I think you may be right that the rules should be relaxed, perhaps requiring senior employees to place their stocks in a blind trust or some other financial mechanism to distance them from their assets.
But I am skeptical that the Conflicts of Interest requirements are the real holdup of appointing a new director. Is there really no prominent scientist who would jump at the opportunity to direct the largest biomedical funder in the world?
I also wonder if eminent scientists, like Langer, are the best options for running these organizations. It seems like the role of director is more of administration and management, whereas a seasoned bureaucrat would also be a strong pick.
I'm speaking out of complete ignorance. The NIH organizational structure is foreign to me, but I think this is an interesting conversation about maintaining ethical standards in research while still encouraging good science.
All I can say is that there are rumors from well-placed people that conflict of interest policies have indeed been an obstacle. I can't say more than that.
It is also true that eminent scientists may not be the best option to run a large bureaucracy. All I'm saying is that there are many people who shouldn't be categorically excluded from consideration.
I think you may be right that the rules should be relaxed, perhaps requiring senior employees to place their stocks in a blind trust or some other financial mechanism to distance them from their assets.
But I am skeptical that the Conflicts of Interest requirements are the real holdup of appointing a new director. Is there really no prominent scientist who would jump at the opportunity to direct the largest biomedical funder in the world?
I also wonder if eminent scientists, like Langer, are the best options for running these organizations. It seems like the role of director is more of administration and management, whereas a seasoned bureaucrat would also be a strong pick.
I'm speaking out of complete ignorance. The NIH organizational structure is foreign to me, but I think this is an interesting conversation about maintaining ethical standards in research while still encouraging good science.
All I can say is that there are rumors from well-placed people that conflict of interest policies have indeed been an obstacle. I can't say more than that.
It is also true that eminent scientists may not be the best option to run a large bureaucracy. All I'm saying is that there are many people who shouldn't be categorically excluded from consideration.