NIH Fires Contractor Because of Concerns About Conflicts
NIH on Friday fired Virginia-based Sciences International, a contractor hired to review the risks of chemicals, because of concerns about conflicts of interest, the Washington Post reports. Sciences International -- which had entered the fourth year of a $5 million, five-year contract to administer the Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction at NIH -- had reviewed 20 chemicals to help determine whether they pose risks to reproductive health and infants (Layton, Washington Post, 4/14). Earlier this month, NIH suspended Sciences International after the Los Angeles Times last month reported that the company is funded by more than 50 chemical companies. According to NIH and Sciences International documents, the company has reviewed the risks of chemicals, prepared reports and helped certain members of the scientific review panel at the center. Sciences International also produces the first draft of the report from the center on the risks of certain chemicals. After the Times report, NIH ordered Sciences International to conduct an internal investigation. Sciences International President Herman Gibb in a March 19 letter wrote that three chemical industry associations have paid the company for consulting on chemicals the company also evaluated for NIH: styrene, which is used in plastics; ethylene glycol, which is used in automobile antifreeze and plastics; and soy formula. Gibb wrote that "no conflicts existed that impaired judgment or objectivity" and that Sciences International employees who perform evaluations of chemicals for NIH "have historically been insulated" from other workers. In addition, Gibb outlined steps that Sciences International would take to identify and report potential conflicts of interest (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 4/4). However, Allen Dearry of NIH said, "We still have some concerns about conflict of interest." He said that NIH decided to fire Sciences International based on interviews with company employees and a review of corporate client records (Washington Post, 4/14).
This is part of the Morning Briefing, a summary of health policy coverage from major news organizations. Sign up for an email subscription.
