House Panel Scolds NIH Chief, HHS; Threaten To Pursue New Ethics Legislation

[Guest guest]

" luckypig "

Thu, 13 May 2004 12:23:58 -0400

House Panel Scolds NIH Chief, HHS; Threaten To

Pursue New Ethics Legislation

 

Just one more scandal coming to light ...-

 

House Panel Scolds NIH Chief, HHS

Members Threaten To Pursue New Ethics Legislation

 

By Rick Weiss

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, May 13, 2004; Page A27

 

Angered by recent revelations that some high-level scientists at the National

Institutes of Health are enjoying lucrative consulting arrangements with drug

and biotech companies -- and unsatisfied with a blue-ribbon panel's

recommendations for rectifying the problem -- members of a House subcommittee

yesterday told NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni they were losing patience with him

and his superiors at the Department of Health and Human Services.

 

The lawmakers warned they might take action if more comprehensive reforms are

not instituted soon.

 

" It is clear from the cases we have reviewed that some NIH scientists are either

very close to the line or have crossed the line " of ethical conduct, Rep. James

C. Greenwood (R-Pa.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on

oversight and investigations, said at a hearing unusual for its level of open

hostility toward some of the government's most prestigious -- and best-paid --

scientists. " If we are serious about upholding the highest ethical standards at

the NIH, then NIH scientists should not even be close to the line. "

 

Greenwood was especially critical of the legal staff at HHS, whose " delays and

obstinacy, " he said, had slowed the subcommittee's efforts to determine whether

NIH scientists are engaged in outside activities that might conflict with their

government responsibilities. He and others noted with evident frustration that

HHS declined to have the department's general counsel testify at a follow-up

hearing scheduled for Tuesday.

 

" This investigation has been slow-rolled and stonewalled, " Rep. John D. Dingell

(D-Mich.) fumed in a statement. Dingell led perhaps the most memorable standoff

between Congress and the scientific establishment in the late 1980s -- a fiery

investigation into allegations of scientific misconduct that focused on Nobel

laureate David Baltimore, who is now president of the California Institute of

Technology.

 

Yesterday's hearing had Zerhouni and the two co-chairs of his blue-ribbon panel

facing four hours of often withering criticism from both Republicans and

Democrats. Even some lawmakers not on the subcommittee showed up for the fray,

including Health Committee Chairman Michael Bilirakis (R-Fla.) and Energy and

Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Tex.).

 

" We have found NIH to be less than cooperative, and that's going to change, "

Barton said. " They can cooperate cooperatively, or we will make them cooperate

coercively. "

 

At issue are long-standing policies, some of them government-wide and others

specific to NIH, that allow scientists -- with agency approval but in some cases

without public disclosure -- to earn outside income from drug, biotech and other

companies.

 

Some top-tier researchers have received payments of hundreds of thousands of

dollars and, in some cases, valuable stock or options. No scientist stands

accused of breaking any rules, but the largest sums have raised concerns about

those scientists' attention to their government jobs and the possibility that

their outside compensation might influence decisions they make at NIH.

 

Zerhouni noted that he had already implemented changes to ban outside consulting

by high-ranking NIH scientists who are central to grant making decisions. He

also has increased by about 100 the number of scientists subject to financial

disclosure rules and he has asked the Office of Government Ethics to authorize

him to demand fuller disclosure from an even wider group of about 500

scientists.

 

He defended the blue-ribbon panel's recommendations, which include forbidding

certain kinds of remuneration (such as company stock, which can make scientists

more beholden to a company's long-term interests) and limiting the amount of

outside income and the number of hours spent on outside work.

 

" We should be more transparent, more vigilant about oversight, and we need to

tighten the rules, " Zerhouni testified. " But it would be a mistake to ban all

compensated activities with outside organizations. Such an action would be bad

for science, unfair to employees, and ultimately hinder our efforts to improve

the nation's health. "

 

He did not find a sympathetic audience.

 

Rep. Peter Deutsch (D-Fla.) criticized Zerhouni's conflict-of-interest panel,

which was co-chaired by Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of

Sciences, and Norman R. Augustine, executive chairman of Lockheed Martin Corp.,

referring to it as a " so-called blue-ribbon committee " whose recommendations

would " excuse the inexcusable. "

 

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) wondered aloud how, in this era of interlinking

corporate relationships, any federal scientist could ever be certain that the

company he or she was receiving payments from had no financial stake in a

company that might have a proposal before the scientist's institute or lab.

 

Greenwood announced that, given HHS's apparent unwillingness to fully tally the

extent of outside consulting at NIH, he would ask the nation's pharmaceutical

and biotech companies to volunteer information about their dealings with NIH

researchers -- a process already begun in February by Rep. Henry A. Waxman

(D-Calif.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), to little avail so far.

 

Greenwood outlined the many ways in which members of Congress in recent decades

have limited their own access to outside income and gifts. " If this kind of

reform was good enough for Congress, why isn't it good enough for the National

Institutes of Health? " he asked.

 

Greenwood is one of few House members to voluntarily refuse contributions from

political action committees. But contributions from individuals employed by

pharmaceutical and health product companies have kept him among the top 20

recipients of donations related to health care companies for three of the last

four election cycles, according to the most recent data compiled by the Center

for Responsive Politics, a Washington group that tracks political money.

 

Over all, pharmaceutical and health companies contributed nearly $30 million to

political campaigns in the 2002 election cycle, the group reports.

 

Researcher Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22425-2004May12?language=printer

 

 

 

 

 

SBC - Internet access at a great low price.