Unanswered questions about stolen body parts eroding public faith in Harvard, crisis PR experts say

When federal prosecutors announced arrests in the body parts scheme last Wednesday, Harvard mailed overnight letters to families that may have been affected and released a detailed statement. But it has remained publicly silent since. Crisis communications experts give Harvard generally high marks for its initial actions but say it is now faltering.

“It isn’t just between Harvard and its donors. There is also a public interest here,” said Thomas Mulligan, a retired former executive with crisis communications firm Sitrick and Company in New York City. “Harvard’s mistake was in declining to answer questions either by press conference or individual interviews with the media.”

Harvard had known about the alleged crimes since March, but federal investigators asked the university to keep quiet until the indictment came down. That means the university and the medical school had plenty of time to prepare, Mulligan noted.

“They used the time well,” he said, producing “an informative statement,” a lengthy FAQ, and forming an outside advisory panel to evaluate policies and practices in the anatomical gifts program.

Even if answering questions in person merely repeated information in the online statements, “it would have enhanced public trust” if Harvard officials faced the public, Mulligan said.

“When you stand up in public and show your face, you’re putting a human being behind the words in your statement. It shows a willingness to address these questions as they come,” he said. Because they’d had so much time to prepare, there shouldn’t have been any question that surprised them, he said.

Neither Harvard Medical School nor the US Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which is leading the investigation, held a press conference about the allegations. On June 14, the US attorney put out a press release, and the medical school posted online a copy of the e-mail that it sent to the medical and dental school communities. The e-mail linked to a set of “frequently asked questions,” which provided additional details. On June 16, Harvard publicly posted the text of the letters sent to donors’ next of kin. It also held an in-person gathering for medical and dental students.

But Harvard has not made any officials available for an interview by the media.

The letters went to the next of kin for all anatomical donors over the last two decades “because we wanted to be transparent and cast a wide net to inform families about this incident,” Laura DeCoste, chief communications officers for Harvard Medical School, said in an e-mail Monday.

Recipients were told they were “potentially impacted” or “not believed to be impacted,” based on when the donor remains were sent to be cremated. The alleged crimes occurred between about 2018 and August 2022.

Will the families of “potentially impacted” donors ever find out for sure whether their relative’s remains were involved in the alleged crimes? “To be clear, it is our understanding that there is not enough evidence at this time to identify anyone’s remains as being definitively impacted,” DeCoste said. “The US Attorney’s Office has stated that they will continue to attempt to identify victims and contact as many of the victims’ families affected by this case as possible.”

One factor noticeably missing from Harvard’s online statement and FAQs is any detail about how it monitored its morgue. Federal prosecutors accused Cedric Lodge, the former manager of the Harvard Medical School morgue, of selling body parts that were supposed to be cremated. Lodge’s lawyer didn’t return calls seeking comment last week when he made an initial court appearance.

“The Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission tracks every plant from seed to sale, for something much less important than loved ones’ cadavers,” said Andy Paven, a senior vice president at O’Neill and Associates in Boston who specializes in crisis communications. “Was there a system that was better than Harvard’s that they ignored?”

As the Globe reported last week, state and federal laws govern the process of gaining consent and how the bodies are obtained, handled, and disposed of. But in most places, no agency inspects to make sure proper processes are in place, and medical schools are left to self-police.

“Harvard thinks of itself as the best of the best, and moving forward, I would say it should come up with a process that ought to reflect the position Harvard has in the academic world,” Paven said. “In the long run, that will make the difference to families who were victimized and to those thinking of donating in the future.”

Though Harvard’s online statement notes it has retained outside experts to provide recommendations to “improve the security and integrity of the program,” some crisis communicators said Harvard needs to be more outspoken on this point now so the public understands it is sincere about fixing the problem.

“Getting out front shows you are taking responsibility and making recommendations so it doesn’t happen again,” he said.

But Christine Heenan, a former vice president of public affairs at Harvard from 2008-2015, said the university was a victim here, too, having been taken advantage of by its former morgue manager.

“The university has been as responsive as you can be for this tough a story,” she said. “There are a lot of stories where you need leadership to embody a message, like with [the COVID-19 pandemic] or with Black Lives Matter. This doesn’t feel like that to me. This is a situation where there’s been an arrest and violations of law, and the institution communicated with those impacted and they did that quickly and comprehensively.”

Hilary Burns of the Globe staff contributed to this story.

Kay Lazar can be reached at kay.lazar@globe.com Follow her on Twitter @GlobeKayLazar. Felice J. Freyer can be reached at felice.freyer@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter @felicejfreyer.