1 of 1

No

Write now Article Tools

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the research arm of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. As such, their primary mission has to be to represent the public in areas of dispute regarding public health. In order to clearly and appropriately represent the public interest, there must be no blurring of the line between what is public interest and what is private interest. If NIH scientists were allowed to consult for private drug manufacturers, it would compromise their credibility as representatives of the public interest.

There is an inherent conflict of interest between the general public and the private financial interests of drug manufacturers, as I hope I can demonstrate in two examples included in this note.
Medical research like all science can be considered an "epistemology" , or "way of knowing." , Much like a court room determines truth based on accepted procedures, or points of law, for events that involve human interaction, a scientist, or research organization determines truth based upon accepted methods of "scientific inquiry". In fact, these two types of epistemology are related. The conclusions reached by scientific inquiry may be used in legal cases, and in fact legal issues, such as court complaints and cases, may be the driving factor behind scientific inquiry as it is conducted by the National Institutes of Health.
As such, one would no more want his medical researcher to consult for another party, than he would want his lawyer to consult for an opponent in the legal system.
In the system of drug approval, it is always assumed by the Food and Drug Administration ( Also a part of the U. S. Department of Health ) is the party representing the public interest in issues and cases involving drug development, safety and licensing. At the basis of their role in these endeavors, it must be able to be demonstrated that there is demonstrable objectivity. If objectivity is not assured, then the FDA's role, like all of the Department of Health is also in question.
In fact inherent in the concept of "scientific inquiry" as an epistemology practiced within and outside the NIH, objectivity is a fundamental concept and component.

What about the case where the NIH has developed a drug or technology about which there is no particular point of contention about safety or efficacy? On such example is the discovery and development of Taxol, or Paxilitaxol as it has also come to be known. Researchers at the National Cancer Institute, one of the

• 1
• 2
• 3
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Should National Institutes of Health scientists be allowed to consult for private drug manufacturers??
We want to hear your view. Write now!