BMJ  2004;329:10 (3 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7456.10-b

News

National Institutes of Health criticised for not preventing conflicts of interest

New York

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has been criticised by members of Congress for letting employees accept lucrative consultancy assignments from drug and biotechnology companies.

On 22 June the director of the NIH, Dr Elias Zerhouni, told the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, "In retrospect, there was not a sufficient safeguard against the perception of conflict of interest." He said the NIH would tighten rules about employees' consultancy work.

The NIH's troubles began on 7 December 2003. In a front page article the Los Angeles Times described how a small number of the institutes' 17 000 employees had received millions of dollars of income from outside sources since 1995 ( 2003 December 7;sect A: 1).

That in itself was not illegal, although the public and even many senators and representatives were probably unaware of the practice.

Restrictions on outside work by NIH employees were loosened in 1995 by Dr Harold Varmus, the Nobel prize winner who headed the organisation at the time, in an effort to recruit leading scientists who could earn much more at universities. In his testimony on 22 June Dr Zerhouni outlined what he described as "a major reform" since then.

"We are severely restricting the ability of NIH employees to consult with industry," he said. He suggested prohibiting holding stock in biotechnology or drug companies, consulting by senior staff and staff who award research grants, and receiving stock as payment or holding stock in drug or biotechnology companies, limiting outside work to 400 hours a year, and limiting payment to 25% of salary—as well as random audits to detect unreported outside work. He also called for more public financial disclosures by employees.

However, the Washington Post (2004 June 23;sect A: 19) reported that one researcher at the National Cancer Institute continued to receive consultancy fees, although he testified that he had suspended the agreement. It also reported that the blue ribbon committee had turned up about 100 consultancy arrangements that NIH officials didn't know about. A neurologist at the National Institute of Mental Health, Dr Trey Sunderland, had received more than $500000 (£273250; 410340) over the past five years in fees, honorariums, and expense repayments from Pfizer, but the amounts had not been reported.

The Wall Street Journal (2004 June 22;sect A: 4) reported that the investigation into conflicts of interest is being expanded to 15 other federal agencies.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Investigators will review conflicts of interest at NIH

Janice Hopkins Tanne
BMJ 2007 334: 767. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

US National Institutes of Health issue new ethics guidelines

Janice Hopkins Tanne
BMJ 2005 331: 472. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

New rules drive off NIH researchers

Janice Hopkins Tanne
BMJ 2005 330: 864. [Extract] [Full Text]

Scientists criticise new NIH rules to cut employees' ties to industry

Janice Hopkins Tanne
BMJ 2005 330: 559. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Tanne, J. H. (2005). US National Institutes of Health issue new ethics guidelines. BMJ 331: 472-472 [Full text]  
• Hopkins Tanne, J. (2005). New rules drive off NIH researchers. BMJ 330: 864- [Full text]  
• Tanne, J. H. (2005). Royalty payments to staff researchers cause new NIH troubles. BMJ 330: 162-162 [Full text]  
• (2004). In brief. BMJ 329: 758-758 [Full text]