Government Scientist faces ethics charges - (this is what stands in the way of cures)
 

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/health...ch_Ethics.html

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 · Last updated 2:12 p.m. PT

Government scientist faces ethics charge
By RITA BEAMISH
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

With a rare criminal case against a senior federal researcher, prosecutors are sending a message to scientists on the government payroll: Making money from companies on the side can land you in big trouble.

Dr. Trey Sunderland, a leading expert on Alzheimer's disease at the National Institutes of Health, found that there was no wiggle room in his outside work for a pharmaceutical company, even in a time when rules were far more lax than today.

The U.S. attorney in Baltimore charged Sunderland with misdemeanor conflict of interest Monday for his private consulting with Pfizer Inc., that earned him $285,000 and improperly overlapped his official duties.

Sunderland was researching early indicators of Alzheimer's both as an NIH collaborator with Pfizer and a paid Pfizer consultant on work "directly related" to his government job, according to the court papers filed with U.S. District Court in Baltimore.

The scientist failed to obtain the proper approvals from his supervisors or disclose the work to NIH as was required, the prosecutors said.

Last year, NIH banned such outside work for drug and biotechnology companies following its own internal probe that was prompted by congressional investigations and disclosures in the Los Angeles Times. The probes revealed some researchers took advantage of a permissive environment which was designed to encourage public-private collaborations that might speed disease cures.

Lucrative moonlighting was still allowed during Sunderland's 1998-2003 deal with Pfizer, but the prosecutors allege his consulting gave him a financial interest in the work he did at taxpayer expense.

"This should put other federal officials on notice that you can't disregard the rules," said Vera Sharav, president of the nonprofit Alliance for Human Research Protection.

She and other critics contend that weak enforcement feeds conflicts even when ethics rules are in place.

After NIH's internal investigation, most of the 44 researchers found to have breached ethics rules got written or verbal reprimands or were permitted to retire. An agency survey found that many scientists consider the new rules so restrictive that they are considering leaving NIH.

The charge against Sunderland, with a maximum sentence of one year in prison and a $100,000 fine, was contained in a criminal information rather than indictment, a route that often precedes a plea deal. The U.S. attorney's press office characterized it on Monday as a felony count but corrected that Tuesday, stating it is a misdemeanor charge.

Sunderland did not return a telephone message and his attorney, Robert Muse, declined comment Monday.

He remains on the government payroll although he asked to retire after House investigators began unraveling his Pfizer financial ties two years ago.

Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee which launched the probe called Monday for Sunderland's dismissal from his post at the NIH's National Institute of Mental Health. Otherwise, Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., said in a statement, "We can only conclude that no one is being held accountable, the system is broken and the public trust has been violated."

"Will a criminal conviction for conflict of interest be enough to get someone fired from NIH?" said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich.

NIH officials declined to comment.

The court documents allege Sunderland participated as a government employee "in a particular matter in which, to the defendant's knowledge, he had a financial interest."

The conflict began in 1998 when Sunderland was making arrangements for NIH to work with Pfizer on Alzheimer's research. At the same time, he began negotiations to be a paid consultant on the same project, prosecutors allege.

Sunderland, 55, is to appear Friday for arraignment.

The case is believed to be the first conflict prosecution against a federal scientist since 1992 when NIH researcher Prem Sarin was convicted of embezzling a drug company payment to NIH that was intended to help with AIDS research.

Naughty
 

Naughty government employee breaching his contractual obligations by indulging in the evil pursuit of unbridled capitalism. Off with his head or better still send him to Venezuela to spend six years under rampant socialist/fascist Chavez.:D

The guy should resign his obviously low paid salaried government job and apply to work in the private sector where his knowledge and expertise will be soaked up by the bio-tech industry, and where his remuneration package will be substantially improved.;)

What stands in the way of cures are not misdemeanours such as this incident, but unnecessary authoritarian regulatory control by governments which has stagnated real progress under the Bush policy of no research involving ESCR since 2001. Fortunately government controls are slowly but surely being eroded as the American people have voted overwhelmingly for ESCR to be inclusive in future government policy. No doubt helped by the efforts of Michael J Fox and a myriad of other pro embryonic stem cell research supporters.

The private sector will now have the shackles removed from their ankles once the new legislation is passed into law and progress should intensify in a competitive market economy.:)

GO HARD SCIENCE

The way that I look...
 

at this is that ideas go both ways, and a top-notch federal employee could get that one little idea that he /she has been looking for , by some loose lipped private employee, at lunch when the "tight-lipped" conduct of the "consultant meeting" is over.
Of course, industry pays well for it's consulatations, and it is a conflict of interest between the two parties, if the federally paid for data is just given freely to industry, who could eventually build lucrative patents with, as a result of such collaborations.
All I selfishly care about, in my advanced PD state, is "can SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE, create a procedure that will allow ME to spend the rest of my life outside the reach of the PD "monster". Do I care (at this stage :rolleyes: ) about somebody getting wealthy through conflict of interest. No, as long as it's all about PD:D :D :D ! cs