Table of Contents

Executive Summary        3

Historical Context: A Legacy of Governance Failures at MD Anderson        5

Dr. Padmanee Sharma: A Pattern of Misconduct Enabled by Power        6

Impacts on MD Anderson, Cancer Research, and the NIH        11

Recommendations for Reform        14

Conclusion: A Call for Congressional Oversight        15

Appendix A: Former Senior Executive Blog on MD Anderson Failures        16

Appendix B: 2024 Daily Mail Article Exposed Dr. Sharma        18

Appendix C: Gascar-Robles Email Exchange, July 27-29, 2020        25

Appendix D: Documented Harassment and February 2020 Security Incident        28

Appendix E: Houston Chronicle Articles on Sharma’s Attempt to Steal Credit for Researcher Work        47

Appendix F: Dr. Jamie Lin Letter to the National Institute of Health (NIH)        51

Appendix G: International Scientific Misconduct Expert Support for Dr. Lin        56

Executive Summary

This report, meticulously compiled by a coalition of concerned individuals deeply invested in the integrity of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, exposes a profound crisis of leadership and ethical governance at one of the world’s preeminent cancer research institutions. The authors, comprising former and current employees, researchers, and administrators, have chosen anonymity due to the pervasive culture of fear and retribution that has taken root at MD Anderson. The environment within the institution has deteriorated to such an extent that individuals who speak out against misconduct face severe retaliation, including threats to their careers and personal well-being. This toxic atmosphere has necessitated the protection of many identities to ensure that the truth about MD Anderson’s systemic failures can be brought to light without further harm to those who seek justice.

At the heart of this crisis is a deeply broken institution where Dr. Padmanee Sharma, Scientific Director of the Immunotherapy Platform (IMT), has emerged as the primary driver of widespread misconduct, setting a tone of abuse and ethical lapses that has permeated MD Anderson. Under her leadership, a culture of harassment, research misconduct, and obstruction has flourished, involving a network of individuals who are not merely complicit but active participants in perpetuating these wrongs. Dr. James Allison, Sharma’s husband and a Nobel laureate, has facilitated this behavior through his influential role, leveraging his prestige to shield Sharma and amplify her unchecked power. This network includes figures such as Dr. Sumit K. Subudhi, who has engaged in aggressive bullying; administrative staff like Tatianna Robles, Ginger Araujo, and Tiffany Razzo, who have covered up abuses; and senior faculty like Dr. Paul Corn and Dr Nizar M. Tannir, who have failed to intervene, thereby becoming part of the problem.

The crisis at MD Anderson not only jeopardizes its mission but also undermines national efforts to advance cancer research, erodes public trust in federally funded medical institutions, and raises serious questions about the stewardship of taxpayer dollars. The appendices contain extensive documentation—firsthand accounts, email correspondence, and internal communications—that substantiate these allegations and reveal numerous potential whistleblowers whose testimonies could further illuminate the depth of this crisis.

Critically, this pervasive misconduct has been allowed to fester due to the complete failure of oversight by the MD Anderson Board of Regents, the State of Texas, and the Federal Government, all of which have neglected their responsibilities to ensure ethical governance and accountability at an institution entrusted with public funds and the lives of cancer patients worldwide. This committee is urged to convene a congressional hearing within 90 days to examine these allegations, mandate an independent audit of MD Anderson’s leadership and financial practices, and establish whistleblower protections to encourage further testimony.

MD Anderson’s mission to eradicate cancer has been gravely undermined by these actions, which have not only harmed employees but also delayed critical advancements in cancer treatment. This report situates these failures within the broader context of systemic governance issues at MD Anderson, drawing on historical scandals and recent analyses by esteemed organizations such as the National Academy of Medicine (NAM). It calls for immediate congressional oversight to address these violations, protect those who have suffered, and restore the institution’s integrity for the sake of cancer patients worldwide.

The report is structured as follows: it begins with an examination of MD Anderson’s historical governance failures, followed by a detailed analysis of Dr. Sharma’s alleged misconduct, categorized into criminal acts (e.g., workplace harassment, retaliation) and ethical violations (e.g., research misconduct, nepotism, obstruction of research). It then assesses the impacts on MD Anderson, cancer research, and the NIH, offers recommendations for reform, and concludes with a call for action.

