The issue is more pervasive than Deans making the big bucks. In the early days of Oncologic Research, the NIH provided the money, edited protocols and set the stage for participatory and professorial ascendancy.
How do I know? I was part of the pack.
I'd set myself up for a career in academics. I hit a small vein in the mine early on, got flown about, gave talks, etc. Shortly thereafter, the Pharmaceutical Industry, which was hip deep in R&D, noted that it could give physicians more than $2.29 pens, and entered the protocol business. Ethical standards of Data analysis, Study design, Statistical analysis, Paper presentation, publication & reward began to dissipate like morning mist. What's left is largely desert.
An interesting side note: After the Berlin Wall came down, I was recruited by a U.S. company to evaluate a thrombo-embolic process developed by a famous surgeon in St. Petersburg. In succession, he, his department chairman, and 3 other professors at the school took me through their labs & tried to sell me on selling their stuff.
With each interview, we snagged on animal data. They wouldn't reveal it; maybe they thought I'd steal the data, or perhaps they didn't have any. The point is, these big muckey-mucks were trying to cash in QUICKLY within a system they didn't yet understand one bit. The Surgeon wanted to go on tour in the U.S. to promote his technique. Yes, but lets see the animal data. Nyet Has anyone died as a consequence of treatment. In my hands--ver-ry safe!
I heard later that the guy set up a series of clinics in the Baltic region to embolize hepatic angiomas. Angioma? Angioma? "They can make you very sick," I was told.
At that point, I abandoned my own dream of setting up a Southern California Research Group using private physicians, and took care of the sick. And you know what? Big Pharma did the job for me. All it took was Money.
End result of this nonsense: Show me a clinical protocol that doesn't favor X(BP) over x, and I'll personally send