Conflicts of Interest or Commitment
We will avoid both actual conflicts of interest and the appearance of such conflicts, and devote our primary professional allegiance to the University and its mission of teaching, research, and public service-
This means that each member of the campus community
- Has a primary professional allegiance to the University
Perspective: A Real World Illustration
A February 2004 Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper article reported on the federally-funded National Institute of Health being in tumult over disclosures that hundreds of the government agency's scientists worked as consultants for drug and biotechnology companies or accepted cash prizes from universities that depended on the NIH to fund research.
Long known for impeccable science, The NIH is one of the world's leading research centers, pooling the talents of its 5,000 scientists to confront public-health crises.
The disclosures of potential ethical breaches have generated outraged calls for changes from members of Congress. The NIH has responded with promises to fix the problem.
"It is clear from the cases we have reviewed that some NIH scientists are either very close to the line or have crossed the line," said Rep. James Greenwood, who is leading a congressional probe of outside consulting by NIH scientists.
NIH leaders have been scrambling to reassure the public that research remains untainted by the influence of drug companies seeking to test products in NIH studies or by universities that collect billions from the NIH for research.
Greenwood, chairman of the oversight and investigations subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has been probing consulting contracts between NIH scientists and Pfizer, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca and other major pharmaceutical companies. Committee investigators also are zeroing in on major research universities' practice of granting prizes to top NIH scientists as well as a little-known legal loophole that permits the NIH to boost scientists' salaries far above those of other senior federal employees.
In what committee investigators say was a particularly glaring conflict, a former top NIH official signed off on the 1997 settlement of a university lawsuit against the NIH around the time the school awarded him $40,000 for past research achievements.
A government ethics lawyer testified before Greenwood's subcommittee that within days of the settlement, a top White House administration official pressured him to find a justification for the prize, which is consistent with federal contract administration rules. "I'm the one who signed the approval" for the prize, he said. "It's not a decision I look back on with fondness or pride."
In another case, two top NIH medical researchers became consultants to a firm when a direct competitor already was using the same scientists and the NIH on similar research. The two believed there was no conflict because the consulting work did not overlap initially.
The number of NIH scientists who do outside work for drug or biotechnology companies has ranged from a little more than 100 to more than 200 at any given time. The NIH only recently began asking all its scientists to disclose the compensation they receive as a result of the contracts, so it does not know with certainty how much private money is flowing to its scientists.
The outside consulting took off in the mid-1990s when the cap on outside income was lifted. The explosive growth of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies created sharp competition for top-tier scientists. The then-acting NIH director argued that the changes in ethics rules were needed to attract talent. NIH officials said it would be a mistake to eliminate outside income.
Last Revised 5/23/2006