NIH Fraud Investigators Take On New Roles At Agency, But Remain Determined To Resume Sleuthing Activity

One employment option with appeal for all parties involved assigning Stewart and Feder to a university under the provisions of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA). The IPA allows federal employees to be temporarily assigned to nonfederal organizations for up to four years when it serves "sound public purpose," according to the federal personnel manual. The salaries and benefits of such employees continue to be paid by the federal government. The federal personnel manual also states, "Assignments arranged...to avoid unpleasant personnel decisions are contrary to the spriit and intent of the mobility assignment program." Still, after consultation with Stewart and Feder's lawyers, according to Wald, letters were sent from the HHS general counsel's office to 23 academics who had written in support of Stewart and Feder earlier, at the time of their reassignment. "We asked them whether they would take the lead in seeing whether placement was possible at their university," says Wald, "figuring that the most likely kind of placements would be where there was already somebody interested in [Stewart and Feder's] work." One of the people contacted was Robert Sprague, a professor of psychology at the University of Illinois, Champaign, and a former whistle-blower himself. Sprague received support from Stewart and Feder when he accused University of Pittsburgh psychologist Stephen Breuning of publishing false claims concerning psychotropic medication of mentally retarded people. Breuning pleaded guilty to academic fraud-related charges in United States District Court in Maryland on Nov. 10, 1988. Sprague contacted the person in charge of the university's Program for Cultural Values and Ethics, who expressed an interest in bringing the two NIH scientists to Illinois. Further consultations led to specific ideas for work that Stewart and Feder might undertake once there. One idea, Sprague says, involved Stewart and Feder using their so-called plagiarism machine--a computer system for comparing texts for similarities--to assess the plagiarism "norm" in science. "They were going to look into the base rate of plagiarism with their equipment," says Sprague. "They would take a large database and try to assess in scientific literature just how much is duplicated or copied." The arrangement foundered, however, on misunderstandings over whether the two NIH scientists would be able to maintain their homes in Washington and even their offices on the NIH campus. Stewart and Feder thought, as did Sprague, that they could fulfill their obligations with a part-time presence on the Illinois campus. Wald and HHS, however, expected them to move to the Midwest. "The purpose of an IPA is for an employee to be placed somewhere to gather experiences and do things they couldn't otherwise do in the department," says Wald. It would "make no sense," according to Wald, for the pair to be supervised by the University of Illinois while physically working at NIH. When the terms of the IPA could not be agreed upon, Stewart and Feder were ordered back to work, in new positions chosen for them. Even in their new positions, Stewart and Feder have continued to offer ideas for ways they feel HHS could better use their talents. These include the formation of an Office of Whistleblower Assistance, to be initially staffed by them. Stewart says they have received no response to this suggestion to date. scientific misconduct cases indicate that such a role for them would serve an important purpose. "People who are encountering difficulties and whom the system is working over have turned to [Stewart and Feder] as a resource," says Sprague. "And they've been very, very helpful. They were very helpful to me. The government ought to have some kind of a support system [for whistle-blowers]. And, clearly, they do not have." Sprague says that young scientists often come to him for advice and counsel when they feel they have witnessed or been the victims of scientific misconduct. "Some of these people are very distraught," Sprague says. "They've spent years working, and they see it slipping through their fingers because of some misconduct." Margot O'Toole, the researcher who charged that central data had been faked in a 1986 Cell paper coauthored by Nobelist David Baltimore, emphasized the significance of Stewart and Feder's counsel to whistle-blowers in an interview with The Scientist earlier this year. "They do two very important things," O'Toole said, "and they're the only two people in science who do them. One is that they promote debate: They study cases and see how the principles of science are supposed to apply.... And the other thing they do is provide evaluation and support for whistle-blowers." A prime concern of Stewart and Feder's during their conflict with HHS has been the disposition of their files on scientific integrity cases. For now, these files remain locked up, as discussions continue. One result of the standoff over the files, perhaps unforeseen by HHS, is that the two investigators are now actively seeking new cases. They have held two workshops this fall to explore sexual and racial discrimination, scientific misconduct, and retaliation on the NIH campus. Fliers publicizing the workshops declare that "anyone seeking help in formulating or submitting an [Equal Employment Opportunity] complaint or a complaint to the Office of Research Integrity would be especially welcome." "Being deprived of our data," Stewart explains, "we're sort of wide open for business."

NIH Fraud Investigators Take On New Roles At Agency, But Remain Determined To Resume Sleuthing Activity

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of