NIH, Ethics and Commercial Funding

It seems that the NIH conflict of interest issue will be with us for some time. The cancellation of a meeting to discuss guidelines for herpes treatment of pregnant women because most of the panel have received funding from big pharma is just the latest episode in a long running saga. So how do we overcome the problem that most research funding is going to come from industry and a good deal of the best and brightest in health research work for the Government? If the latest ehtics bill to come out of the Senate is anything to go by, the legislative tendency (when they get around to it) will be to ban all forms of commercial funding - and that would be a disaster for all concerned. I have a different idea.

What about taking a leaf out of the book of military research? I'm based in the DC area and so I am geographically very close to NIH, NNMC, WRAMC and USUHS. Now for those of you not familiar, these last three are Navy Medical, Walter Reed and the military medical school - all of which conduct a significant amount of research that is funded by the pharmaceutical and biotech industries - and ethics isn't an issue over there. So how do they do it? The answer is the Henry M. Jackson Foundation - a non-profit that is the source for all funding of medical research in the military and a mechanism that has been used by big pharma for years (decades). You want your research done at a military establishment? You set up the research and channel the money through HMJF. You get access to the researchers you want - but they can't be your spokesman. That job must be done by someone outside the military using the research produced (and published) by your military researcher.

Surely a similar model could be worked into the NIH? Wouldn't it be possible to separate the funder from the researcher so that the research is completed in an environment that is independent and yet scientifically sound and relevant to the needs of the community. The problem at NIH isn't that researchers are biased - they aren't - it is that their results are perceived as biased because these people go on to stay at the NIH and get paid as consultants to industry. With an effective middle-man to manage the funds the issue of NIH funded research being biased could be effectively removed.

I'm not suggesting this would be an easy fix as there are a number of very strong vested interests who rather like the current system. But if meetings are going to be cancelled and research is going to remain unpublished because the funding source attracts accusations of bias, then the system has to change. Perhaps HMJF could simply be expanded to cover all Government institutions - not just the military?