ABOUT

Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.

DONATE TO EWG!

Help us protect your health and environment!  Please donate $5 to EWG today.

GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS

Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.

ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL

Delivered by FeedBurner

 Enviroblog in your Reader

Get EWG widgets & blog badges.

Join EWG's live chat with Chef Ann Cooper

School lunch: More fruits & veggies, please!

Texas Schools are Drilling for Dollars

Why do blowouts take so long to fix?

SEARCH ENVIROBLOG

FIND PAST POSTS

select month November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004

FEATURED

Support the 2010 Safe Cosmetics Act. It's Urgent.

Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?

Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure

So what products CAN we use?

Test Your Knowledge of Cosmetics Safety: 8 Myths Debunked

EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series

EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure

EWG on TV

Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill

Toxic Tub?

Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water

Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen

BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics

Ask EWG

What can I do about fluoride in my water?

What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?

What is "fragrance"?

Which infant formula is best?

Are stainless steel water bottles safe?

Is mineral-based makeup safer?

Ask EWG Archives

PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS

Breast Cancer Fund

The Daily Green

Eco Child's Play

Environmental Defense Fund

Green Moms Carnival

Grist

Healthy Child, Healthy World

Huffington Post Green

NRDC's Switchboard

Organic.org

Safer States

TreeHugger

TALK TO US

Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.

« California Affirms Low Limit of Rocket Fuel in Water Supplies | Main | DeLay Targeted Asbestos Firms for Donations »

NIH Cracks Down on Scientists' Conflicts of Interest

As of March 7, 2005, National Institute of Health (NIH) employees are no longer allowed to accept consulting fees and stock options from pharmaceutical companies. A group of scientists have formed an association, the Assembly of Scientists, to roll back this commonsensical conflict of interest rule. (L.A. Times March 3, 2005 Home Edition).

In 1995, NIH director Harold E. Varmus made it easier for NIH employees to profit from ties to private industry by rescinding a rule barring scientists from accepting consulting fees and stock options from private companies. According the Assembly of Scientists, approximately 40% of NIH employees will suffer financial consequences from the recent ban on these “perks” of the job. Estimated in the tens of millions, the total sum paid by private companies to NIH scientists remains unknown because NIH policy encouraged scientists not to disclose outside sources of income (L.A. Times December 7, 2003 Home Edition).

In response to recent criticism in a 2004 GAO report, NIH for the first time created an official protocol for identifying and avoiding conflict of interest in its medical research. Still, the NIH relies on an “honor system” to prevent its scientists from engaging in research that may pose a conflict of interest. According to new rules published in January 2005, “the peer review system relies on the professionalism of each reviewer to identify to the SRA [Scientific Review Administrator] any real or apparent conflicts of interest that are likely to bias the reviewer’s evaluation of an application proposal.”

The NIH is not the only government agency trying to combat rampant conflict-of-interest problems. Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Science Committee recently criticized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for trying to test pesticides’ health effects on poor children by paying their parent $900 each. Pesticide manufacturers partially funded the study, donating $2 million to the EPA in exchange for what they refer to on their website as “leverage.”

Without strict rules prohibiting collusion between government-funded science and private industry, the public now must sift through government-sponsored studies and examine who provided the money for the supposedly “unbiased” research. Shouldn’t the public have the right to government research that’s free from the effects of industry influence peddling?

« California Affirms Low Limit of Rocket Fuel in Water Supplies |