The Story of Heidi Weissmann

Dr. Heidi Weissmann was a wunderkind, according to people who watched her career develop. Her cv runs to fifteen pages, and it is densely packed with hard-core accomplishments and lists over 80 scholarly articles. By the time she was thirty-five, Weissmann's research in nuclear medicine had changed the way radiologists diagnose and treat acute gall bladder disease. An Associate Professor of Nuclear Medicine and Radiology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center in New Weissman was invited to join a National Institute of Health Study Section. This, in the world of academic medicine, is a particularly significant honor, because it represents the judgment of the top contributors in a field that a scientist is qualified to review and judge the research grant applications other scientists submit to federal grant-making bodies such as the National Institute of Health (NIH). Study sections decide how tax dollars get spent, which studies get funded and which ones don't.

Yet Weissmann says she was actively discouraged by her boss, Dr. Leonard Freeman, and his boss, Dr. Donald Blaufox, the Chair of Nuclear Medicine, from accepting NIH's invitation. When she did accept, Freeman refused to allow her to use departmental administrative staff to type her grant reviews. When Weissman complained about this to Blaufox, he simply reminded her that he had advised her not to accept the Study Section invitation.

Most universities actively encourage their faculty to accept such invitations and provide as much support as possible, out of both pragmatism and justifiable pride. Albert Einstein College, as one of the major recipients of NIH grant money in the country, would be even more likely to encourage its faculty to participate. But Weissmann was eventually forced to resign from the NIH Study Section by the Chair of her department.

Not long after this episode, Weissmann discovered something much more serious and troubling. A chapter of a book that she had written had been reproduced and distributed by Freeman with her name whited out and his name typed in as sole author. Internal complaints produced no action, so Weissmann secured a court order to stop Freeman from disseminating her work. She had previously agreed to add his name as a second author, as a courtesy to a superior, to earlier works from which the disputed work partially derived. But Weissmann balked at having her name expunged. The day she got the court order, she was escorted from her office by a security guard, and her keys were taken from her. In the ensuing court battles, the College denied taking Weissmann's keys, and argued that she had resigned. Weissmann produced the receipt the security guard gave her for her keys, and the College's response is now that the guard should not have taken her keys.

Weissmann sued Freeman for copyright infringement. When she lost the first round, officials at Albert Einstein College and Montefiore wrote letters and press releases trumpeting the vindication of Dr. Freeman. Yet they have not spoken publicly about Weissmann's subsequent victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals (Second Circuit), which said that the lower court's ruling was wrong, and would, if upheld, "eviscerate" the intent of the U.S. copyright laws. The lower court had concluded that because Freeman and Weissmann had previously collaborated in writing about similar topics, Freeman thereby had the right to claim subsequent work by Weissmann as his own. Further, the lower court made the point that, even though it was true that Weissmann had in fact been the sole author of the work in dispute, Freeman sought to publish the work for the purpose of informing other researchers of valuable information, which is what Weissmann would have wanted to do with the work, too. Further, because he received "only" a $250 honorarium, Freeman did not "profit" from his usurpation of Weissmann's work. The Appellate Court took issue with this, saying the lower court's "conclusion misses the point ... Monetary gain is not the sole criterion. Dr. Freeman stood to gain recognition among his peers in the profession and authorship credit with his attempted use of Weissmann's article; he did so without paying the usual price that accompanies scientific research and writing, that is to say, by the sweat of his brow. Particularly in an academic setting, profit is ill-measured in dollars. Instead, what is valuable is recognition because it so often influences professional advancement and academic tenure. "

The Appellate Court went on to warn about the larger dangers to our university system, and to our society, of allowing the sort of misappropriation that Freeman attempted, and of denying Weissmann the recognition she deserved as a reward for her work. "Encouraging authors to use their talents by holding out a promise of reward for their efforts is the surest way to advance the public welfare. In this case it is necessary to keep in mind the danger that allowing wholesale appropriation of scientific work presents. The personal gain sought by Dr. Weissmann may not be directly related to immediate financial gain, but the copyright protection extended to her work nevertheless provides her with an incentive to continue research".

Weissmann, however, is left with not so much an incentive to continue her work as a the prospect of financial ruin and the complete destruction of her career. Freeman, funded by Albert Einstein College, appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case, and let the Second Circuit decision stand. Freeman, the courts have concluded, plagiarized Weissmann's work. Yet the College promoted Freeman to Vice-Chairman, paid his legal fees, and they are continuing to fight Weissmann's lawsuit for wrongful termination and sex discrimination. Weissmann, meanwhile, has paid over $500,000 in legal bills, and has been unable to find another job.

In May of 1990, a non-profit group, The National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest, took out an ad in the New York Times in which they questioned the university's continuing financial, legal, and professional support of Dr. Freeman. The group raised questions about Freeman's acknowledged relationships with several pharmaceutical companies, and the dependence of his research on theirs. Not long after the ad appeared, the university sued the National Coalition -- what is generally referred to as a "SLAPP" suit (Strategic Legal Action Against Public Participation). Weissmann and others have also questioned the use of university funds to pay Freeman's legal expenses. Unfortunately, spending millions to fight ultimately losing legal battles has precedent at Yeshiva University (of which Albert Einstein College of Medicine is part).

Recently, the University settled a fifteen-year long class action sex discrimination case. The plaintiffs originally offered to settle for $50,000. In the final decision, in which the plaintiffs settled for $500,000, the court quoted from Bleak House by Charles Dickens.