Adam Andrzejewski of OpenTheBooks reminds us that officials at the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Anthony Fauci chief among them, are receiving royalties from pharmaceutical companies in addition to their government salaries:
We estimate that between fiscal years 2010 and 2020, more than $350 million in royalties were paid by third-parties to the agency and NIH scientists – who are credited as co-inventors.
Because those payments enrich the agency and its scientists, each and every royalty payment could be a potential conflict of interest and needs disclosure.
Recently, our organization at OpenTheBooks.com forced NIH to disclose over 22,100 royalty payments totaling nearly $134 million paid to the agency and nearly 1,700 NIH scientists. These payments occurred during the most recently available period (September 2009 – September 2014).
At least some of those royalties are for things that were developed using funds provided by the NIH:
Among the 51 scientists (doing experiments involving inventions for which they were being paid royalties) was Anthony Fauci, then- and current director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Fauci received $45,072.82 between 1997 and 2004 for a patent license on an experimental AIDS treatment. NIH funded that treatment with $36 million.
That is a corrupt practice. If it is not outright illegal, it should be. At the very least as Mr. A. notes, it is a conflict of interest and should be reported as such.
And people wonder why institutions are losing the confidence of the American people. It’s just not as easy, try as they might, to keep corruption as secret as it used to be.
If you go to the original article.
“Dr Anthony Fauci told the BMJ that as a government employee he was required by law to put his name on the patent for the development of interleukin 2 and was also required by law to receive part of the payment the government received for use of the patent. He said that he felt it was inappropiate to receive payment and donated the entire amount to charity.”
Steve
Quite sure the other 50 or so took similar measures but instead the outrage machine wants to focus on Alphabet Soup instead of finding out. Just like something never happens about Congressional (including aides) inside trading, nepotism, etc.
Regardless of Dr. Fauci’s personal probity, it remains a corrupt practice for multiple reasons and should be prohibited by law if it isn’t already. No research supported with public funds should be eligible for intellectual property protection (other than for “copyleft” purposes), not every public employee will be equally honest, the expectations of quid pro quo should be reduced, and it gives the impression of a quid pro quo, just to name four.
It looks like current law, IANAL, tries to negotiate the idea of the private-public partnership, which at time has some merit, by requiring payment and disclosure including names on patents. Can see how this could be abused. I can also see how their might be some benefits. For rare diseases there may be no commercially viable way to develop a treatment without some input from interested govt researchers. Meh.
Before we fix this could we first do the defense industry where the payouts and costs are in the millions and billions vs $47,000 over 7 years or a $9000 one time payment. Maybe work on the use of public office to make money while still in office? With the above we at least might get a cure for a rare disease. Directing govt money towards the hotel or golf course the political owns doesnt really benefit us any that I can tell.
Steve
No argument that the abuses and corruption extend far beyond the healthcare sector and it’s not just defense, either. The amount of money being channeled to shady NGOs is staggering.
I presume that Drew’s preferred strategy for dealing with these abuses is to reduce the scope of government. Mine is to reduce the incentives to maintain or increase the scope of government.
You would be correct; cleave it off. Because this: “Mine is to reduce the incentives to maintain or increase the scope of government.”……is, uh, well, magical thinking. Politicians and bureaucrats do not have, shall we say, a robust track record of self-policing or adopting disincentives. Pining and waiting for good government, or just the right people in government, is like waiting for Godot.
The difference is that what I advocate has actually been accomplished from time to time but what you’re advocating has not. Ronald Reagan’s administration didn’t eliminate a single federal department and the Federal Record continued to grow.
Just as one example I’m all for improving the Department of Agriculture’s inspection programs. I’m not in favor of eliminating them. Similarly, I think the Food and Drug Administration needs substantial reform but it shouldn’t be eliminated.
As long as you are willing to accept the trade offs. I suspect you are. Neither of you probably has a rare disease for which there is limited treatment. If you want to eliminate this I hope there is an alternate plan.
Steve