Historical Context: A Legacy of Governance Failures at MD Anderson

Institutional Scandals and Systemic Issues

MD Anderson Cancer Center’s current crisis is not an isolated incident but rather the culmination of over a decade of governance failures that have eroded its foundational integrity. In 2017, President Ronald DePinho resigned following a series of financial missteps, including a $267 million operating loss and a failed $62 million partnership with IBM Watson, as documented in a University of Texas System audit reported by The Wall Street Journal in 2017. DePinho’s tenure was further marred by allegations of conflicts of interest involving pharmaceutical companies, a pattern that set a troubling precedent for ethical lapses. The New York Times reported in 2015 that the American Association of University Professors censured MD Anderson for violations of academic freedom during tenure disputes, highlighting a culture of administrative overreach. Len Zwelling, a former MD Anderson administrator, wrote in a 2024 blog post, that The DePinho era exposed a profound lack of accountability among senior leadership, creating fertile ground for the abuses we witness today (see Appendix A: Former Senior Executive Blog on MD Anderson Failures). These historical failures have fostered an environment where figures like Dr. Padmanee Sharma can operate without scrutiny, shielded by institutional prestige and a lack of robust oversight.

The broader context of MD Anderson’s challenges aligns with systemic issues in academic medical centers, as identified by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM). In a 2023 report, NAM explained that academic medical institutions often prioritize prestige and revenue over ethical governance, leading to cultures where misconduct can flourish unchecked. This observation is particularly relevant to MD Anderson, where the pursuit of global recognition has seemingly overshadowed the need for accountability, enabling the patterns of abuse detailed in this report.

Comparative Governance Failures in Academic Medicine

MD Anderson’s governance failures are not unique but reflect a broader pattern in academic medicine where unchecked power leads to systemic abuse. The 2018 University of Southern California (USC) scandal involving Dr. George Tyndall, a gynecologist accused of sexual misconduct over decades, offers a stark parallel. As reported by the Los Angeles Times (2018), USC’s leadership ignored complaints against Tyndall for years, prioritizing institutional reputation over accountability, much like MD Anderson’s handling of Dr. Sharma’s misconduct. The USC case resulted in a $215 million settlement and federal oversight by the Department of Education, leading to significant governance reforms, including mandatory training on ethical conduct and the establishment of an independent ombudsman. The USC case demonstrates that federal oversight, including mandated leadership reforms, can restore institutional integrity, offering a model for addressing MD Anderson’s crisis.

Dr. Padmanee Sharma: A Pattern of Misconduct Enabled by Power

Overview of Allegations and Key Individuals

Dr. Padmanee Sharma, a professor of Genitourinary Medical Oncology and director of scientific programs at the James P. Allison Institute, stands at the center of MD Anderson’s current crisis. While Dr. Sharma has contributed to advancements in immunotherapy, her pattern of misconduct—documented extensively in the appendices—has caused irreparable harm to MD Anderson’s mission and its staff. Her alleged misconduct spans criminal acts and ethical violations, facilitated by her marriage to Nobel laureate Dr. James Allison and their combined influence at MD Anderson (see Appendix B: 2024 Daily Mail Article Exposed Dr. Sharma). Key individuals implicated include:

• Leadership and Faculty Involved in Misconduct:

• Dr. Sumit K. Subudhi: Sharma’s deputy, accused of aggressive bullying and verbal abuse.
• Dr. Ala Abudayyeh: Associate Professor, accused of harassment and obstructing research access.
• Dr. Adi Diab: Associate Professor, accused of harassment and obstructing publications.

• Victims of Misconduct:

• Shalini Yadav: Former Associate Director at IMT, reported marginalization by Sharma.
• Luis Vence: Former IMT director, career allegedly sabotaged by Sharma.
• Jasmine Gascar: Former Senior Administrative Assistant, experienced bullying by Sharma and Subudhi.
• Kevin Lagman: A former nurse practitioner, experienced a panic attack following an incident with Subudhi
• Dr. Jamie Lin: Junior researcher, reported harassment by Sharma (detailed later).

