1204

NEWS

Washington Perspective

Reassignment for NIH’s fraud hunters

In other countries, scientific fraud is merely a publiccuriosity and a side show of scientific history. Here it hasreceived attention on the national political stage, scholarsmeet to discuss it, and government agencies routinely policeit. The difference cannot be traced to national differentials in

deliquency in the lab. Rather, prime time for this subject inAmerica was achieved in large part by two maverick staffmembers of the National Institutes of Health, Ned Federand Walter Stewart. Before their misconduct studies, whichbegan about a decade ago, they inconspicuously conductedresearch on snails in a basement laboratory of the NationalInstitute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases(NIDDKD). Now Feder and Stewart have been ordered toreturn to conventional duties at NIH. They say they willappeal, but concede the odds for a reprieve are poor.Though reviled by many of their colleagues, the pair

quickly acquired an extraordinary place in the federalbiomedical establishment as self-directed investigators ofscientific misconduct, darlings of the press, and advisors toCongressman John Dingell, a formidable figure in theaffairs of NIH. It was their investigations and agitationsconcerning a 1986 paper in Cell co-authored by NobelistDavid Baltimore that created the celebrated "Baltimore

Case", in which a co-author of the renowned scientist wasaccused of fabricating data. Baltimore’s defence of his

colleague and denigration of the postdoctoral fellow whoinitially questioned the Cell paper were strongly criticised byNIH’s official apparatus for investigating misconduct-butonly after Feder and Stewart drew Congressman Dingellinto the case. Before Dingell’s involvement, the case was enroute to official oblivion. Reverberations from that affair

eventually toppled Baltimore from the presidency ofRockefeller University. Other cases followed, some of littlepublic interest, while others received national attention,including that of Robert Gallo, the nationally hailed AIDSresearcher. NIH’s disposition to exonerate Robert Gallo ofmisconduct in the identification of the AIDS virus waschallenged by Feder and Stewart, in alliance with othersceptics. The exoneration was overruled at a higher level.

Feder and Stewart’s intimations of endemic official

complacency about scientific misconduct prodded NIH toestablish a so-called fraud shop to investigate and prosecuteallegations of misdeeds. Buoyed by a network of admirersthroughout the scientific community, Feder and Stewartbecame the confessors of scientific "whistleblowers" in

many universities.In view of the fury the two evoked among many

influential figures in the biomedical sciences, their enduringindependence on the NIH staff was a modern wonder ofscience. In the mid-1980s, when James B. Wyngaarden wasdirector of NIH, he acknowledged that they were a bit of atrial, but said he considered their investigations a usefulcontribution to the maintenance of scientific integrity.Wyngaarden said he also saw value in permitting scientiststo follow their own interests. Many highly accomplished

researchers-Nobelists Walter Gilbert and John Edsallamong them-argued that the exposures to the underside ofscience were wholesome and overdue.The immediate superiors of the Feder-Stewart team cited

pragmatic reasons for tolerating them at NIH. Under theweb of laws and rules protecting government employees,they said, legal combat on a massive scale would be requiredto dislodge Feder and Stewart from their self-assigned fraudbeat. The present director, Bernadine Healy, took no publicnotice of them. However, she was not uninterested in theFeder-Stewart presence in her organisation. Healy wasaccused by their Congressional patron, Dingell, of being softon misconduct. Following several clashes with Healy on thissubject, Dingell urged Bill Clinton to find another NIHdirector.On the NIH organisation list, Feder was the medical

officer and head of a two-person unit, the BiophysicalHistology Section, Laboratory of Analytical Chemistry, atNIDDKD. Stewart, with the rank of research physicist, wasthe other person. After their interests evolved from snails tomisconduct, their official work plan was rewritten to includethe study of "Professional practices among scientists,professional misconduct, and the accuracy of the scientificliterature". As recently as August, 1992, their work wasrated "excellent", the same rating it had received for years.On April 9, however, after a decade of tolerating Feder

and Stewart’s self-appointed role as monitors of the integrityof science, the NIH management directed them to storeaway their copious archives of misconduct, turn in theircomputers-including a vaunted "plagiarism detector"-and return to regular duties.

Departing from their previously exclusive focus onmisdeeds in the natural and physical sciences, Feder andStewart waded into a plagiarism controversy over a 1976biography of Abraham Lincoln by a recognised Lincolnscholar, Stephen B. Oates, of the University ofMassachusetts at Amherst. Through computerisedcomparison of Oates’ texts and scores of writings by otherLincoln historians, Feder and Stewart sifted out what theydeemed to be hundreds of instances of plagiarism. Theydelivered their findings to the American Historical

Association, which last year had exonerated Oates of

plagiarism, though faulting him for inadequate attribution.The involvement of the NIH employees then came to the

attention of another Lincoln scholar, US Senator PaulSimon, author of a respected work on Lincoln as an Illinoislegislator. In a letter to NIH management in March, Simonwondered why researchers at the world’s leading centre ofbiomedical science were engaged in a literary controversyunrelated to science. A few weeks later, Feder and Stewartwere formally advised by their superior that their work"over the past several years in the area of scientific practice,including the analyses of plagiarism, has progressivelymoved outside the mission, responsibility and authority ofthe NIDDKD". A reference to strained resources was

appended to that observation, all leading to theannouncement of new assignments: Stewart to a laboratoryat NIH, Feder to reviewing grant applications.

In proper government formalese, the letter added,"Should you have any information regarding scientific

misconduct, you should turn over such allegations to the

1205

Office of Research Integrity or to the Office of the InspectorGeneral in accordance with applicable NIH and DHHS[Department of Health and Human Services] policy".

