Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

Bernadine Healy, the newly confirmed director of the US National Institutes
of Health, has been accused of ‘curious and bizarre’ actions that interfered
with the NIH’s campaign against fraud in science. She also faces claims
that she swept a case of scientific misconduct under the carpet last year
at a clinic where she was formerly director of research.

The attacks came last week when Healy faced the feared committee of
Congressman John Dingell, which has investigated alleged fraud within the
NIH and the scientific community as a whole. Dingell lived up to his reputation
as impresario of the best political theatre in Washington. Healy, for her
part, nearly upstaged Dingell with an impassioned, angry defence. But an
investigator said the committee intended to pursue the matter further.

According to Dingell, Healy has intervened several times in the work
of the NIH’s Office of Scientific Integrity since her appointment this summer.
The OSI investigates alleged misconduct: among its most sensitive cases
are those of Robert Gallo, of the National Cancer Institute, and David Baltimore
of the Massachusetts Institute of Science and Technology.

Healy’s main actions within the OSI have focused on its former acting
director, Suzanne Hadley. Hadley told the committee: ‘I have suddenly found
my integrity impugned and my career prospects in doubt.’

Hadley, who was handling the Gallo and Baltimore cases, resigned last
month. Healy had asked her to hand over notes of her telephone calls on
the Baltimore case. She had also insisted that Hadley’s work be supervised
by the OSI’s new director, which Hadley refused to accept.

The second set of accusations concern the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio,
where Healy was formerly director of the research institute. An unnamed
scientist at the clinic is currently being investigated by the OSI. Healy
has removed herself from the administration of the OSI to avoid possible
conflict of interest in this case. Last year, Healy chaired an inquiry into
the scientist but found only ‘sloppiness’. She admitted to the committee
that this first inquiry had itself been ‘sloppy and inadequate’, but insisted
that her own concerns had prompted a further inquiry that led to the full
investigation.