. Dr. Aisen signed his oath in 2007. He also promised to abide by rules and policies intended to protect UC rights and property. The so-called loyalty “oath” was, in reality, a commitment to re-affirm what he had already agreed to as a condition of his employment, i.e., that he would not act against the university’s interest.
On May 20, 2015, after months of negotiations, USC made its formal offer of employment to Dr. Aisen. The following day Dr. Aisen began notifying interested parties that he was moving to USC, rebuffing overtures from UC San Diego officials to discuss the situation. On May 22, Dr. Aisen informed all ADCS staff that he and ADCS would be transferring to USC, asserting that their jobs were at risk, but they could find lucrative employment at USC.
Dr. Aisen had no right or legal authority to say anything of the sort. He did not have permission from UC San Diego, the National Institutes of Health, ADCS’ research partners or anyone else to make public pronouncements about moving ADCS. Such overt behavior concerned UC San Diego officials, who thought Dr. Aisen might misappropriate ADCS data and computer systems, which in fact he eventually did. UC San Diego temporarily restricted Dr. Aisen’s access to ADCS electronic data and email to block misappropriation. Contrary to repeated claims by Dr. Aisen and USC, this action did not affect the integrity of the data nor did it put ADCS patients at risk. Every ADCS study has a well-established chain of command and reporting structure. The vast majority of decisions are made at individual test sites by clinicians who actually see patients, not by administrators at distant coordinating centers. Moreover, there are always secondary contacts in the event the center or primary PI is not available for consultation. No ADCS patient has ever been endangered.
Upset that his access to ADCS data was unexpectedly restricted, Dr. Aisen falsely told UC San Diego officials that he had not, in fact, made a decision to accept USC’s offer. Dr. William Mobley, chair of UC San Diego’s Department of Neurosciences, suggested that if Dr. Aisen would agree to sign a statement acknowledging UC San Diego’s administrative ownership of ADCS data and systems (in collaboration with research partners) and promise not to attempt to steal it, all access would be immediately restored. What USC and Aisen describe as a “loyalty oath” was, in reality, simply a commitment to reaffirm what he had already agreed to as a condition of his employment, i.e., that he would not act against the university’s interest. Dr. Aisen refused to sign the document. Nonetheless, Dr. Mobley fully restored Dr. Aisen’s access after just four days without any intercession from any outside party. Dr. Aisen was not “forced” to sign anything, nor did he suffer any adverse consequences from his refusal to sign a legally proper document promising not to misappropriate UC San Diego property.
Almost immediately thereafter, Dr. Aisen and co-defendants did exactly what UC San Diego feared by taking unauthorized control of ADCS data, moving it to an Amazon cloud account under his name at his home address. This was done without the knowledge or permission of UC San Diego, without regard to accepted rules of scientific conduct, NIH rules and contract law.
On the “defamation” claim
What is most revealing in USC’s cross-complaint alleging “defamation” is what it does not contain. USC asserts that Dr. Aisen was defamed when others were told in private conversations that he had engaged in conduct that was unethical and potentially criminal. Yet, the cross-complaint does not describe what Aisen did or why it might be ethically or legally justified. On this matter, Dr. Aisen and USC have long been conspicuously silent.
Section 502 of the California Penal Code makes it a crime to take, copy and use computer data and systems without permission of the rightful owner. In its original complaint, through evidence and Dr. Aisen’s own testimony, UC San Diego has shown that Dr. Aisen’s conduct squarely violated PC502. In granting the preliminary injunction, Judge Hayes concurred, ruling that “there is a high likelihood (UC San Diego) will prevail on the merits in this matter.”
Dr. Aisen and USC offer no defense for what they have done. Their cross-complaint does not mention PC502, or explain why they believe the law does not apply to them. Rather, they have attempted to obfuscate reality through inaccurate timelines, false declarations and a refusal to take responsibility for their actions. There can be no defamation in defense of the truth. UC San Diego’s actions are solely motivated by its enduring commitment to ADCS, its research partners, its contractual obligations and the absolute imperative that good science must be ethical, responsible and completely above-board.
On the “interference” claim
Among the contracts overseen by ADCS is the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. UC San Diego conducts a portion of this study under a subcontract to the Northern California Institute for Research and Education. Recently, the subcontract came up for renewal. UC San Diego acted to renew the subcontract. In their cross-complaint, Dr. Aisen and USC, neither of which have – nor have had – a contract with NCIRE, objected, claiming “interference.” Yet they have no contract with NCIRE, so how can there be interference? Conversely, UC San Diego has every right to seek renewal of its own existing subcontract.
The fact that USC has chosen to spend its vast resources to escalate a lawsuit it could easily have avoided, rather than simply comply with NIH Policy and the law as determined by the Court, speaks volumes about USC’s values and commitments to collaborative science.