From the Baltimore Sun
UPDATE: As seen in this report, the corrupt shrink has plead guilty.
A senior government scientist working in Alzheimer's disease research was charged by federal prosecutors yesterday with accepting $285,000 in consulting fees and travel expenses from the world's largest drug manufacturer without proper approval from his bosses.
The criminal case emerged as a rare example of a top leader in the sciences being accused of breaking the law over a breach of professional ethics.
Leaders at the National Institutes of Health and their overseers in Congress have described the private financial arrangements between drug companies and publicly employed scientists as the worst scandal in the history of the agency.
Pearson "Trey" Sunderland III, chief of the geriatric psychiatry branch of the National Institute of Mental Health, which is part of the NIH, was charged yesterday with conflict of interest. He is accused of accepting payments from Pfizer Inc. without authorization from his superiors and ethics watchdogs. The misdemeanor charge was filed by criminal information instead of by indictment, which usually signals that a guilty plea is expected.
If convicted in U.S. District Court in Baltimore, the 55-year- old scientist from Chevy Chase could be sentenced to up to one year in prison and fined up to $100,000. He is scheduled to make his first court appearance Friday.
His attorney, Robert F. Muse, declined to comment yesterday.
Arthur Caplan, chairman of the medical ethics department at the University of Pennsylvania, called the case "unbelievable. It's just staggering news that will have an enormous ripple effect."
In October, former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Lester M. Crawford pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges, admitting that he lied about owning stock and options in companies regulated by the agency.
This fall, the Los Angeles Times reported that an internal agency review had found that Dr. Thomas J. Walsh, who has helped lead major clinical trials involving cancer patients at NIH, improperly received fees totaling $100,970 from pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies without prior disclosure. Walsh, who has not been charged by federal authorities, remains an agency employee.
NIH officials confirmed yesterday that more than 40 scientists at the agency are thought to have engaged in outside, fee-based relationships with private companies. Almost none of them were charged with crimes. Instead, officials said, the scientists were disciplined internally or retired from the agency.
A spokesman for Rep. Edward Whitfield, a Kentucky Republican who is chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, declined to comment on the charge against Sunderland.
Rep. John D. Dingell, a Michigan Democrat who is expected to take over as chairman of the powerful energy committee in January, said the case raises questions about the management of the National Institutes of Health.
"Sunderland remained on the payroll for years after NIH was given information from this Committee about this conflict and while the Surgeon General sat on an NIH recommendation that he be removed," Dingell, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said in a statement. "Will a criminal conviction for conflict of interest be enough to get someone fired from NIH?"
Other committee officials said the criminal charge helped explain why Sunderland declined to testify before its investigative subcommittee this year.
"It looks like there was a reason that Dr. Sunderland took the Fifth when he came to testify before our committee, and that was because he'd done something wrong," Larry Neal, a spokesman for the energy committee, said in a statement.
Sunderland remains an employee of the National Institute of Mental Health, spokesman Don Ralbovsky said yesterday.
His continued employment baffled some members of Congress.
"Hopefully, this announcement will also clear the way for Dr. Sunderland's termination from the Commissioned Corps," Neal said in his statement. "That as of a few months ago he continued to collect his salary and travel to Hawaii and other locales on taxpayer-funded trips is a total betrayal of the public trust."
Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, said that if Sunderland is not disciplined "even after criminal charges have been brought, we can only conclude that no one is being held accountable, the system is broke and the public trust has been violated."
In a congressional report released in July, Sunderland was accused of accepting more than $500,000 from Pfizer without obtaining required advance approval.
Federal prosecutors declined yesterday to explain the disparity between that accusation and the more limited scope of the federal charge, saying they would not comment beyond the allegations contained in court papers. A message left for a Pfizer spokeswoman was not returned yesterday.
Speaking more broadly about the ethical restrictions on government scientists, Caplan said the recent scandal has put researchers in a difficult position.
"There is a mixed message here, which is: Stay away from the private sector but please work with the private sector," the ethicist said. "A lot of the rules that have been put in after the scandals are too restrictive. ... Saying your secretary's husband can't own stock in a pharmaceutical company doesn't make any sense to a lot of people."
With degrees from Harvard and George Washington universities, Sunderland has been a leader in his field. He has written more than 250 articles, book chapters and reviews, and he co-wrote the book Aging and Mental Health.
As branch chief since 1997, Sunderland supervised his agency's geriatric research, including the creation and management of collaborations with outside partners.
According to court papers filed by prosecutors, Sunderland was required under agency rules to disclose all income earned from outside activities and travel expenses exceeding $260 that were reimbursed by outside sources.
In addition, before engaging in outside employment, Sunderland was required to file a form disclosing the name of the outside organization, the nature of the employment and any anticipated compensation.
In late 1997, Pfizer representatives approached Sunderland about his agency's joining a scientific collaboration, according to court papers. It was to involve researchers at Pfizer and the British company Oxford Glycosciences Limited who were searching for new Alzheimer biomarkers, physical traits in the blood or cerebral spinal fluid indicating the presence and progress of the disease.
Prosecutors allege that Sunderland joined the collaboration without full disclosure. From 1998 to 2003, the branch chief and his staff members, acting in their official capacities, provided Pfizer with advice, expert opinions, statistical analyses and data interpretation.
According to the criminal information filed against Sunderland, Sunderland signed an agreement in June 1998 to serve as a private consultant for Pfizer.
During his five years as a consultant, Pfizer paid Sunderland $125,000 in retainer fees, $35,000 to attend company meetings and additional money for related travel expenses.
According to the criminal information, Sunderland did not disclose to his supervisors at the National Institute of Mental Health the nature of his work and compensation from Pfizer.
No comments:
Post a Comment