LymeNet Home LymeNet Home Page LymeNet Flash Discussion LymeNet Support Group Database LymeNet Literature Library LymeNet Legal Resources LymeNet Medical & Scientific Abstract Database LymeNet Newsletter Home Page LymeNet Recommended Books LymeNet Tick Pictures Search The LymeNet Site LymeNet Links LymeNet Frequently Asked Questions About The Lyme Disease Network LymeNet Menu

LymeNet on Facebook

LymeNet on Twitter




The Lyme Disease Network receives a commission from Amazon.com for each purchase originating from this site.

When purchasing from Amazon.com, please
click here first.

Thank you.

LymeNet Flash Discussion
Dedicated to the Bachmann Family

LymeNet needs your help:
LymeNet 2020 fund drive


The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations.

LymeNet Flash Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» LymeNet Flash » Questions and Discussion » General Support » NIH ethics rules changed

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: NIH ethics rules changed
lou
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 81

Icon 1 posted      Profile for lou     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 

US health agency softens disputed ethics rules

(2005-08-25)

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. National Institutes of Health issued revised ethics regulations on Thursday with new rules on investments and consulting in the health industry that are aimed at cleaning up the agency's image.

The rules, some of which were softened after reviewing complaints, require certain top-level employees and their family members to get rid of investments that might be seen as affecting their judgment.

They also prohibit employees from consulting for pharmaceutical, biotechnology or medical device manufacturing companies, health care providers or insurers, and research institutions that receive NIH grants.

"We have a balanced set of conflict of interest rules that protect the integrity of NIH and its ability to provide the American public with an unbiased and trusted source of scientific and health information, while preserving our ability to recruit and retain world class scientists and staff," NIH director Dr. Elias Zerhouni said in a statement.

NIH employees who had criticized the initial rules gave cautious approval.

"In general, I think they have done a good job," said Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, part of a group called the Assembly of Scientists that had criticized the initial ethics plan.

"Pending actually reading the new rules, we are generally optimistic. We think they have adopted almost everything that the Assembly of Scientists says the rules should have."

The rules were first announced in February after reports of one NIH researcher who was paid $500,000 over 5 years by a private company, and other similar cases.

But many scientists chafed under some of the restrictions, which required employees to list their stock holdings and even sell off shares to prevent potential conflicts of interest. They said secretaries, support staff and others who did not make financial decisions should not be bound by the rules.

They also complained that top-notch researchers and administrators would be scared off by some of the requirements.

The NIH is considered the world's leading research institution, with 18,000 employees and a $28 billion annual budget. Much of its money goes to fund research at universities, or to begin developing products that are later licensed to commercial companies.

Researchers often sacrifice the high salaries of private practice or working for a drug company in exchange for the prestige of working at NIH, as well as what is seen as an opportunity to do some good in the world.

But some of it staff had relationships with potential beneficiaries that critics considered too cozy.

The NIH said employees need to be able to take part in professional associations and "genuine teaching opportunities."

"The basic prohibition on outside consulting by NIH staff with substantially affected organizations, such as pharmaceutical, biotechnology or medical device manufacturing companies, health care providers or insurers, and supported research institutions remains unchanged," the NIH said in a statement.

"Divestiture of all holdings in substantially affected organizations in excess of $15,000 per company will be required for all senior NIH employees and their spouses and minor children," it added.

"All other employees may be required to divest if, after review, a potential conflict resulting from their holdings or those of their spouses and minor children would impede their ability to do their government job."

Certain employees will also need to file reports disclosing their investments, and prior approval will be needed for any cash awards, the NIH said.

Copyright 2005, Reuters


Posts: 8430 | From Not available | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NP40
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6711

Icon 1 posted      Profile for NP40     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lou:

"The basic prohibition on outside consulting by NIH staff with substantially affected organizations, such as pharmaceutical, biotechnology or medical device manufacturing companies, health care providers or insurers, and supported research institutions remains unchanged," the NIH said in a statement.


Lou, note that "patients" or "general public" isn't included. Basically, what their saying is that it's pretty much business as usual with a few minor changes. Their leaving enforcement of "conflict of interest" up to the NIH itself.

Oh yeah, right, you betcha', that'll really happen.


Posts: 1632 | From Northern Wisconsin | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
brainless
LymeNet Contributor
Member # 6771

Icon 5 posted      Profile for brainless     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is there anything we can do to ensure compliance? Can we be watchdogs and when we find noncompliance, is there anything we can do about it? The conflicts of interest report at the LDA site is a place to start. Does anyone have any ideas on this?

b


Posts: 210 | From lalaland | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lou
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 81

Icon 1 posted      Profile for lou     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Unfortunately, this is not the kind of information that is available to the general public. Think it is probably kept very hush hush.
Posts: 8430 | From Not available | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | LymeNet home page | Privacy Statement

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3


The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:

The Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey
907 Pebble Creek Court, Pennington, NJ 08534 USA


| Flash Discussion | Support Groups | On-Line Library
Legal Resources | Medical Abstracts | Newsletter | Books
Pictures | Site Search | Links | Help/Questions
About LymeNet | Contact Us

© 1993-2020 The Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.
Use of the LymeNet Site is subject to Terms and Conditions.