Barton Condemns Lax Enforcement of Ethics at NIH Opening Statement of U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas Even after concluding that Dr. Trey Sunderland was guilty of “serious misconduct” warranting termination, senior National Institutes of Health officials approved five separate taxpayer-funded trips for him, including this one in Hawaii. Dr. Sunderland has invoked his rights under the 5th Amendment in order to avoid telling Congress about his work, and is believed to be the first NIH scientist in history to do so. WASHINGTON – U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, delivered the following statement today as part of an Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing entitled, “Continuing Ethics and Management Concerns at NIH and the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps”: “I think this is a very important oversight hearing as we begin to move toward reauthorization of the National Institutes of Health. Hopefully we will have a legislative hearing next week and go to markup very soon. “At our last NIH oversight hearing in June, Dr. Thomas Insel, the Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, told us that when it comes to ethics, NIH has to be better than clean. In his words, “It has to be Camelot.” “Unfortunately, one of the scientists at his institute, a multiple and serious violator of the ethics rules in the eyes of the NIH, Dr. Trey Sunderland, still comes to work at NIH everyday and collects his salary. Until recently, Dr. Sunderland was going on taxpayer-funded trips to Hawaii and other locales, was making thousands of dollars in outside income – all with the blessing of Dr. Insel and his managers. Although he proposed Dr. Sunderland’s termination to the Commissioned Corps in November 2005, Dr. Insel also recommended a $15,000 retention bonus for Dr. Sunderland in January of 2006. That just doesn’t make sense. Dr. Sunderland continues to have access to confidential data. Dr. Sunderland continues to have access to NIH staff and property. We now know that Dr. Sunderland has shipped his personal effects to his future employer at taxpayer expense. Without any waiver or approval from NIH, he took tissue samples and patient-related records, and used NIH staff to help box it and send it to his future employer in New York State. “Everybody here remembers Dr. Sunderland’s visit, when he invoked his Fifth Amendment right under the Constitution against self-incrimination. This is his right and we honor it, but we believe he is the first NIH scientist to ever take the Fifth Amendment rather than tell Congress what he’s been doing. He refused to answer questions about what he did with spinal fluid samples from his patients who participated in a taxpayer-funded study. That seems to have made relatively little difference to Dr. Insel. Before the Committee staff raised questions, did Dr. Insel or other supervisors treat Dr. Sunderland differently after the hearing? Apparently not. “Dr. Sunderland is also a Commissioned Corps medical officer. Did the Corps do anything to uphold its high ethical standards? There is little evidence that suggests that they’ve done so. “Now we have another case of an NIH scientist, Dr. Thomas Walsh of the National Cancer Institute, whom NIH found to be a serial violator of ethics rules. Following the same road as Dr. Insel of the NIMH, the Director of the NCI, Dr. John Niederhuber, has proposed Dr. Walsh’s termination but he’s done little else that would reflect the changed circumstances. The Corps likewise so far has failed to act at the beginning of this year when it had a chance to do so. “That’s not Camelot, it’s not even close. This is really an ethical Potemkin village where –a hollow system appears to provide the illusion of integrity, but transgressors never leave. Of the over one hundred individuals who were identified by the NIH itself several years ago as violating NIH’s policies, not one of them, according to the information I have, has been terminated. Not one. The vast majority have had nothing worse happen to them then get a reprimand and continue in their current jobs. Some have voluntarily left the agency and sought employment in the private sector. Only two are still under serious investigations so far as we can tell. The NIH has changed its rules and that’s a good thing but they don’t appear to really be doing anything to enforce the old rules against their most serious transgressors’. “So while NIH leaders like Dr. Insel acknowledge the ethics rules to the subcommittee, apparently behind closed doors at NIH is a very different message that’s being communicated -- one that appears to look past or even encourage these transgressions. The shenanigans involving Dr. Sunderland using NIH resources and NIH staff to further his post-NIH employment did not occur in a vacuum. They occurred in an environment of support, where he felt comfortable enough to operate openly. Dr. Insel did finally take some steps to restrict Dr. Sunderland, but only after the Committee staff raised questions and concerns. “I think it’s time to tear down the illusions of ethics and build up a real information and management structure that protects the integrity of NIH and the Commissioned Corps. It may also be time to revisit the question of whether we need a uniformed public health service at all. The GAO in 1996 reported that the functions of the Commissioned Corps are essentially civilian and could be performed efficiently and well by doctors and scientists without uniforms, at much less cost to the taxpayers. “This is a time for serious rethinking of our ethics and management structure at the NIH. There should be and must be the evidence of real enforcement. I think it’s absurd that taxpayers have been footing the bill for nearly two years for Dr. Sunderland, even though he wants to leave and the NIH wants him out. “We are going to reauthorize hopefully the NIH and help make it a stronger scientific agency in the very near future. It really does deliver for the American people. But NIH needs to regain the public trust. This is only going to happen if there is meaningful enforcement. Sensible and decisive leadership on such enforcement is a much needed first step and I hope that we can see the seeds of that with this hearing with that Mr. Chairman I yield back and thank you for your leadership.” ####