Aid Malaria Unit Acts To Regain Credibility As Probe Continues

Ex-chief Erickson pleads guilty, and a University of Illinois scientist is ousted from his laboratory. WASHINGTON--A new team at the U.S. Agency for International Development is cleaning up the mess left by the convicted ex-chief of its malaria research program. But some scientists who are looking for a vaccine for the deadly disease say that the bad odor left by the scandal leaves them wondering where their next dollar will come from. The scarcity of funds will certainly hamper the progress of finding a vaccine to protect against a disease, spread by the Anopheles mosquito, that kills 3 million people a year and may be heading to Western urban areas. But other scientists believe that the uncovering of waste and greed within the malaria research program at AID may be a blessing in disguise by deflating unrealistic expectations and providing needed oversight for the field. The darkest chapter in the program's 15-year history (The Scientist, July 10, 1989, page 1) came to a close in late January, when James M. Erickson, who directed the program from 1983 to 1987, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., to charges of filing false financial statements. He acknowledged that he failed to mention thousands of dollars a month in income paid to him by a research firm that received AID funds, that he filed a false income tax return in 1987 that failed to list $68,000 in income, and that he took money from AID coffers that was supposed to be used to buy research monkeys. Court records indicate that Erickson took as much as $120,000 in AID funds. They suggest that he tried to hide his own wrongdoing from 1985 to 1987 by creating an elaborate smokescreen involving lengthy litigation against AID and accusations of impropriety against friends, colleagues, and mentors. On the advice of his attorney, Erickson declined comment on the case until after his sentencing April 6. He faces up to 10 years in prison and a maximum fine of $750,000. In exchange for having several charges dropped, he has agreed to cooperate in an ongoing investigation into possible wrongdoing by other malaria researchers funded by AID. One scientist, microbiologist Wasim Siddiqui of the University of Hawaii, is scheduled to go on trial October 22 in Hawaii's state circuit court to face charges that he stole $134,000 in AID money that was meant for the university's malaria research project (The Scientist, Oct. 16, 1989, page 8). And George Diaz, a colleague of Erickson's who was indicted for his alleged role in overcharging AID for 600 research monkeys and sharing with Erickson a profit of $54,250 in the sale, reportedly has fled to Guatemala to avoid facing trial. In a related development, the University of Illinois last month took away the laboratory privileges and academic duties of a retired professor of veterinary pathobiology because of his alleged misuse of AID funds meant for malaria research. Miodrag Ristic, professor emeritus at the university, was ordered to vacate his laboratory and give up supervision of students after university officials completed an audit of his finances from 1983 to 1988. Ristic, who had worked with Erickson in obtaining research monkeys, also was ordered to pay back to the university some $26,412 in AID funds awarded for travel. The university received another $6,693 from two organizations with which Ristic was associated. Ristic is being investigated by the Illinois state Attorney General's office for his involvement with Erickson, according to an AID official. University officials say that no other academic staff are suspected of wrongdoing in the case. Although several scientists say they are optimistic about the course of research into a malaria vaccine, they admit that the activities of Erickson and others may have caused legislators to question the validity of the research being conducted with federal funds. AID has spent more than $100 million on the search for a vaccine since the early 1970s, with a peak of $13.5 million in 1985. Funding has held steady in the past few years at $8.7 million. "Those are very real and cogent issues," says Charles Chambers, director of the American Institute of Biological Sciences, which administers the program for AID. "Scientists aren't immune to human nature," he adds. "And there's no vaccine for [greed]." Robin Powell, vice president of evaluation for the National Board of Medical Examiners and a 30-year veteran of malaria research, says that the AID program is a small piece of the worldwide campaign against the disease. "But it has been a very important piece in providing vaccine research," he notes. Powell, who is chairman of a panel formed recently by AID to review its malaria vaccine program, says that rigorous peer review is needed to discourage the type of wild speculation that inflated research results in the mid-1980s and made it appear that a vaccine was in sight. "There were early indications of fantastic potential," he says. "But I don't know many folks now who believe that an answer is right around the corner." Obtaining money to find that answer won't be easy. Powell says that the competition among researchers for limited funds is "very tight." Part of the problem, notes virologist Peter Reeve, a member of the AID panel, is that pharmaceutical companies are unwilling to foot the bill for research when product development and testing are still far in the future. Reeve, a former researcher with Invitron Corp. in Redwood City, Calif., says that scientists may have to settle for small-scale projects until the government's confidence in the AID program is restored. The short-term political prospects are not bright. This spring the Senate appropriations subcommittee controlling AID's budget plans to hold a hearing on the problems plaguing the program. Last fall the General Accounting Office released a report criticizing the review process at AID and the lack of communication within the agency as well as the waste of funds. It recommended that Congress "not make any new, long-term funding commitments" until the Institute of Medicine completes a two-year study of the program. AID officials say they have begun to put back the pieces of a shattered program. Despite the problems during the Erickson era, says AID spokesman Jerry Lipson, "there was no bad science being done." Those in the field, however, say that they are feeling the backlash of past mismanagement at AID headquarters. Biochemist Lowell Hager, who directs the University of Illinois' biotechnology center, says that AID made a steep cut in his funding during a 1988 site visit to the school. Part of the reason for the cuts, he says, were the allegations that a colleague was involved in possible "financial shenanigans" with Erickson. Hager still believes that the research he and others were pursuing "could be the right way to proceed in finding a malaria vaccine." But he says he's no longer willing to count on the federal government for support. "I'm out of the malaria game," says Hager. Many in the field believe it's time for other federal agencies to take on a larger role in the campaign against malaria. As Western companies extend their operations into the developing world, says AIBS's Chambers, they will encounter the diseases that are prevalent there. He says that's why agencies dealing with the health of the U.S. public - such as the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta and the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md. - need to step up their support. But Chambers believes there is still a place for AID in the hunt for a malaria vaccine. Geoffrey Brown covers U.S. District Court for the Journal Newspapers in northern Virginia.

Aid Malaria Unit Acts To Regain Credibility As Probe Continues

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of