GOVERNMENT ETHICS:
Supersized Lab Draws Fire at NIH's Environmental Institute

The director of the National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) environmental health institute has landed in hot water over the management of his personal lab. David Schwartz, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) since May 2005, broke ethics rules, according to memos obtained by Congress, when he brought in "guest researchers" from his former employer, Duke University. The problem, along with overspending, led NIH to take the highly unusual step this spring of barring Schwartz from his own lab for about 3 months and sending about a dozen researchers back to Duke. The case raises questions about what limits NIH should apply to labs run by high-ranking officials.

The "de-Duking" process, as one NIH official described it in an e-mail, is one of several issues involving the NIEHS chief brought to light by Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) last week. The senator also took Schwartz to task for earning about $150,000 as an expert witness in asbestos lawsuits while he was NIEHS director, despite advice from NIH ethics officials that he drop this work. These and lesser ethics problems are detailed in an 8-page, 21 June letter from Grassley to NIH director Elias Zerhouni.

Schwartz and NIH officials say misunderstandings underlie many of these problems. "I think it's clear that Dr. Schwartz did not understand the rules," says NIH deputy director Raynard Kington, referring to the lab staffing.

Schwartz, a pulmonologist specializing in environmental lung diseases, is known for discovering the role genetic variation plays in responses to inhaled endotoxins. At Duke's medical center, he was head of a department, had six research grants, and ran a lab with more than 30 people, he says. The terms of his appointment as chief of the $642 million NIEHS included a lab with 16 staff members. Because he retained a faculty position at Duke, he also agreed to recuse himself from matters involving the university.

Negotiations for the transfer of the Schwartz lab to NIH followed the usual process for incoming directors, says Michael Gottesman, NIH deputy director of intramural research. The new lab was placed under the authority of another institute to provide independent oversight. Several directors now have labs, from "very small to moderate size" of a dozen people or so, Gottesman says (see table, below).

SIZE OF SELECTED NIH DIRECTORS' LABS Director Institute Scientific Staff J. Niederhuber     NCI 9 A. Fauci     NIAID 15   E. Nabel     NHLBI 11   J. Berg     NIGMS 6 G. Rodgers     NIDDK 8 F. Collins     NHGRI 17   D.Schwartz     NIEHS              26 (now 14) Balancing act. NIEHS director David Schwartz, like other NIH institute chiefs, juggles administrative duties and leads a research group. Schwartz's lab was trimmed after he violated agency guidelines. CREDIT: NIH

But after a senior NIEHS official raised questions, NIH concluded that not all of the guest appointments were covered by Schwartz's waivers, Kington says. Kington also learned that Schwartz had exceeded his lab budget of $1.8 million by more than $4 million, which Kington attributes to a mistaken assumption that his group would not be charged for using NIEHS core facilities. To make "a clean break," Kington says, Schwartz resigned as head of his lab in February, while NIH appointed an NHLBI staffer to administer the lab and moved all 12 or so guest researchers back to Duke.

There were consequences for the guests, some of whom had been at NIEHS as long as 18 months, Schwartz says. At least two fellows had to shut down mouse experiments, according to an NIEHS scientist who asked not to be identified. Schwartz says that "it was disruptive in lots of ways," but that the trainees have found other labs and are "progressing."

The letter from Grassley also questions Schwartz's work as an expert witness on asbestos cases for law firms. Kington says this involved clinical evaluations that Schwartz had done before he came to NIEHS. Although "many at the agency had grave concerns about the activities," they felt they "could not force" Schwartz to stop, Kington says. Schwartz has discontinued the law-firm work.

This is not Schwartz's first brush with controversy. One of his first proposals at NIEHS was to privatize the institute's journal, Environmental Health Perspectives. He backed off after environmental groups and many scientists protested. Two senior scientists within NIEHS offer a mixed assessment. People may find Schwartz's style aggressive, but "he's really pushing us" in a good way, one says, adding that he hopes the ethics revelations won't lead to Schwartz's departure. Meanwhile, Grassley has asked NIH for more documents--including information on similar conflicts, if any, involving other directors--by 10 July.