• Complicit Administrators:

• Tatianna Robles, Ginger Araujo, Tiffany Razzo: HR staff who covered up abuses.
• Dr. Paul and Dr. Nizar M. Tannir: senior professors in the Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology.
• Max Weber, Giulio Draetta, Caren Hagberg, Anne Tsao, David Tweardy, Farhad Danesh: Other Senior leaders who failed to act.

• Other Relevant Figures:

• Larry Persaud and Ashura Khan: Sharma’s ex-husband and cousin, hired under questionable circumstances.
• Chris Logothetis: Former Chair, resigned citing financial malfeasance in IMT.
• Dr. Cassian Yee, Dr. Barbara Brierer, Mr. Mark Barnes, Dr. Alan Price, Dr. Tracy Rankin, Dr. Patricia Valdez: Involved in related investigations or complaints.

These allegations, supported by documentation in the appendices, including firsthand accounts, email correspondence, and internal communications, paint a damning picture of Sharma’s influence and the systemic failure to hold her accountable.

Criminal Acts: Workplace Harassment and Retaliation

Dr. Sharma’s actions have crossed legal thresholds, constituting workplace harassment and retaliation in violation of federal labor laws. The appendices provide extensive evidence of a pervasive culture of intimidation at MD Anderson:

• Verbal Abuse and Public Humiliation: In April 2019, Dr. Subudhi, under Sharma’s oversight, engaged in aggressive behavior, including desk banging and belittling comments toward administrative staff like Jasmine Gascar. By September 2019, Gascar faced verbal abuse from Sharma, with warnings from administrator Tatianna Robles confirming Sharma’s known hostility, as noted in the appendices. In January 2020, Sharma publicly berated Gascar over a CV update, denying her breaks and causing an emergency room visit for stress-induced panic attacks mistaken for a heart attack, a fact supported by email evidence in the appendices (see Appendix C: Gascar-Robles email exchange, July 27-29, 2020). Gascar wrote, “Dr. Subudhi himself took me to the ER here at MD Anderson in March and he himself acknowledged that he and Dr. Sharma were causing me too much stress” (see Appendix C: Gascar-Robles email exchange, July 27-29, 2020). Sharma’s actions, including denying breaks, violate MD Anderson’s Employee Handbook (Section 4.2), which mandates compliance with OSHA standards for a safe work environment.
• Retaliation Against Complainants: Following complaints to HR in June 2019 about Subudhi’s behavior, employees faced retaliation, including being forced to handle potentially contaminated lab coats during the early COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, as detailed in the appendices. Leadership, including Subudhi, publicly supported the status quo, with retaliatory measures like threats of termination against whistleblowers. Gascar’s emails reveal HR’s complicity, with Robles attempting to arrange an unofficial meeting between Gascar and Subudhi despite Gascar’s repeated refusals. On July 27, 2020, Robles wrote, “Should you change your mind, please let me know,” after Gascar declined to meet Subudhi without HR present (see Appendix C - Gascar-Robles email exchange, July 27-29, 2020). Gascar responded on July 29, 2020, “I am wondering how many times I have to say no before you all will take me seriously? One time should be enough. Now this feels like harassment” (see Appendix C: Gascar-Robles email exchange, July 27-29, 2020). Robles’ actions violated MD Anderson’s HR policy, which requires formal mediation with HR presence for such conflicts.
• HR and Leadership Complicity in Cover-Up: Tatianna Robles, Ginger Araujo, and Tiffany Razzo, as HR and administrative staff, actively covered up Sharma and Subudhi’s behavior. According to internal HR records 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. Gascar’s email on July 29, 2020, states, “Ginger flat out told me to find another job because after discussing abuse from Drs. Sharma and Subudhi with you [Robles]… you told her that you didn’t care if I left and that you would be Dr. Sharma’s assistant again if necessary” (see Appendix C: Gascar-Robles email exchange, July 27-29, 2020). Other senior professors in the Department of Genitourinary Medical Onconlogy, including Dr. Paul Corn and Dr. Nizar M. Tannir, were repeatedly informed of Sharma’s actions but failed to act, enabling ongoing harassment, as evidenced by multiple complaints documented in the appendices (see Appendix D: Documented Harassment and February 2020 Security Incident).
• Physical Altercations: Over a decade ago, Dr. Yong-Jun Liu, then Chair of Immunology, had to call security to remove Sharma from the department due to an altercation. Liu’s subsequent career moves to GSK and Innovent reflect the long-term impact of such conflicts. This pattern of volatile behavior requiring external intervention continued, as evidenced by the February 2020 security incident where MD Anderson police were called to intervene after Dr. Subudhi’s abusive behavior led to a panic attack with a nurse practitioner he worked with, Kevin Lagman (see Appendix D: Documented Harassment and February 2020 Security Incident).

