Re: National Institutes of Health clears most researchers in probe

From: Richard Ulrich (Rich.Ulrich_at_comcast.net)
Date: 02/24/05 

Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:46:45 -0500

On 24 Feb 2005 20:08:15 GMT, "Darwin's Radio Labs"
<Darwins.Radio.Labs@nospam.invalid.46745.org> wrote:

> New NIH rules ban scientists from accepting even uncompensated
> professorships and board positions with professional societies on
> their own time.
>
> Question is - regardless the cause, does it help science in any way?
> If not, what are the motives?
>
> The rules are also forcing employees and their family members to sell
> stock holdings.
>
> According to MSNBC News http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7014396/ - most of the
> researchers who were under investigation for allegedly engaging in
> secret deals with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have
> already been cleared. The unexpected finding that most allegations
> were actually the result of errors by government investigators has
> undermined the rationale behind recent decision to impose severe
> restrictions on the personal activities and finances of all of the
> agency's more than 5,000 employees.
>
> One could take the view that one dishonest scientist is enough and 20%
> is way too many. But if new rules are the function of the percentage
> of those who breaks the existing ones then these new rules are -

Where does this number come from, "20% [dishonest] is way
too many"?

The newspaper report that I read had a 20 in it. As I recall, out of
100 scientists who were originally blamed and "investigated", there
were 20 who actually had some unreported income or investments
or connections.

Oh, I see, that is what the online report says, too.

Have you ever filled out one of those financial ethics forms?
I have, and I was glad (ha!) that I did not have much money or
investments or much extended family, so I could easily say No.
(If you say Yes, then they want you to list details.) Offend your
sense of privacy? Waste your time?

I would be curious to hear, as a follow-up, how many of those
"failures" were folks who could frankly be blamed for
covering up an "unethical interest," as opposed to being
lazy; anti-government; borderline psychotic; ...

> 1) A form of punishment - punishment of everyone regardless of guilt.
> 2) Reflection of inability to cope with public hysteria, amply fueled
> by newspapers.

Yep.
>
> In this light the whole discussion whether the new rules are
> reasonable is pointless. If there are reasonable rules in place
> already the question is how to ensure compliance.

Shouldn't we say something about the Vice President who
still collects money from his former company that is the
largest government contractor (I think) in the war?
 - and that company keeps getting in the news for making
improper charges.... but then they get to collect their
fees, despite the laws... How does that work?

Oh, there's Tom DeLay, packing an ethics committee with
his own acolytes, and changing the rules to avoid further
ethics charges (he has been found guilty enough to be
chastised, for 3 separate things),... and trying to change
the laws back in Texas so that politicians there can prevent
his future prospective indictments.... 

-- 
Rich Ulrich, wpilib@pitt.edu
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html

Relevant Pages