Government scientist accused of profiting from selling human tissue samples

It has been reported that a senior researcher at the U.S. National Institutes of Health has possibly profited by as much $285,000 from the sale of human tissue samples collected from the public for research.

According to investigators the transfer of the samples to the drug giant Pfizer would not have received approval and the issue raises questions about a lack of supervision at the agency and a violation of the agency's ethics.

It seems Dr. Trey Sunderland, an Alzheimer's disease expert at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has received $517,000 since 1999 in consulting fees or expense reimbursements from Pfizer without any record of agency approval for the payments.

Apparently Dr.Sunderland's behaviour has been questioned before this incident and now the House Energy and Commerce Committee want to know exactly how much of the $517,000 paid by Pfizer was for giving the company access to spinal fluid and plasma samples in connection with Pfizer's work on an Alzheimer's drug.

The figure of $285,000 is being suggested was personally pocketed by Sunderland for the samples.

The transfer of tissue samples was apparently done under a 1998 material transfer agreement between the NIMH and Pfizer.

Dr. Sunderland is chief of the geriatric psychiatry branch at the NIMH, and NIH scientists are not permitted by law to engage in outside employment with pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies in their private capacities.

Republican Ed Whitfield who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee's oversight and investigation subcommittee says NIH scientists are not allowed to profit personally from their jobs and their patients by providing irreplaceable government assets.

Sunderland's lawyer denies there was any wrong doing and says his client only received fees for consulting and lectures and this was known to NIH and is permitted under NIH rules.

The NIH’s position on ethics is quite clear and states that any conflict of interest resulting in an individual personally profiting from official government research activities will not be tolerated.

The NIH says that the specific consulting arrangements in question, had they been known to NIH, would not have been approved under the present or previous ethics regulations and outside consulting connected to an NIH employee’s official government duties has always been prohibited at NIH.

In August 25, 2005, the NIH implemented comprehensive ethics rules that make it clear what NIH scientists can and cannot do in regard to outside activities and they remove any ambiguity about what is allowed or not allowed.