NIH Suspends Contractor Because Of Concerns About Conflicts

Medical News Today, Staff
Published April 9, 2007

NIH temporarily has suspended a federal contractor that evaluates the risks chemicals pose to reproductive health for the agency's Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction because of concerns about conflicts of interest, the Los Angeles Times reports (Cone, Los Angeles Times, 4/4). The Times last month reported that the contractor, Virginia-based Sciences International, is funded by more than 50 chemical companies. According to government and Sciences International documents, the company has evaluated 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 f rom the center on the risks of certain chemicals (Cone, Los Angeles Times, 3/4). After the Times report, NIH ordered Sciences International to conduct an internal investigation. Letter 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. NIH spokesperson Robin Mackar said that NIH has not made a decision on whether to lift the stop-work order on the $5 million contract with Sciences International. NIH has established a new advisory panel to investigate all toxicology program contracts for conflicts of interest. The panel plans to report the results of the investigation to NIH by July 1. Reaction Environmental Working Group Executive Director Richard Wiles said of the letter from Sciences International, "What this really revealed is a broader need for an independent investigation." Carl Cranor, an environmental legal expert who teaches philosophy at the University of California-Riverside, said that the letter focused "on narrow conceptions of conflict of interest" and said "they didn't violate them." Cranor added that Sciences International is "supposed to be an independent arbiter of what the science shows, but it also works for industry and I think it's very difficult to do both of those tasks credibly" (Cone, Los Angeles Times, 4/4). Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=67167