US Senate hearings into NIH scientists' links with pharma

[Guest guest]

Rheumawire

Jan 22, 2004

US Senate hearings into NIH scientists' links with pharma

Washington, DC In the US, Senate hearings begin today to investigate

allegations of financial conflicts of interest and also improper funding

of research at the National Institutes of Health. Both issues have been

widely reported in the US press, and the conflict of interest

controversy also features in this week's New England Journal of Medicine

[1].

Links between top scientists at the NIH and bio-pharmaceutical companies

were exposed recently in a detailed article in the Los Angeles Times.

Among those named in the article and due to appear at the Senate

hearings is Dr Katz, director of the National Institute of

Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases.

Although links between researchers and industry have always been a

contentious issue, the focus has previously been on physicians and

academics. Now the spotlight is on a federal government agency and its

employees, and the allegations are damaging to how it will be perceived.

" The NIH is widely regarded as the world's premier biomedical research

institution, " says the NEJM, and the huge funding it enjoys reflects

" the trust that the American people place in the NIH and the importance

of its work. "

" This week's hearing and another being planned in the House reflect an

uncomfortable shift of political winds for the venerable research

institute, " says the Washington Post. Last year, the NIH enjoyed its

fifth consecutive major funding increase, to $27 billion, and has

managed to retain political goodwill despite a contentious national

debate over human embryo cell research.

However, the recent allegations have put the NIH on the defensive, the

newspaper comments. Last year, a conservative religious group released

what it said was evidence that the NIH was financing scientifically

useless or morally repugnant behavior, triggering a congressional

inquiry. In December, the article suggesting improprieties in

collaborations between NIH scientists and drug companies prompted a

fresh round of congressional questions.

" I've been a very strong advocate for increasing NIH funding, " says

Senator Arlen Spector, who will be leading the hearings. " I want to find

out what has been going on. "

NIH director Dr Elias Zerhouni says he has completed internal

investigations of both allegations and has also called in outside

experts to examine the consultancy agreements. He says that to date

there is " no evidence that patients were harmed or that decisions were

influenced by compensated outside activities, " or that employees failed

to disclose their financial agreements to their supervisors and the

agency's ethics officers. Nevertheless, he has already put into place

new review systems.

" I believe that the public's interest is best served by complete

transparency, full disclosure, independent review, and proactive

management and monitoring of all outside relationships, " Zerhouni wrote

in a letter to House Democrats, who are also planning a hearing into the

allegations of financial conflicts of interest. " It is my goal, through

the steps outlined, to erase any doubts in the minds of Congress or the

public that we remain worthy of the trust and confidence you have placed

in us. "

However, Zerhouni has also said: " I would rather have our scientists

sought after than considered irrelevant and sought after by no-one. " The

quote was taken from a recent address to NIH employees and was reported

in an article in the Los Angeles Times this week.

In an interview with the NEJM, Zerhouni said: " What is being portrayed

in the press is not the reality, but that doesn't mean that we couldn't

do a better job of managing the conflict issues. " The controversy " still

leaves the question of perception of inappropriate conflict-of-interest

management and whether or not we pass the smell test in terms of

perception. It is important for me to address that. "

Most observers believe that the agency will survive the new scrutiny

relatively unscathed, according to the Washington Post, but many predict

that the controversy will prompt new and perhaps overdue restrictions on

deals between companies and NIH officials who control the flow of funds,

and possibly changes to make all deals more open to the public.

" If you take public funds, you have an obligation to have everything you

do be transparent, " says Alan Leshner, president of the American

Association for the Advancement of Science, and a former chief of the

National Institute of Drug Abuse.

Zosia Chustecka

Sources

1. Steinbrook R. Financial conflicts of interest and the NIH

[editorial]. N Engl J Med 2004;350:327-330.

2. Weiss R. Critics of NIH studies prompt Senate hearing. Washington

Post. January 19, 2004.

3. Willman D. Probe sought into NIH officials' outside work. Los Angeles

Times January 17, 2004.

I'll tell you where to go!

Mayo Clinic in Rochester

http://www.mayoclinic.org/rochester

s Hopkins Medicine

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org