1 Boring Old Man

More on Public Trust and Conflict of Interest
NIMH: Director’s Blog
Posted by Thomas Insel
June 15, 2010

^{A recent story in the Chronicle of Higher Education implied that a quid pro quo relationship existed between me and Dr. Charles Nemeroff, formerly of Emory University. This story suggested incorrectly that Dr. Nemeroff helped me get a position at Emory in 1994, and that I assisted him in securing a position at the University of Miami after he was sanctioned for violations of financial conflict of interest rules at Emory. By switching from Emory to Miami, Dr. Nemeroff escaped a 2 year ban on applying for NIH grants, imposed by Emory…}

^{Having been one of the most outspoken proponents for developing tougher conflict of interest policies at NIH, the allegations that I would help anyone avoid penalties struck me as surreal. Here are the facts:}

^{1. Dr. Nemeroff was chairman of psychiatry at Emory School of Medicine in 1994 when I was recruited by the Vice President of Health Affairs to be Director of the Yerkes Primate Center, an appointment outside the School of Medicine. To my knowledge, Dr. Nemeroff had no significant impact on my selection.}
^{2. Did I assist Dr. Nemeroff in getting a job at Miami? When Dean Goldschmidt of the University of Miami contacted me for a recommendation, I agreed to speak with him informally by phone. NIH institute directors are routinely consulted about recruitments in academia, especially for department chairs. My policy has been not to provide recommendations, but I respond to requests for information. In this case, the Dean had a specific question about Dr. Nemeroff’s eligibility to apply for NIH grants. I explained that the penalties were imposed by Emory and according to the current policy, Dr. Nemeroff was not prevented by NIH from applying for grants.}

^{While my response to Dean Goldschmidt was simply to describe the facts, in retrospect it would have been better to refer the Dean’s specific question about Dr. Nemeroff’s grant eligibility to someone from the NIH Office of Extramural Research, which coordinated the investigation of Emory University. But let’s be clear — my intent in this conversation was to explain a federal policy, not to exploit a policy that would help any investigator avoid penalties.}

^{I realize that my tenure at Emory and a previous association with Dr. Nemeroff will, for some, be “guilt by association.” To avoid such allegations, I recused myself from all matters involving Dr. Nemeroff during the conflict of interest investigation at NIH. While I have had no contact with Dr. Nemeroff for many months, to avoid any possibility of a perception of either positive or negative bias, I will recuse myself from future applications or NIH matters involving Dr. Nemeroff. Note however, that I must comply with the current policy which permits someone to apply for NIH funding unless they have been de-barred…}

His comment, "Having been one of the most outspoken proponents for developing tougher conflict of interest policies at NIH, the allegations that I would help anyone avoid penalties struck me as surreal," is a bit odd. That was actually the whole point of the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education [As He Worked to Strengthen Ethics Rules, NIMH Director Aided a Leading Transgressor]! They thought it was pretty surreal too. I have no bone to pick with Dr. Insel, but it’s very hard to read his email exchanges [who is not telling the truth? yes…] and still believe that this rebuttal is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I expect he was in a bind. He was Nemeroff’s friend and colleague, probably in Nemeroff’s debt. He’s right, he would have been amiss to "black ball" Nemeroff, given that the NIMH had taken no formal action. But the warm exchanges and meetings with Nemeroff, the congratulations [with an exclamation point], the comments about a "new beginning," his seeming knowledge of Nemeroff’s impending appointment in Miami in his communication with Helen Mayberg, and Nemeroff’s enthusiastic report that he’s "already talking to Linda Brady [at the NIMH]  about grants" neutralizes Insel’s claims of being uninvolved. I think this blog post is what Dr. Insel now wishes had happened.

Dr. Insel says, "Note however, that I must comply with the current policy which permits someone to apply for NIH funding unless they have been de-barred." That brings up a very interesting point. The two year ban on Dr. Nemeroff’s participation in NIH/NIMH grants was imposed by Emory University [with their backs to the wall and their grants on hold]. But, as everyone points out, the ban doesn’t apply to other Institutions. I guess it didn’t occur to anyone that Dr. Nemeroff would move to another School to try to get around the ban. Just like in 2004 when Emory got Nemeroff to sign an agreement that he would take only $10,000/year from a drug company, it didn’t occur to anyone that he would simply ignore the agreement. But that’s Charlie Nemeroff in a nutshell – a level of unimaginable Hubris. It’s so regular that you should bank on it. And Nemeroff is still on two NIMH Review Panels, looking at the grants submitted by other people!