These acts violate the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) by creating a hostile work environment and potentially the Civil Rights Act through discriminatory dismissals. The human toll is severe, with staff reporting mental health crises directly linked to Sharma’s abuse.

Ethical Violations: Research Misconduct, Nepotism, and Obstruction of Scientific Progress

Dr. Sharma’s ethical breaches have profoundly damaged MD Anderson’s integrity and mission, as evidenced by numerous accounts:

• Research Misconduct and Obstruction: Shalini Yadav reported being marginalized by Sharma, who sidelined her contributions to IMT projects and denied her promotion, while Luis Vence’s career was allegedly sabotaged through Sharma’s interference in his professional opportunities. Sharma also redirected funding from promising projects to her own, as reported by The Cancer Letter in 2024, prioritizing her lab’s therapies over broader innovation. This gatekeeping delayed the dissemination of cutting-edge treatments.
• Nepotism and Conflicts of Interest: Sharma and Allison hired family members within IMT, including Larry Persaud (Sharma’s ex-husband) and Ashura Khan (her cousin), with vague job descriptions. This nepotism violates MD Anderson’s “Standards of Conduct,” which prohibit conflicts of interest. Chris Logothetis resigned as Chair of Genitourinary Oncology, citing “financial malfeasance” within IMT. The RAND Corporation has shown in multiple studies on governance in academic medicine published between 2012 and 2023 that nepotism and favoritism in research institutions erode trust and fairness, driving away talent and undermining institutional missions.
• Obstruction of Research Access: Dr. Ala Abudayyeh, acting in concert with Sharma, blocked access to consented research samples for several researchers, as documented in the appendices. This obstruction directly impeded NIH-funded research, violating ethical standards of collaboration and delaying scientific progress. To sabotage Dr Lin’s career, Dr. Abudayyeh sent emails to Dr. Lin’s colleagues research collaborators undermining her integrity.

These violations betray MD Anderson’s mission, prioritizing personal gain over scientific advancement and patient outcomes, while exploiting power imbalances to target junior researchers.

Leveraging Influence Through James Allison and the Allison Institute

Dr. Sharma’s marriage to Dr. James Allison and their roles at the James P. Allison Institute have amplified her unchecked power. The appendices highlight how their combined influence has skewed resources and opportunities:

• Fundraising and Prestige: Allison’s fundraising success, which brought millions to MD Anderson, has shielded Sharma from accountability. The Houston Chronicle noted in an article published in February 2024 their involvement in multiple patent filings, securing financial benefits while controlling immunotherapy research (see Appendix E: Houston Chronicle Articles on Sharma’s Attempt to Steal Credit for Researcher Work). This dynamic has created a power imbalance, allowing Sharma to operate without oversight.
• Institutional Protection: Upper management’s dismissal of complaints against Sharma and Subudhi—attributing Subudhi’s abuse to a “brash style”—reflects a culture where Sharma is untouchable, as reported by The Daily Mail (see Appendix B: 2024 Daily Mail Article Exposed Dr. Sharma). MD Anderson may claim that complaints against Sharma were investigated, but the appendices reveal that these investigations were either superficial or biased, as seen in the case of Dr. Lin, where the review focused on the complainant rather than the accused. A letter to MD Anderson’s Board of Regents, co-authored by multiple staff and faculty who have worked with Sharma included in the appendices, attests to Sharma’s bullying across clinical, scientific, and administrative areas, yet no action was taken. HR staff like Robles, Araujo, and Razzo further enabled this protection, with Gascar noting, “You [Robles] have a history of covering up these kinds of disruptive behaviors from Faculty” (see Appendix C: Gascar-Robles email exchange, July 27-29, 2020).

