WP: New Ethics Rules Cost NIH Another Top Researcher

[kskiska]

Saturday, April 2, 2005; Page A01

James F. Battey, chief of the National Institutes of Health's high-profile human-stem-cell program and director of that agency's deafness institute, will retire in September after more than 20 years at the agency, citing his inability to comply with strict new conflict-of-interest rules that have roiled the NIH internally and prompted a backlash in the broader science and business communities.

Battey is the fourth high-profile researcher to plan to leave the agency since the new rules were announced in early February and is the first institute director to do so.

Agency scientists say the departures are emblematic of the new reality at NIH, in which rules curtailing what stocks researchers can own and regulating their relationships with drug companies, scientific organizations and even medical journals have set the agency against trends advocating closer ties among researchers, companies and think tanks.

In interviews recently, agency scientists said they have confronted problems as small as being turned down from accepting token travel reimbursements to professional conferences and as large as, in Battey's case, being expected to divest holdings from a trust fund he manages for his family.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19925-2005Apr1.html

[hector459]

1. There are many, many young researchers with great ideas just waiting

for a chance. Don't let this charade fool you. As for the "top" scientists leaving because of the ethics rules...greed is their gift. They are not interested in science for the greater good...just for the privilege it affords them. I say let them go. It will not hinder any research for the nation. Most of the major breakthroughs in biomedical research happen outside of NIH anyway.

[w4rma]

4. No. To be a top-notch scientist it takes decades of experience and

higher education and even then only a few have the open minded, inquisitive ability to make new and important breakthroughs in their fields. When a scientist of this caliber is saying something is wrong, there is something wrong.

[atreides1]

10. It also takes having principles and integrity

And if a drug company is giving you money, free travel, or stock options, it could possibly cloud your ability to judge their product.

The article about Dr. Steven I. Katz is a prime example, could he have stopped the test before the patient died, or did he allow the testing to continue because of his consulting arrangement with the company.

[hector459]

11. That's what they want you to believe.

How many major discoveries that had a direct impact on your health were made by 'top notch" scientists over the past 50 years? How many were made by "accident" or from researchers that you never heard of?

How much meaningful research is conducted at the NIH and how much conducted at the institutions that NIH funds?

[w4rma]

13. "Who" wants you to believe that? As someone with a science background

I know for a fact that it takes decades of hard work, research and experience in order to get to the point where one understand the part of the world that they are studying enough to forge new discoveries.

Imho, you sound very anti-intellecutal, hector459. As if you'd rather see a high turnover of scientists than allow any of them to keep researching throughout their lifetimes.

[Nancy Waterman]

2. This is really, really bad

They are destroying NIH. The morale there right now is awful. My husband works there, and they sent an email around yesterday with a lot of this info in it. The employees are supposed to get permission for any outside work they do, no matter what it is. Talk about intrusive and overkill!!

[enki23]

3. boo motherfucking hoo

hire some scientists who don't come fully loaded with their own extensive stock portfolios.

[w4rma]

5. You think all good scientists should be paupers?

Where is the incentive to be the best in a *very* hard and demanding job?

[enki23]

9. expecting scientists on the government payroll to divest themselves

of holdings which may hinder their objectivity is equal to expecting them to be paupers? since when?

[Thurston Howell IV]

6. Here's an example of the problem

December 7, 2003

BETHESDA, Md. -- "Subject No. 4" died at 1:44 a.m. on June 14, 1999, in the immense federal research clinic of the National Institutes of Health.

The cause of death was clear: a complication from an experimental treatment for kidney inflammation using a drug made by a German company, Schering AG.

Among the first to be notified was Dr. Stephen I. Katz, the senior NIH official whose institute conducted the study.

Unbeknown to the participants, Katz also was a paid consultant to Schering AG.

Katz and his institute staff could have responded to the death by stopping the study immediately. They also could have moved swiftly to warn doctors outside the NIH who were prescribing the drug for similar disorders. Either step might have threatened the market potential for Schering AG's drug. They did neither.

Questioned later, Katz said that his consulting arrangement with Schering AG did not influence his institute's decisions. His work with the company was approved by NIH leaders.

Such dual roles -- federal research leader and drug company consultant -- are increasingly common at the NIH, an agency once known for independent scientific inquiry on behalf of a single client: the public.

Two decades ago, the NIH was so distinct from industry that Margaret Heckler, secretary of Health and Human Services in the Reagan administration, could describe it as "an island of objective and pristine research, untainted by the influences of commercialization."

Today, with its senior scientists collecting paychecks and stock options from biomedical companies, the NIH is no longer an island.

[pop goes the weasel]

7. the new rules are overly strict

Even clerical personnel are having to divest mutual funds. It's an over-reaction to a problem that had gone on too long, but that could have been fixed with less draconian rules.

[hector459]

12. They threw the low-level employees in to have something to hang their

gripes on. Those people in the upper ranks at NIH don't give a damn about the clerical staffs or other support staff...they haven't for years. But one way to get the rank-in-file to fight your battles is to include them in something that really does not impact them and make them think it does. Like estate or inheritance taxes. Then you can get the masses to protest for something they don't even understand let alone something that doesn't affect them.

[pop goes the weasel]

14. no, that doesn't make sense

Read this article from Slate. It explains what happened, and why the particular rules adopted are misguided.

[Thurston Howell IV]

8. Stealth Merger: Drug Companies and Goverment Research

Here's the whole article. It's an eye-opener about the influence of industry over science. This is just one dimension of the problem of the commercialization of knowledge.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1207-03.htm