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.