FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 22, 2004
 Contact: Josh Freed
(202) 225-4431

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO) released the following opening statement for the third hearing into conflicts of interest and the National Institutes of Health:

This is the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee’s third hearing on conflicts of interest and the National Institutes of Health. The significance of this issue cannot be understated and I expect that today’s hearing will provide us with a fuller understanding of the problems.

The first hearing gave this committee the opportunity to hear from members of the Blue Ribbon Panel and Dr. Zerhouni, NIH Director. At that time, I expressed concerns with the scope of the Blue Ribbon Panel’s recommendations. I am pleased that Dr. Zerhouni has again agreed to appear before the subcommittee and has worked to address some of these issues.
After reviewing some of these proposed changes to the NIH rules that are being contemplated, I am pleased the NIH leadership takes these issues seriously and is endeavoring to insure the integrity of its research. I remain concerned, however, about the absence of a bright-line test for receipt of outside industry compensation. At the same time, we must maintain the integrity of the NIH as the nation’s premier research institution.
Today we will have the opportunity to examine the additional steps proposed by NIH regarding conflicts of interest and to learn more about one of the cases examined in the last hearing.

As I said at the previous hearings: these conflicts of interest deserve scrutiny and must be resolved. The ethos of this organization must change. These new recommendations that Dr. Zerhouni will present are a necessary step, but there must be a comprehensive effort towards implementation and inconsistent standards across the 27 institutes must be amended. I am confident that the scientists at NIH can adequately address the committee’s concerns and put a better system into place. The question that remains is, how do we accomplish this? NIH may still need to strengthen some of its recommendations to achieve this, and I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses about that.
I would also like to add that this subcommittee has a long history of examining these issues and does not take its investigative role lightly. The subcommittee’s ability to interview witnesses and uncover issues is part of its very core and I am glad that Mr. Azar is here today to answer our questions about government witnesses and HHS.

We have been told that conflicts of interest at NIH are relatively rare, but even rare cases should be prevented. The public’s trust in this remarkable institution is at stake. These scientists, who are entrusted with taxpayer dollars, must answer to their institution and protect its integrity. These scientists also should remember that their work is the hope for many Americans who are ill or who are taking care of a family member with an illness. Their scientific work, for some Americans, is the difference between life or death. A conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest could have devastating effects. NIH’s mission is “to uncover new knowledge that will lead to better health for everyone.” But when there are conflicts of interest, how can we be sure that this mission is being carried out?

I am still concerned about NIH’s ability to acquire outside compensation information and data on hours spent from its scientists, regardless of their place in the hierarchy. As many on this committee have said, disclosure is key. For as delicate an issue as compensation, disclosure is how we prevent conflicts of interest. Centralization of ethics reviews and creation of an electronic database that NIH is proposing is an important first step, but as they say the devil is in the details.

As the committee has discovered and we will discuss today, there is an astounding amount of activity that has not been under scrutiny, or even disclosed. This is an unacceptable situation, and I look forward to working with NIH on this issue and thank the chair for holding the hearing.

###