This dynamic has created a power structure where ethical oversight is sacrificed to preserve the Allison-Sharma brand, to the detriment of MD Anderson’s mission.

Additional Case: Dr. Jamie Lin’s Experience

Dr. Jamie Lin, a junior researcher, provides a further example of Sharma’s misconduct, though her case is one of many illustrating the broader pattern of abuse at MD Anderson. In a March 13, 2023, letter to the NIH, Lin detailed 18 months of harassment, threats, and bullying by Sharma, Dr. Ala Abudayyeh, and Dr. Adi Diab, beginning with an authorship dispute over a Cancer Immunology Research (CIR) manuscript in August 2021 (see Appendix F: Dr. Jamie Lin Letter to the NIH). Sharma demanded senior authorship despite negligible contributions, threatening Lin’s career if denied (see Appendix F: Dr. Jamie Lin Letter to the NIH). When Lin resisted, Sharma, Abudayyeh, and Diab falsely claimed Lin broke research ethics, obstructing three NIH-funded manuscripts, including placing a JCI Insight manuscript on hold by alleging plagiarism. These allegations were refuted by Dr. Alan Price, a globally recognized expert in scientific misconduct investigations who served from 1989 to 2006 as Scientist-Investigator, Branch Chief, Division Director, and Associate Director for Investigative Oversight at the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In his January 5, 2023, review, Price concluded, “Therefore, I conclude there is no basis for apparent allegations of plagiarism of the data in the JCII manuscript from the CIR manuscript, both of which were written by Dr. Lin” (see Appendix G: International Scientific Misconduct Expert Support for Dr. Lin). This finding directly implicates Sharma’s malfeasance in making baseless claims to obstruct Lin’s work, further evidencing her pattern of unethical behavior.

Lin also reported that MD Anderson’s internal review, led by Dr. Barbara Brierer and Mr. Mark Barnes, was biased against her, treating her as the culprit rather than addressing Sharma’s actions NIH (see Appendix F: Dr. Jamie Lin Letter to the NIH). Senior leadership, including Max Weber, Giulio Draetta, Caren Hagberg, Anne Tsao, David Tweardy, and Farhad Danesh, failed to act on Lin’s complaints, enabling ongoing harassment according to the letter. Lin’s experience underscores the systemic issues at MD Anderson, where junior researchers are particularly vulnerable to Sharma’s abuses of power.

Impacts on MD Anderson, Cancer Research, and the NIH

MD Anderson: A Tarnished Legacy

Dr. Sharma’s actions, enabled by complicit HR staff and leadership, have inflicted severe damage on MD Anderson:

• Erosion of Morale and Talent: The toxic culture has led to constant faculty turnover since 2015, both among tenured and more junior staff, per data from the University of Texas System. According to internal HR records 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, further exacerbating staff exodus. Len Zwelling argued in a 2024 blog post that MD Anderson’s leadership has permitted a culture of intimidation to fester, driving away the talent essential to our fight against cancer (see Appendix A: Former Senior Executive Blog on MD Anderson Failures). A 2024 study published in the Journal of Healthcare and Patient Safety discusses how toxic leadership in healthcare organizations not only harms individual employees but also adversely affects the organization's overall vitality by contributing to reduced productivity, elevated turnover rates, and a detrimental workplace atmosphere.
• Financial Strain: The Houston Chronicle reported in in April 2025 a $43 million operating loss through March 2025, reflecting MD Anderson’s deepening financial woes, fueled by declining patient volumes and soaring expenses. Dr. Sharma’s leadership in high-cost immunotherapy ventures, like the James P. Allison Institute, has drawn substantial funding, including multimillion-dollar endowments, while core operational needs languish, raising questions about misplaced priorities. A $150 million Kinder Foundation donation in May 2025 for the Kinder Children’s Cancer Center offers hope for pediatric oncology but risks being mismanaged if leadership continues to favor niche research over financial recovery. MD Anderson’s history of losses, from early COVID disruptions to recent deficits, underscores this troubling trend. The following table summarizes MD Anderson’s financial decline:

Financial Losses at MD Anderson (2020-2025)

