National Institutes of Health unveils tighter new ethics code

• Questions about whether federal scientists should also be paid consultants for pharmaceutical companies have extended to scientists in universities and medical centers who receive federal research funds.
• The worry is that some scientists could wind up having a bias, however unwitting.
• As an example: A researcher who gets federal funds for conducting a clinical trial of a drug also may consult for the company that makes the drug.
• The NIH relies on universities to police their scientists for conflicts, according to Norka Ruiz Bravo, NIH deputy director for extramural research.
• The NIH is scheduled to announce new ethics regulations today.
• Some academic scientists feel that the collaborations with industry are a badge of honor.
• "If scientists are asked to consult, it means that these companies realize they have something important to say," said Dr. Fred Goodwin, a professor of psychiatry at George Washington University and former scientific director of the National Institute of Mental Health.
• Waxman, in a letter to Zerhouni, questioned whether such academic scientists are scrutinized enough.
• His letter also cited other issues: Last year, 29,961 academic scientists were called on to participate in reviewing the 70,000 grant applications submitted by scientists throughout the country.
• "Are scientists who review NIH grants allowed to have financial interests in companies that could be affected by the outcome of NIH-funded research?"
• NIH's Ruiz Bravo said peer-reviewers are supposed to disclose conflicts and recuse themselves if there are any.
• Dr. Solomon Snyder, director of the department of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore, said the relationships between scientists and drug companies have become important.