This is a report submitted to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on September 29, 2025. It was compiled by a coalition of current and former MD Anderson employees who allege systemic governance failures, workplace harassment, research misconduct, and institutional cover-ups at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

MD Anderson receives substantial federal funding through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and operates as a publicly funded institution within the University of Texas System. The authors argue that the MD Anderson Board of Regents, the State of Texas, and federal agencies have all failed in their oversight responsibilities, making congressional intervention the appropriate next step. They cite the precedent of the USC/Tyndall case, where federal oversight led to a $215 million settlement and meaningful governance reforms.

MD Anderson is consistently ranked as one of the top cancer research and treatment hospitals in the United States. Based in Houston, Texas, it is part of the University of Texas System. The institution has annual revenues of approximately $10 billion and receives millions of dollars each year in federal research grants. It is known globally for its pioneering work in immunotherapy and other cancer treatments.

Dr. Sharma is a professor of Genitourinary Medical Oncology at MD Anderson and the Scientific Director of the Immunotherapy Platform (IMT). She is married to Dr. James Allison, who won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2018 for his work on cancer immunotherapy. The report places Dr. Sharma at the center of allegations involving workplace harassment, research misconduct, nepotism, and obstruction of scientific progress.

Dr. James Allison is a Nobel laureate and the namesake of the James P. Allison Institute at MD Anderson. He is Dr. Sharma's husband. The report alleges that Dr. Allison has leveraged his prestige and fundraising success to shield Dr. Sharma from accountability, creating a power dynamic in which ethical oversight has been sacrificed to preserve the Allison-Sharma brand.

Dr. Jamie Lin is a junior researcher at MD Anderson who specializes in kidney cancers. She filed a lawsuit against Dr. Sharma alleging that Sharma demanded senior authorship on a research manuscript despite negligible contributions, and then sabotaged Lin's career when Lin refused. Lin also wrote a detailed letter to the NIH in March 2023 documenting 18 months of alleged harassment, threats, and obstruction by Sharma and associated faculty members. An independent expert, Dr. Alan Price (former Associate Director for Investigative Oversight at the Office of Research Integrity, HHS), reviewed the case and found no basis for the plagiarism allegations made against Dr. Lin.

Dr. Subudhi is described in the report as Dr. Sharma's deputy. Multiple accounts allege that he engaged in aggressive bullying, desk-banging, verbal tirades, and intimidation of both administrative staff and clinical personnel. His behavior allegedly led to a nurse practitioner, Kevin Lagman, suffering a panic attack so severe that MD Anderson police were called to intervene in February 2020.

The report names several categories of individuals: victims of misconduct (Shalini Yadav, Luis Vence, Jasmine Gascar, Kevin Lagman, Dr. Jamie Lin); administrators allegedly complicit in covering up complaints (Tatianna Robles, Ginger Araujo, Tiffany Razzo); senior faculty who allegedly failed to act (Dr. Paul Corn, Dr. Nizar M. Tannir, Max Weber, Giulio Draetta, Caren Hagberg, Anne Tsao, David Tweardy, Farhad Danesh); and family members hired under allegedly questionable circumstances (Larry Persaud, Sharma's ex-husband, and Ashura Khan, her cousin).

The report organizes the allegations into two broad categories. First, criminal acts: workplace harassment, verbal abuse and public humiliation, retaliation against complainants, and physical altercations requiring security intervention. Second, ethical violations: research misconduct (including demands for unearned authorship credit), nepotism (hiring family members with vague job descriptions), obstruction of NIH-funded research, blocking access to consented research samples, and conflicts of interest.

The report describes a pattern of behavior spanning years. Dr. Subudhi allegedly banged on desks, berated staff, and belittled administrative employees. Dr. Sharma allegedly publicly humiliated an administrative assistant (referred to as 'G' in media reports, later identified as Jasmine Gascar) over a CV update, denying her breaks and causing stress-induced panic attacks mistaken for a heart attack. Gascar's July 2020 email to administrator Tatianna Robles, included in the appendices, details these experiences extensively. The report also describes a February 2020 incident in which police were called after Dr. Subudhi's behavior caused a nurse practitioner to have a breakdown.