• Reputational Damage: MD Anderson’s aggressive legal tactics, most recently exemplified by the 2025 lawsuit filed by researcher Sonia Melo, have drawn widespread condemnation and intensified concerns about its internal culture. Melo, formerly a postdoctoral fellow at MD Anderson and now at the University of Porto, alleges that the institution violated its own policies during its investigation into her research, which led to the retraction of a 2014 Cancer Cell paper. The journal issued a "temporary Expression of Concern" in August 2025, citing duplicated and relabeled data. Melo disputes the findings and has filed a lawsuit in Harris County, Texas, seeking to have the misconduct determination overturned and her due process rights upheld. These legal confrontations, coupled with ongoing disputes over research integrity, have cast a shadow over MD Anderson's reputation. A NAM 2023 report warned, "Ethical lapses can have long-term consequences for patient trust and institutional partnerships, particularly in fields like oncology where collaboration is paramount."

Cancer Research: Innovation Stifled

Dr. Sharma’s misconduct has delayed critical advancements in cancer treatment:

• Suppression of Collaboration: The appendices note a decline in collaboration, with researchers fearing retribution if they cross Sharma. A fallout with Dr. Raghu Kalluri, who was removed from Allison Institute promotional materials, exemplifies how Sharma’s influence stifles teamwork. This pattern aligns with the Journal of Healthcare and Patient Safety findings that cultures of intimidation in academic medicine hinders productivity, turnover and, consequently, also interdisciplinary collaboration, cornerstone of modern cancer research.
• Delayed Treatments: By prioritizing her lab’s therapies and obstructing competing research, Sharma has slowed the integration of new discoveries into clinical practice. Every day lost to her agenda means fewer options for cancer patients, a concern echoed by the Hastings Center’s 2024 report on the ethical implications of on the ethical implications of bottlenecks in research processes.

NIH: Compromised Integrity

Dr. Sharma’s influence extends to the NIH, undermining its role as a steward of ethical research:

• Biased Investigations: Complaints against Sharma were met with investigations into the complainants themselves, suggesting undue influence. Key NIH figures involved include Dr. Michael Lauer, Deputy Director for Extramural Research, and Dr. Monica Bertagnolli, NIH Director, responsible for funding oversight, as well as Dr. Tracy Rankin and Dr. Patricia Valdez, who were informed of complaints.
• Skewed Funding: Sharma’s involvement in NIH study sections may have swayed funding decisions, diverting resources from meritorious projects, compromising the NIH’s mission to advance unbiased research. NIH records indicate that Dr. Sharma’s lab received over $15 million in grants between 2020 and 2024, raising concerns about potential bias in allocation given her role in study sections, as noted in the appendices.
• Policy Gaps: Under 42 CFR Part 93, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) is tasked with overseeing research misconduct at NIH-funded institutions, yet MD Anderson’s failure to investigate Sharma’s actions highlights a gap in ORI enforcement, as noted in a 2024 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on federal research oversight, which called for stricter accountability measures to ensure ethical stewardship of federal funds.

Recommendations for Reform

To address the systemic failures at MD Anderson and prevent similar crises in other institutions, the following actions are recommended:

• Immediate Investigation and Leadership Accountability: Convene a congressional hearing within 90 days to examine these allegations, followed by an independent audit of MD Anderson’s leadership, financial practices, and HR processes. The audit should result in the removal of leaders found complicit in misconduct, including Dr. Sharma and implicated senior administrators.
• Whistleblower Protections: Establish federal protections for whistleblowers at NIH-funded institutions, including anonymous reporting channels and legal safeguards against retaliation.
• Mandatory Ethics and Governance Training: Require MD Anderson to implement annual ethics training for all faculty and staff, focusing on workplace conduct, research integrity, and conflict-of-interest policies, with compliance overseen by an independent monitor.
• Strengthen Federal Oversight: Congress should amend the Public Health Service Act to mandate annual ORI audits of NIH-funded institutions, ensuring proactive oversight of research integrity.
• State and Institutional Accountability: The State of Texas should conduct a review of the MD Anderson Board of Regents’ oversight practices, replacing members who failed to act on complaints with independent appointees committed to ethical governance.

These reforms aim to restore integrity at MD Anderson, protect its staff and researchers, and ensure that cancer research serves the public good.

