Conflict-of-Interest Inquiry May Be Reopening at NIH

[Guest guest]

Conflict-of-Interest Inquiry May Be Reopening at NIH

By Rick Weiss

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, March 31, 2007; Page A18

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2007/03/30/AR2007033000310.html

Federal investigators are reviewing the activities of 103 scientists

who may have had improper links to pharmaceutical companies while

they were employed at the National Institutes of Health, apparently

resurrecting a conflict-of-interest inquiry that many in the agency

thought was closed.

In a letter sent to several members of Congress on March 23 and made

public yesterday, R. Levinson, inspector general for the

Department of Health and Human Services, said his office is looking

into the cases " to determine whether investigation is warranted. "

Levinson also wrote that his office is reviewing whether NIH is

adequately monitoring potential conflicts of interest among its

thousands of grant recipients -- typically university researchers.

Members of Congress and watchdog groups have long called for such a

review, noting that conflict-of-interest policies at universities

are generally more lenient than those at NIH. The concern, critics

say, is that federal grant money not go to scientists who may be

predisposed to get results that favor their drug company sponsors.

Scientific and academic organizations counter that adequate

safeguards are already in place and fear that many of the nation's

best scientists would leave the federally funded research enterprise

if options for outside income were lost.

NIH officials had already looked into the 103 cases of possible

conflict of interest in 2004, after a congressional inquiry

suggested that scores of researchers may have taken drug industry

money without approval. As a result of that investigation, NIH

Director Elias A. Zerhouni in 2005 banned all such consulting by NIH

employees.

Agency investigators concluded that about half of those who were

suspected of wrongdoing and who were still employed at NIH (and thus

available for questioning) had indeed violated policies, including

10 who the agency concluded may have violated federal law.

NIH referred only those 10 cases to the HHS Office of Inspector

General (OIG), which referred two to the Justice Department for

possible prosecution. One resulted in a conviction for criminal

conflict of interest; the other is still pending.

With new ethics policies in place and the 2008 budget fight

starting, many in the agency had hoped that the worst was behind

them. But the Levinson letter suggests not.

A spokesman for Levinson said he was not at liberty to say why the

OIG had renewed its interest in the cases. But the letter -- made

public by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has

spearheaded inquiries into NIH for years -- said the review began

about six months ago. That is about when committee members

complained loudly that too many of those who were found to have

violated NIH rules had gotten off with only modest disciplinary

action.

In a joint statement released yesterday, Energy and Commerce

Chairman D. Dingell (D-Mich.) asserted that " NIH bungled the

investigation the first time around, " and ranking Republican Joe L.

Barton (Tex.) expressed hope that the inquiry " will finally sort

things out so everyone can have confidence that the public's

interest is being fully served. "

NIH spokesman Burklow said: " We welcome the additional review;

however, we are confident in the rigor of our process. "

Post a Comment