WASHINGTON — A blue-ribbon panel that examined conflict of interest at the National Institutes of Health found permissive practices that were not detailed in its final report last week, internal agency documents show.
The documents also show that top aides to NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni were allowed to review and comment privately on the panel's draft findings.
Congressional investigators have expressed interest in the circumstances surrounding compilation of the report, issued Thursday. The next day, the chairman of the House Oversight and Investigations subcommittee, Rep. James C. Greenwood (R-Pa), wrote to Zerhouni, seeking "all records relating to the minutes and records of closed sessions of the Blue Ribbon Panel, as well as all drafts of the report."
Greenwood, whose letter was co-signed by the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), said the information from the NIH would aid in "understanding the basis for the panel's observations and findings." Greenwood's subcommittee plans to question Zerhouni and other NIH officials about conflict-of-interest matters at hearings today and next week.
The NIH is the nation's premier agency for medical research, spending $27.9 billion this year. Zerhouni appointed the panel after articles in the Los Angeles Times in December documented hundreds of payments by drug companies to NIH scientists, totaling millions of dollars, and reported that more than 94% of the agency's top-paid employees were not required to publicly disclose outside income.
The panel recommended that top agency officials -- totaling scores of management positions -- be banned from accepting payments of any kind from drug companies. The panel also said that all NIH employees should be prohibited from accepting company stock or stock options as compensation.
On the other hand, the panel said that a majority of NIH scientists should be allowed to accept fees or other income from industry, and that those payments in many instances need not be publicly disclosed.
The internal documents show that the panel was concerned about how little is known about the extent of financial ties between drug companies and NIH personnel. According to minutes of a closed-door meeting in early April, the panel "was surprised to learn that many people do not disclose at all. The panel thinks there needs to be an internal review that picks up significant financial interests."