Conclusion: A Call for Congressional Oversight

Dr. Padmanee Sharma’s tenure at MD Anderson Cancer Center represents a profound betrayal of scientific integrity and ethical leadership, enabled by a complicit renowned faculty (Dr. Paul Corn and Dr. Nizar M. Tannir) and senior leadership (Max Weber, Giulio Draetta, Caren Hagberg, Anne Tsao, David Tweardy, Farhad Danesh), who have shielded her and Dr. Subudhi’s abuses. Her criminal acts—workplace harassment, retaliation, and potential discriminatory dismissals—violate federal laws and demand legal accountability. Her ethical violations—research misconduct, nepotism, and obstruction of scientific progress—have corrupted MD Anderson’s mission, delayed cancer treatments, and harmed countless employees and researchers. Enabled by her husband Dr. James Allison and the James P. Allison Institute, Sharma has operated with impunity, shielded by a complicit administration and potentially influencing the NIH’s investigative processes.

The stakes are nothing less than the lives of cancer patients worldwide. MD Anderson’s legacy, once a beacon of hope, now serves as a cautionary tale of what happens when power goes unchecked in academic medicine. This committee must act swiftly to mandate an independent investigation into MD Anderson’s leadership, focusing on Sharma’s actions and the complicity of HR and senior staff, and review the NIH’s handling of related complaints. With decisive action, MD Anderson can reclaim its status as a global leader in cancer research—a place where innovation thrives, researchers are protected, and patients receive the life-saving treatments they deserve. Congressional intervention can set a precedent for ethical governance in academic medicine, ensuring that institutions entrusted with public funds uphold the highest standards of integrity. Transparency, accountability, and ethical reform are not optional—they are imperatives to restore trust in these institutions and ensure that cancer research serves humanity, not personal ambition. The time for excuses has passed; the time for action is now.

Appendix A: Former Senior Executive Blog on MD Anderson Failures

It is also worth reading the blog of Dr. Leonard Zwelling, the former Vice President for Research Administration at M.D. Anderson, for all his inside information on MD Anderson, but his recent post on June 24, 2025 summarizes the decline of the institution.

An Embarrassment And A Shame

Appendix B: 2024 Daily Mail Article Exposed Dr. Sharma

This Daily Mail article from May 5, 2024 tipped the scales at MD Anderson, exposing some of the behavior of Dr. Padmanee Sharma and her minions. Other behavior was alluded to, and it was only the tip of the iceberg. 

Appendix C: Gascar-Robles Email Exchange, July 27-29, 2020

Appendix D: Documented Harassment and February 2020 Security Incident

Timeline of Harassment and Intimidation Against Jasmine Gascar and Kevin Lagman

The timeline provides a chronological summary of key incidents and complaints at MD Anderson, as recounted by Jasmine Gascar herself, documenting her experiences with harassment and leadership failures.

April 2019 - First month of employment: 

-First meeting with Dr. Sumit Subudhi: He was aggressive, banging on the desk, and abruptly cut me off when I tried to ask any questions, responding with “You obviously don’t know what you are doing if you are asking me those questions.” He also sent messages about how dumb his AA’s (Administrative Assistants) were to his nurse practitioner, Kevin Lagman, my first week which was very intimidating. 

-First travel coordination handed off to me for Dr. Subudhi, initiated by his previous assistant: Hotel was not confirmed and he arrived to no hotel room and called me yelling and berating me. He followed up with a text: “Know that I am furious!!!” He also followed up with an email to another physician referencing my mistake and how pissed he was about it. I felt humiliated. Reported all of this to my supervisor and nothing was done. 

June 2019 - HR/Legal Office called me into their office to investigate Dr. Subudhi for aggressive behaviors towards another employee (See screenshot below from HR/Legal office). 

-After this interview, Dr. Subudhi started acting retaliatory towards me and his clinic team. I reported this to the HR/Legal office - nothing was done. (Below email to HR/Legal regarding concerns for retaliatory behavior. HR/Legal never responded. 

-Simultaneously, his nurse practitioner, Kevin Lagman, sent this note to his supervisor (And later HR) indicating that he felt there was retaliatory behavior due to his cooperation with the HR/Legal Office investigation of Dr. Subudhi: 

-Myself and the clinic team are called into a meeting by leadership with Dr. Subudhi so he could “apologize” for his behavior. Nothing changed, this was all for optics. 