In August 2021, Dr. Lin was preparing to submit a manuscript on tertiary lymphoid structures to the journal Cancer Immunology Research. Dr. Sharma allegedly demanded senior corresponding author credit despite not having contributed substantively to the work, and threatened Lin's career if she refused. When Lin declined, Sharma, along with Dr. Ala Abudayyeh and Dr. Adi Diab, allegedly retaliated by falsely accusing Lin of plagiarism, placing an NIH-funded manuscript on hold at JCI Insight, and obstructing three of Lin's manuscripts. Dr. Alan Price, a nationally recognized expert in research misconduct investigations, reviewed the allegations and concluded there was no basis for the plagiarism claims.

The report alleges that Dr. Sharma and Dr. Allison hired family members within the Immunotherapy Platform, including Larry Persaud (Sharma's ex-husband) and Ashura Khan (her cousin), with vague job descriptions. The report states this violates MD Anderson's Standards of Conduct, which prohibit conflicts of interest. The former Chair of Genitourinary Oncology, Chris Logothetis, reportedly resigned citing 'financial malfeasance' within the IMT.

According to internal HR records cited in the report (obtained anonymously), over 50 formal complaints of bullying and harassment were filed against Dr. Sharma and her team between 2019 and 2023, with no documented disciplinary action taken.

The report alleges that HR staff specifically Tatianna Robles, Ginger Araujo, and Tiffany Razzo-actively covered up abuses. Gascar's email states that Araujo told her to find another job after she reported abuse, and that Robles attempted to arrange an unofficial meeting between Gascar and Subudhi without HR present, which Gascar characterized as harassment. The report alleges that HR's handling of complaints consistently prioritized protecting senior faculty over addressing legitimate grievances.

The report describes several categories of institutional harm: erosion of morale and talent through constant faculty turnover since 2015; financial strain including a $43 million operating loss through March 2025; reputational damage from ongoing lawsuits and media coverage; and a suppression of the collaborative culture essential to cancer research. A former senior executive, Len Zwelling (former Vice President for Research Administration), wrote in a June 2025 blog post that the institution has regressed significantly under current leadership.

The report argues that yes, Dr. Sharma's conduct has delayed critical advancements in cancer treatment. By allegedly prioritizing her own lab's therapies, obstructing competing research, and blocking access to research samples, the report contends that the integration of new discoveries into clinical practice has been slowed. The Hastings Center's 2024 report on ethical implications of bottlenecks in research processes is cited as supporting context.

The report presents a table of MD Anderson's operating losses: $10 million in 2020 (COVID-related), $1.6 million in 2023, and $43 million in 2024. It connects the recent losses to declining patient volumes, escalating operational costs, and heavy investment in immunotherapy ventures led by Sharma. The report also notes that Dr. Sharma's lab received over $15 million in NIH grants between 2020 and 2024, raising questions about potential bias in funding allocation given her role in NIH study sections.

The report raises concerns that the NIH's investigative processes may have been compromised. It alleges that complaints against Sharma were met with investigations focused on the complainants rather than the accused, with key NIH figures including Dr. Michael Lauer (Deputy Director for Extramural Research) and Dr. Monica Bertagnolli (NIH Director) being informed of concerns. The report also flags potential conflicts of interest in funding decisions given Sharma's involvement in NIH study sections.

The report references Dr. Jamie Lin's lawsuit against Dr. Sharma for slander and defamation, seeking $5 million in damages. This case has been the subject of a sovereign immunity challenge, with the Texas Attorney General arguing that the case should be directed against MD Anderson as an institution rather than Dr. Sharma as an individual. The case (Sharma v. Lin, No. 01-24-00730-CV) has reached the Texas Court of Appeals. Additionally, researcher Sonia Melo has filed a separate lawsuit alleging that MD Anderson violated its own policies during an investigation into her research.

