National Institutes of Health clears most researchers in probe

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Darwin's Radio Labs - 24 Feb 2005 20:08 GMT

New NIH rules ban scientists from accepting even uncompensated
professorships and board positions with professional societies on
their own time.

Question is - regardless the cause, does it help science in any way?
If not, what are the motives?

The rules are also forcing employees and their family members to sell
stock holdings.

According to MSNBC News http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7014396/ - most of the
researchers who were under investigation for allegedly engaging in
secret deals with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have
already been cleared. The unexpected finding that most allegations
were actually the result of errors by government investigators has
undermined the rationale behind recent decision to impose severe
restrictions on the personal activities and finances of all of the
agency's more than 5,000 employees.

One could take the view that one dishonest scientist is enough and 20%
is way too many. But if new rules are the function of the percentage
of those who breaks the existing ones then these new rules are -

1) A form of punishment - punishment of everyone regardless of guilt.
2) Reflection of inability to cope with public hysteria, amply fueled
by newspapers.

In this light the whole discussion whether the new rules are
reasonable is pointless. If there are reasonable rules in place
already the question is how to ensure compliance.

Reply to this Message

Richard Ulrich - 24 Feb 2005 21:46 GMT

> New NIH rules ban scientists from accepting even uncompensated
> professorships and board positions with professional societies on
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> is way too many. But if new rules are the function of the percentage
> of those who breaks the existing ones then these new rules are -

Where does this number come from, "20% [dishonest] is way
too many"?

The newspaper report that I read had a 20 in it. As I recall, out of
100 scientists who were originally blamed and "investigated", there
were 20 who actually had some unreported income or investments
or connections.

Oh, I see, that is what the online report says, too.

Have you ever filled out one of those financial ethics forms?
I have, and I was glad (ha!) that I did not have much money or
investments or much extended family, so I could easily say No.
(If you say Yes, then they want you to list details.) Offend your
sense of privacy? Waste your time?

I would be curious to hear, as a follow-up, how many of those
"failures" were folks who could frankly be blamed for
covering up an "unethical interest," as opposed to being
lazy; anti-government; borderline psychotic; ...

> 1) A form of punishment - punishment of everyone regardless of guilt.
> 2) Reflection of inability to cope with public hysteria, amply fueled
> by newspapers.

Yep.

> In this light the whole discussion whether the new rules are
> reasonable is pointless. If there are reasonable rules in place
> already the question is how to ensure compliance.

Shouldn't we say something about the Vice President who
still collects money from his former company that is the
largest government contractor (I think) in the war?
- and that company keeps getting in the news for making
improper charges.... but then they get to collect their
fees, despite the laws... How does that work?

Oh, there's Tom DeLay, packing an ethics committee with
his own acolytes, and changing the rules to avoid further
ethics charges (he has been found guilty enough to be
chastised, for 3 separate things),... and trying to change
the laws back in Texas so that politicians there can prevent
his future prospective indictments....

Signature

Rich Ulrich, wpilib@pitt.edu
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html

Reply to this Message

TC - 25 Feb 2005 20:05 GMT

> New NIH rules ban scientists from accepting even uncompensated
> professorships and board positions with professional societies on
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> reasonable is pointless. If there are reasonable rules in place
> already the question is how to ensure compliance.

A) One is too many.

B) Secret or not, financial connections between a member of a
regulatory agency and the industry it regulates is unacceptable and a
blatant conflict of interest.

C) There is no punishment implied or intended. The person choses to
work for the NIH, that precludes him or her from investing in the
industry they regulate. They are free to resign and do whatever they
want with their stock portfolio or they can chose to work for NIH and
divest themsleves of any interests within the industry they regulate.

D) Once the NIH staff is thoroughly separated from any financial
interests in the industry they regulate, "public hysteria" will have no
basis.

E) This will give the NIH the scientific integrity that is has lost.
Science without transparency is just marketting in disguise.

TC

Reply to this Message

Rate this thread: