Recent news reports about the health risks of popular drugs including Celebrex and Vioxx have fueled debate about whether the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is doing its job.
But what of that other arm of government, charged with advising the nation’s physicians on how best to treat diseases such as Alzheimer’s, high cholesterol and childhood depression? Guidance from the National Institutes of Health greatly influences everyday medical decisions.
How trustworthy is that advice? It turns out that a number of the NIH’s top scientists are moonlighting for the very companies their recommendations impact.
Today, Los Angeles Times reporter David Willman writes that at least 530 NIH scientists have been paid large consulting fees, or been given stock or stock options by biomedical companies during the past five years.
Willman, who revealed the extent of industry ties to NIH scientists a year ago, continues his investigation of the outside business arrangements. Among those he cites::
Dr. P. Trey Sunderland III, a senior psychiatric researcher, took $508,050 in fees and related income from Pfizer Inc. at the same time that he collaborated with Pfizer — in his government capacity — in studying patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Without declaring his affiliation with the company, Sunderland endorsed the use of an Alzheimer’s drug marketed by Pfizer during a nationally televised presentation at the NIH in 2003.
Dr. Harvey G. Klein, the NIH’s top blood transfusion expert, accepted $240,200 in fees and 76,000 stock options over the last five years from companies developing blood-related products. During the same period, he wrote or spoke out about the usefulness of such products without publicly declaring his company ties.
Such collaborations are encouraged by the NIH, writes Willman, although the extent of the private arrangements apparently came as a surprise to NIH director Dr. Elias A. Zerhouni. In response to Congressional critics earlier this year, Zerhouni said that he supported tighter restrictions on outside employment. Yet the U.S. Office of Government Ethics “found that 40 percent of the 155 outside payments to NIH employees it sampled randomly had not been approved or accounted for within the agency,” Willman reports.
In addition to Congressional criticism, the practice of outside consulting angers some in the public health field. Willman quotes Dr. Philip R. Lee, who served as assistant secretary of health in the Johnson and Clinton administrations. “Damn it, if you work for NIH, you’re not working for a drug company, you’re working for the public,” said Lee. “When you have people who have a split allegiance, undisclosed to the public, to me it is just unthinkable.”
The Bush administration has come in for criticism from liberals for blurring the lines between science and ideology. Just as troubling is its willingness to blur the lines between reputable science and unfettered profiteering. David Willman has shown just how often that happens.
–Susan Q. Stranahan
Susan Q. Stranahan wrote for CJR.