FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1522017498> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1522017498 startingPage "111" @default.
• W1522017498 abstract "CASE DESCRIPTION Scientists at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), while government employees earning around $200, 000, were consulting and serving on private firms ' scientific advisory boards. Although such practices were rare before the 1980s, they became increasingly common during the 1990s and into the twenty-first century. These practices raised concerns over perceived, and real, conflicts of interest, when the same firms received grants from (and did research with) the NIH. Defenders of the practice, however, suggested that the development of scientific was enhanced when research scientists had regular contact with private industry. Federal ethics guidelines did not prohibit federal employees from moonlighting in their free time, but did place strict guidelines on such practices. The primary issue in the case is to understand the nature of conflicts of interest, conditions under which knowledge sharing can be appropriate, and when such actions can be inappropriate and potentially illegal. A second issue explores crisis management, when the allegations of impropriety and conflict of interest are leveled at the NIH in December 2003. The director of the NIH has called for a review of all consulting arrangements and the establishment of a Blue Ribbon Panel, but there are concerns that this does not go far enough and that the NIH is trying to avoid seriously dealing with the situation. The primary audience for this case is a junior/senior course in Business Government and Society, or a Business Ethics course. The case would also be applicable in Public Administration classes, particularly where administrative ethics are discussed. The case might also prove of interest in a class on management issues in a graduate program. While both of the above identified issues should be addressed in any discussion, the instructor has discretion regarding which one should serve as the primary focus in a class. This note takes the perspective that students need to explore the positive and negative aspects of government scientists ' involvement with private industry, and potential exposure to real and perceived conflicts of interest. After this is understood, then appropriate responses to the concerns can be evaluated. CASE SYNOPSIS In December 2003, the Los Angeles Times reported that many senior scientists in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had outside consulting and advisory relations with health science and pharmaceutical firms. The story suggested that these arrangements created both the reality and the perception of a conflict of interest, and were in violation of federal ethics regulations. Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Director of the NIH, quickly defended the integrity of his agency and its scientists, and indicated that the health and safety of Americans had never been at risk. Nevertheless, he instituted a review of all consulting arrangements, and announced the formation of a Blue Ribbon Panel that would advise the NIH on ways of dealing with this matter in the future. Various members of Congress jumped on the story, and promised full inquiries into the matter. It was hard to feel sympathetic for the scientists, as many earned around $200,000 in governmental salaries - more than members of congress. Should these scientists be allowed to consult for private firms while government employees? Is the nation's interest best served by allowing (and encouraging) transfer between federal research labs and private firms via such consulting arrangements? At the NIH, there was a need to proactively deal with both the perceptions of conflict of interest, and the potential reality of conflicts of interest. INSTRUCTORS' NOTES The focal issue in the case involves the actions that should be taken by the Director of the NIH, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, to deal with recent press reports regarding conflicts of interest. Before students can reach a thoughtful conclusion on this issue, however, they need to evaluate whether they believe any potential conflicts of interest by NIH scientists should be: a) strictly avoided; b) effectively managed via administrative procedures; c) simply not an issue since we should expect that people will conduct themselves with utmost integrity (and when problems are identified, legal action can be taken). …" @default.
• W1522017498 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1522017498 creator A5032110704 @default.
• W1522017498 creator A5084913883 @default.
• W1522017498 date "2006-01-01" @default.
• W1522017498 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W1522017498 title "Crisis Management at the National Institutes of Health" @default.
• W1522017498 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W1522017498 type Work @default.
• W1522017498 sameAs 1522017498 @default.
• W1522017498 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1522017498 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1522017498 hasAuthorship W1522017498A5032110704 @default.
• W1522017498 hasAuthorship W1522017498A5084913883 @default.
• W1522017498 hasConcept C121426985 @default.
• W1522017498 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1522017498 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1522017498 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1522017498 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1522017498 hasConcept C2776475305 @default.
• W1522017498 hasConcept C2777276634 @default.
• W1522017498 hasConcept C2778137410 @default.
• W1522017498 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W1522017498 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W1522017498 hasConcept C55507652 @default.
• W1522017498 hasConceptScore W1522017498C121426985 @default.
• W1522017498 hasConceptScore W1522017498C138885662 @default.
• W1522017498 hasConceptScore W1522017498C144133560 @default.
• W1522017498 hasConceptScore W1522017498C17744445 @default.
• W1522017498 hasConceptScore W1522017498C199539241 @default.
• W1522017498 hasConceptScore W1522017498C2776475305 @default.
• W1522017498 hasConceptScore W1522017498C2777276634 @default.
• W1522017498 hasConceptScore W1522017498C2778137410 @default.
• W1522017498 hasConceptScore W1522017498C39549134 @default.
• W1522017498 hasConceptScore W1522017498C41895202 @default.
• W1522017498 hasConceptScore W1522017498C55507652 @default.
• W1522017498 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W1522017498 hasLocation W15220174981 @default.
• W1522017498 hasOpenAccess W1522017498 @default.
• W1522017498 hasPrimaryLocation W15220174981 @default.
• W1522017498 hasRelatedWork W121820330 @default.
• W1522017498 hasRelatedWork W162060598 @default.
• W1522017498 hasRelatedWork W1967663529 @default.
• W1522017498 hasRelatedWork W1967767955 @default.
• W1522017498 hasRelatedWork W1973172928 @default.
• W1522017498 hasRelatedWork W2003067693 @default.
• W1522017498 hasRelatedWork W2005371781 @default.
• W1522017498 hasRelatedWork W2034584420 @default.
• W1522017498 hasRelatedWork W2047421414 @default.
• W1522017498 hasRelatedWork W2068041009 @default.
• W1522017498 hasRelatedWork W2161109210 @default.
• W1522017498 hasRelatedWork W2248572903 @default.
• W1522017498 hasRelatedWork W2320709843 @default.
• W1522017498 hasRelatedWork W2522343052 @default.
• W1522017498 hasRelatedWork W275863327 @default.
• W1522017498 hasRelatedWork W28906773 @default.
• W1522017498 hasRelatedWork W2994844034 @default.
• W1522017498 hasRelatedWork W3132050039 @default.
• W1522017498 hasRelatedWork W657319067 @default.
• W1522017498 hasRelatedWork W2072708058 @default.
• W1522017498 hasVolume "12" @default.
• W1522017498 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1522017498 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1522017498 magId "1522017498" @default.
• W1522017498 workType "article" @default.