Provide names of other journalists involved.
NYU Journalism’s “Investigative Reporting” class, Spring 2011
List date(s) this work was published or aired.
Dec-12
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
Without objectivity, science can’t function. Scientists, including medical scientists, pride themselves on being unbiased. Yet many of these same researchers are receiving tens of thousands of dollars from drug companies — money for speaking engagements and cushy consulting gigs — whose products they’re studying. There are a set of rules that are intended to prevent researchers with a financial conflict of interest from doing biased science. This article investigates how well those rules work, and if not, who breaks them. This article found an unsettling answer. The scientists themselves take money and fail to disclose it. The institutions they work for refuse to declare conflicts of interest as they’re required by law to do. And even the NIH, the government funding agency for medical research, not only turns a blind eye to ethical violations but also violates federal law itself. (See “results” below for more specifics.)
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
I used several databases — ProPublica’s Dollars for Docs, NIH RePORTER, and a database of our own creation — to generate leads for investigation. Using those leads, I turned to FOIA and New York State’s FOIL to gather documentary proof of what appeared to be wrongdoing. NIH refused to turn over certain documents I was entitled to, so I was had to sue (pro se) to force them to disgorge those documents. The case was decided in June 2012 (Seife v. NIH, 11 CIV 6646, SDNY) and the judge ordered NIH to comply with the law and turn over the key documents at the center of the dispute. Without those databases and those documents, there would have been no story.
Explain types of human sources used.
Interviews with principal players, officials at NIH and NYState Department of Health, journal editors, and other experts.
Results:
The article shows that Helen Hayes Hospital and Health Research Incorporated have been violating federal regulations (42 CFR 50.604 and 50.606) with respect to conflicts of interest in federal grants and that NIH itself has been violating ethics rules (5 CFR 2640.303). I also found more than $1 million in drug-company payments to NIH advisory committee members and $1.8 million to NIH grantees in New York State
Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
So far, no followup, clarifications or corrections. (However, the article was published just before the contest deadline.)
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Don’t be afraid to sue if you know a FOIA officer is in the wrong… it’s a lot of trouble, but it’s worth it.