Dr. Sharma, as an employee of a state-funded institution, has claimed sovereign immunity from Dr. Lin's lawsuit. The Texas Attorney General has intervened on her behalf, arguing that cases should be filed against MD Anderson rather than individual employees. Dr. Lin's attorney from Holland & Knight is challenging this position, potentially creating a significant legal precedent regarding accountability for individual misconduct at state institutions.

The report alleges potential violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) for creating a hostile work environment; the Civil Rights Act through potentially discriminatory dismissals; federal research integrity regulations under 42 CFR Part 93 (governing research misconduct at NIH-funded institutions); and general federal requirements for ethical stewardship of taxpayer-funded research dollars.

The report highlights a gap in ORI enforcement. While ORI is tasked under 42 CFR Part 93 with overseeing research misconduct at NIH-funded institutions, MD Anderson's failure to investigate Sharma's actions has not triggered ORI intervention. The report cites a 2024 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report calling for stricter accountability measures in federal research oversight.

The report makes five specific requests: (1) Convene a congressional hearing within 90 days to examine the allegations, followed by an independent audit of MD Anderson's leadership, financial practices, and HR processes; (2) Establish federal whistleblower protections for employees at NIH-funded institutions, including anonymous reporting channels and legal safeguards against retaliation; (3) Require mandatory annual ethics and governance training at MD Anderson, overseen by an independent monitor; (4) Amend the Public Health Service Act to mandate annual ORI audits of NIH-funded institutions; (5) Direct the State of Texas to review the MD Anderson Board of Regents' oversight practices and replace members who failed to act.

Yes. The report draws a direct parallel to the 2018 University of Southern California scandal involving Dr. George Tyndall, where federal oversight by the Department of Education led to a $215 million settlement, mandatory governance reforms, the establishment of an independent ombudsman, and significant leadership changes. The authors argue that a similar intervention could restore integrity at MD Anderson.

The report includes seven appendices containing: (A) a blog post by Len Zwelling, former VP of Research Administration, documenting institutional decline; (B) the May 2024 Daily Mail investigative article detailing the bullying scandal; (C) Jasmine Gascar's July 2020 email exchange with administrator Tatianna Robles, providing a firsthand account of harassment and HR complicity; (D) a detailed timeline of documented harassment against Gascar and Kevin Lagman, including screenshots of text messages, emails to HR, and descriptions of the February 2020 police incident; (E) Houston Chronicle articles on the authorship dispute; (F) Dr. Jamie Lin's March 2023 letter to the NIH; and (G) Dr. Alan Price's expert review finding no basis for plagiarism allegations against Dr. Lin.

The report is designed to inform congressional committees and encourage legislative action. Members of the public can contact their representatives to express support for hearings and oversight; follow media coverage of the ongoing litigation and institutional developments; and support whistleblower protection legislation for federally funded research institutions. The authors also note that numerous additional potential whistleblowers exist whose testimonies could further illuminate the situation if proper protections were established.

According to media reports cited in the appendices, MD Anderson has stated that it 'does not comment on internal employee matters or pending litigation' and that it has 'established processes for addressing concerns filed by any MD Anderson employee.' The report disputes the adequacy of these processes, citing the over 50 formal complaints with no documented disciplinary outcomes and the experiences of multiple staff members who allege their concerns were dismissed or turned against them.

The report traces a pattern extending back over a decade. In 2017, President Ronald DePinho resigned following a $267 million operating loss, a failed $62 million partnership with IBM Watson, and allegations of conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies. In 2015, the American Association of University Professors censured MD Anderson for violations of academic freedom. Former administrator Len Zwelling has written extensively about how the DePinho era created a profound lack of accountability among senior leadership, establishing the conditions under which the current allegations could emerge.

The report draws parallels to systemic issues identified by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) in a 2023 report, which found that academic medical institutions often prioritize prestige and revenue over ethical governance, enabling cultures where misconduct can flourish. The USC/Tyndall case, where institutional leadership ignored complaints for years to protect reputation, is presented as the closest parallel and a model for how federal intervention can drive meaningful reform.