-Kevin had to send this document to Kevin’s manager to try defend himself after the terrible email Dr. Subudhi sent to all of leadership trying to justify his behavior towards Kevin. 

This is the retaliatory email Dr. Subudhi sent trying to ruin Kevin’s reputation AFTER we cooperated with the interviews. 

Conditions continued to deteriorate after this. 

September 2019 - I was assigned to Dr. Sharma. 

-Immediately I was warned about Dr. Sharma’s aggressive behavior by Tatianna Robles, Department Administrator, BEFORE even interacting with her. I was told she had sent a previous assistant to the ER and that I had their support if I needed to be aggressive back with her. 

-Verbal abuse and harassing behavior start from the get go. 

February 2020 – Kevin Langman Panic Attack

-My supervisor, Tiffany Razzo, and Administrative Director, Ginger Araujo, say they will meet with the Chair, Dr, Tannir, to discuss Dr. Subudhi and Sharma’s abusive behavior. Tatianna finds out about the meeting and cancels the meeting shortly after. They then tell me to find another job because this behavior has been going on for years and will not be addressed. 

-Kevin has a panic attack, breakdown after Dr. Subudhi’s abusive behavior. MD Anderson police are called to intervene. 

March 2020 - Email complaints sent to HR and Ombuds. 

-Kevin is finally removed from Dr. Subudhi’s clinic and told he will never have to work with him again. Shortly after he told he will have to cover Dr. Subudhi’s clinic again due to another nurse practitioner being out. 

April 2020 - Leadership begins sending emails of support for Dr. Subudhi. 

-I witness a conversation with Dr. Sharma and dept leadership indicating leadership needs to do whatever is necessary to “protect Dr. Subudhi”. 

June 2020 - Formal email complaints start being sent by me and my colleagues to Department Leadership. Retaliatory behavior begins soon after. 

-Leadership begins requiring us to come into the office on a rotation to hand deliver the soiled lab coats of clinicians to the laundry room located in the basement. During this time the Institution was discouraging any non-essential personnel from being in the office unless absolutely necessary, however, GU was doing the opposite to us in retaliation for filing formal complaints. These soiled lab coats had been exposed to COVID positive patients-at the time no one knew how transmissible COVID was so we were very scared. We were being required to hand deliver the lab coats without any protective equipment which led me to file a formal safety complaint with the institution. 

-I’m assigned to work on Dr. Subudhi’s promotion. 

July 2020 - Tatianna tries to manipulate me into accepting another apology from Dr. Subudhi.

I decline without HR present and she refuses to have HR present. I go into the office to do the lab coats and Dr. Subudhi approaches me and begins apologizing anyway. I send an email to Tatianna Robles, documenting and copy HR and dept leadership.  I also include Dr. Sharma’s abusive behavior.

Email to Tatianna Robles documenting the abuse (see Appendix C: Gascar-Robles email exchange, July 27-29, 2020)

-Leadership has a meeting with the physicians and tells them about our confidential complaints against them. Physicians ask for all of us to be fired. Conditions deteriorate for all of us who sent email complaints. 

-I begin asking to be removed from Dr. Subudhi and Sharma as I feel unsafe. I am ignored by my supervisor. 

Winter 2020-2021 - I inform my supervisor and Dr. Subudhi and Sharma that I am removing myself from their teams as I do not feel safe any longer. 

January 2021 - Formal email complaints are sent to Division leadership. HR Gets involved and intimidates us into silence.

Collective email complaints detailing CV incident with Sharma 

February 2021 - I finally had to put in my notice because my mental health was suffering. Mass exodus of the rest of my colleagues followed. 

Appendix E: Houston Chronicle Articles on Sharma’s Attempt to Steal Credit for Researcher Work

Two Houston Chronicle Article published on February 9, 2024 and February 16, 2024 reported on Sharma’s attempt to take credit for Dr. Jamie Lin work and the subsequent lawsuit that ensued. See below the February 16, 2024, article.

Appendix F: Dr. Jamie Lin Letter to the National Institute of Health (NIH)

Appendix G: International Scientific Misconduct Expert Support for Dr. Lin