scienza

Five years ago after a scandal erupted over employees who were consulting for drug companies, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) banned most such relationships by in-house scientists. A new study finds mixed effects. The rules apparently haven't hindered scientific productivity, the survey finds. But a whopping 80% of NIH scientists find the rules too restrictive, and many say they have hampered the agency's ability to recruit new faculty members.

NIH banned most industry consulting by its staff members after a newspaper investigation found that some senior researchers were earning large sums of money from companies. Intramural scientists warned that the strict rules would drive staff away. Darren Zinner of Brandeis University, Eric Campbell of Massachusetts General Hospital, and colleagues have now published the first peer-reviewed study on the rules' impact. It is based on a survey from October 2008 through January 2009 sent to 900 senior investigators and administrators; 70% responded.

Not surprisingly, industrial ties are now fewer—only about 33% reported an industry relationship, down from about half before the 2005 rules. This hasn't affected the average researcher's output of papers and patent applications, the survey finds. And nearly half of those surveyed say the new rules have improved NIH's public image. But 80% say the rules are too stringent, 77% think it is now harder to accomplish NIH's mission, and 66% are less satisfied with their jobs.