Pharma's Physician Sluts

[Guest guest]

Sorta like the US government. They commit crimes. They break

laws. They lie. They get away with it.

Partly because we, the people, let them.

Conflict of interest rules with teeth and oversight are needed at NIH and

FDA. But that is just a piece of it. Scientists need better salaries so

that " revolving door " nonsense going straight to the industry

to lobby approval isn't so appealing and bribes and payoffs from Pharma

are less attractive. It's not merely about the stick of punishment for

those who commit crimes.

(Although, on another topic, I think the stick of punishment is all that

people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Bush and all deserve for the lies

that have brought suffering and death to many millions. From the peoples

of Iraq to soldiers to millions living with HIV denied access to care to

pay off pharma yet more.)

M.

***

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1155AP_Research_Ethics.html

Tuesday, September 12, 2006 · Last updated 2:00 a.m. PT

AP: Researchers escape ethics punishment

By RITA BEAMISH

ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

The majority of federal scientists investigated for improperly accepting

personal money from drug companies or biotechnology firms escaped serious

punishment, and investigators declined to proceed with several cases

involving possible crimes, according to the National Institutes of

Health.

Only two of the ethics cases brought to light in the past two years

inside the NIH remain open. In both cases, the scientists remain on the

federal payroll.

Most of the rest got off with just written reprimands or verbal warnings

for failing to get proper permission for their outside work or were

allowed to retire, NIH spokesman Burklow told The Associated

Press.

The NIH's handling of the ethics cases has renewed questions inside

Congress about whether the government's premiere medical research agency

is serious about policing conflicts of interests among its scientists who

take private sector money.

Of particular concern is the case of Dr. Trey Sunderland, a prominent

Alzheimer's disease researcher who took hundreds of thousands of dollars

in money from a drug company with which he also collaborated in his

government capacity.

Sunderland continues to collect a federal check nearly a year after he

was recommended for termination. He already had offered to resign two

years ago to take a private sector job but the government wouldn't let

him, according to correspondence obtained by AP.

" In spite of the public changes that have been made at NIH, there

really does not appear to be a cultural change where the institution and

the members of the institution condemn the kind of behavior that

apparently Dr. Sunderland has exhibited, " said Rep. Joe Barton,

R-Texas, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. " It's

really, really disappointing. "

One of Barton's subcommittees planned to hold a hearing Wednesday to

press for more answers.

Burklow said Sunderland remains at NIH " because there is an open

investigation. "

Officials have told Congress that the Department of Health and Human

Services' internal watchdog and the Justice Department both are

investigating the scientist.

NIH investigated 103 employees after congressional hearings in 2004 and

disclosures in the Los Angeles Times revealed many scientists weren't

reporting their lucrative consulting deals with private companies as

required. Forty-four employees were found to have violated ethics

rules.

AP asked NIH to give an accounting of how those cases were

resolved.

Burklow said two scientists got no punishment at all for infractions

described as minor. Six left the agency before punishment could be meted

out, and 10 were referred to the Health and Human Services inspector

general for possible criminal investigation, he said.

The IG, the agency's internal watchdog, declined to pursue eight of those

referrals, leaving them instead to face NIH administrative penalties such

as suspensions ranging from a week to 45 days, Burklow said.

The rest, well over half, simply got written reprimands or verbal

warnings.

Sunderland remains under investigation by the inspector general, who also

is reviewing one other case. A government official, speaking only on

condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, identified

the other researcher as Dr. Walsh, a prominent cancer

scientist.

Sunderland and Walsh both committed " serious misconduct, " so

grave that they would be fired if they were civilians, according to

reports written by NIH ethics officers.

Both are members of the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, which

provides medical help during disasters. So NIH sent its findings to that

agency, which has yet to act on the NIH recommendations.

Both Sunderland and Walsh did private work for drug companies on

government time, didn't seek approval or report their ties, and conducted

research that overlapped their official duties in violation of federal

law and regulation, the NIH ethics reports alleged.

Since the public revelations, NIH has banned outside consulting by agency

scientists, a once widespread practice that allowed some researchers to

eclipse their government salaries with corporate income.

Walsh, according to the NIH report, failed to report more than $100,000

in income from Merck & Co. and other drug companies between 1999 and

2004, and did not take leave time to do the consulting.

Reached at his NIH office on Monday, Walsh declined comment.

Sunderland ran afoul of the rules in earning more than $600,000 from the

Pfizer Inc. drug company between 1996 and 2004 for consulting and

lectures. NIH and congressional investigators also cited irregularities

in his transfer of human tissue samples to Pfizer.

Lawyers for both scientists said they put in exceptionally long hours at

their government jobs and that clerical problems were at least partly to

blame for the lack of reporting.

Sunderland's lawyer said his client never intended to hide his dealings

with Pfizer and that the government's failure to let him retire has cost

him private sector opportunities and control of his Alzheimer's

research.

" The bureaucratic inaction ... with respect to Dr. Sunderland's

retirement request has unreasonably interfered not only with Dr.

Sunderland's career but also with his important Alzheimer's

research, " Attorney Muse wrote Congress on Monday.

Sunderland tried to retire two years ago and initially won approval in

November 2004 from Dr. Insel, director of the National Institute

for Mental Health, according to documents obtained by AP.

But less than six weeks later, NIH's deputy director Raynard Kington

recommended that the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps deny

Sunderland's departure, citing the ongoing investigation and potential

" adverse effects " on the Corps' operations.

NIH recommended to the Corps in November 2005 that Sunderland be

terminated, but he continues today on the government payroll.

Corps spokeswoman Pearson said the agency has taken no action

yet because there are " other reviews " it must coordinate

with.

The Corps is concerned about the allegations surrounding Sunderland and

Walsh, " and will take appropriate action should wrongdoing be

found, " she said.

Sunderland's problems could also impact the prestigious Journal of the

American Medical Association, which requires authors to reveal any

relevant financial affiliations at the end of their articles.

The scientist and an assistant did not disclose their Pfizer consulting

agreements, in an April 23, 2003, article based on their Alzheimer's work

with Pfizer.

Executive Deputy Editor Phil Fontanarosa said a correction explaining the

Pfizer ties " most likely will be in order, " once the government

investigation concludes and JAMA editors review the outcome.