Daniel S. Greenberg

Round the World

WHO: New look fails to impressA "new partnership" between the World Health

Organization and its member states was proposed by DrHiroshi Nakajima, WHO Director-General, in his addressto the annual World Health Assembly now in progress. "Nosingle entity can do the job alone", he said. "This implies anew social covenant, a new international bargain; it meansmutual responsibility, respect and sharing... By promotingrespect for ethical principles and for the human rights ofindividuals and communities alike-core values for thededicated health profession worldwide-I intend with anew partnership to lead WHO to the fulfilment of itsconstitutional mandate and moral mission: the building ofuniversal peace through health for all."

If the address also contained appropriate observationsabout WHO’s activities, eyebrows were raised at its fulsomerhetoric. In promising next year’s WHA a.first report on his"reform process" started two years ago-a working group isstill drafting recommendations-Nakajima, seeminglyconfident of Assembly endorsement of his second five-yearterm, said: "I intend to tighten up management andadministration and to revitalise WHO’s structure to achievegreater efficiency, transparency and accountability ...WHO must be accountable to member states financially andtechnically". By the time of his second report, in 1995,management and operations would be "truly unified toserve the health of all peoples of the world".He believed that "collective leadership best serves

accountability". To that end, WHO’s six regional directors,together with the (five) Assistant Directors General, wouldbe personally involved in the Global Committee on Policiesto be set up at headquarters.As in many another concern when affairs go manifestly

agley, the DG and his team also envisage, say WHO sources,setting up a committee-15 wise men, independent ofWHO and governments and chosen in consultation with the

principal donor nations and those countries with majorWHO programmes. They would determine how to

implement the Executive Board’s recommendations on"adapting WHO to global change"-a process the outsideworld might have supposed to be ongoing and natural.A few details have emerged, also, of the "administrative

measures" announced as impending by Nakajima afterpublication last month of the external audit report (seeLancet Apr 10, p 949). Intramural changes involve

abolishing the office of Deputy Director-General, whoserecent incumbent, Dr Mohamed Abdelmoumene,unsuccessfully challenged the DG for the top post and wasrelieved of his duties last August (see Lancet Apr 24, p 1082).He is now expected to be offered "some high-levelposition". Dr Yuji Kawaguchi, who rose rapidly in theheadquarters hierarchy to the key post of director ofPlanning, coordination, and cooperation, has now beenappointed to head a newly created Division of InteragencyAffairs. There has been some redefinition of responsibilities,too, in the case of Mr Edward Uhde, director, budget andfinance. The functions of Mr Harwant Singh Dhillon,

director, health education, will be absorbed by the Divisionof Health Promotion when he retires later this year. Critics

ofNakajima’s style of management had hoped at one pointto see all three gentlemen induced to take early leave of theorganisation-because within the respective realms of

responsibility of the three men there had occurred obviousbending of the rules whereby inducements became availablein support of the DG’s campaign for a second term.

Talk about "revitalisation" comes when WHOheadquarters is still in the throes of acute demoralisation. Ofthe 513 replies received to a questionnaire distributed by theStaff Association to all 1507 HQ staff, 55% rated theorganisation’s effectiveness as "worse" and 67% regardedits leadership as meriting the same categorisation. 4% and2% answered those two questions with "better". For 73%staff morale was "worse".The Assembly’s first act was adoption of a resolution (125

votes to 3 with 26 abstentions) barring the Federal Republicof Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) from its

proceedings.Alan McGregor

Eight years after the disaster and four years after thegovernment received the final settlement of US$470 millionfrom Union Carbide, not a single surviving victim of theBhopal gas disaster has received any compensation. There isno hope in the near future either. The claims courts set up bythe government decided to dispose of the death claims first(so far over 15 000) before worrying about claims for injuriesor disability for survivors (over 600 000). The claims courtshave managed to clear only 2740 death claims, awardingcompensation to only 755 of these as of the end of March.The average sum awarded has been slightly above Rs100 000 GC4000). When the courts will begin, let alone settlesatisfactorily, claims by survivors is anybody’s guess.Meanwhile about 5 victims die every week, while thousandsof poverty-stricken ones continue to suffer.

Since March the government has even stopped giving thepaltry interim relief (Rs 200 a month) to victims. Thegovernment scheme for this relief was launched in March,1990, and was scheduled for three years, in the belief that theclaims would be cleared in this time. Last year, the

government of Madhya Pradesh state closed down the last 3of the 48 sewing centres started for gas-affected women (atoken gesture for their economic rehabilitation). 70industrial sheds constructed to provide 10 000 jobs forvictims remain unused because of bureaucratic apathy.

Victims and their families are piqued at the sums awardedin compensation-Rs 100 000-300 000 for death; Rs50 000-200 000 for permanent total or partial disability;Rs 25 000-100 000 for temporary total or partial disability;Rs 400 000 for injury of utmost severity; up to Rs 20 000 forminor injuries; and up to Rs 10 000 for loss of belongings.What has really made it a scandal is the governmentclarification in its notification that "the scheme does not

envisage payment of interest on the amount awarded ascompensation". Such interest coupled with the massivedevaluation of Indian rupee vis-a-vis the US dollar would

by now have added several hundred million rupees to theoriginal sum.

For almost three years, most of the medical research

pertaining to the incident at Bhopal has been at a standstill.In March, 1990, a large number of researchers at the Indian

India: The second Bhopal tragedy