Undeterred by NIH’s failure to address a set of questions submitted seven months ago, a House oversight committee is persisting with its investigation into handling of sexual harassment complaints at institutions that receive federal funding.
The original letter—sent to NIH in August 2022—contained 30 questions focused on what the committee described as the “pervasive culture of sexual harassment” in biomedical research.
The letter NIH had apparently ignored was intended to gauge whether its procedures for responding to misconduct and harassment are sufficiently robust (The Cancer Letter, Sept. 16, 2022).
“Having not received a response to our letter on Aug. 11, 2022, and pursuant to Rules X and XI of the U.S. House of Representatives, we write to request information from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) about its handling of sexual harassment complaints,” Republican House members wrote in the March 14 reminder letter.
The committee’s probe—initiated in 2021—was sparked by The Cancer Letter’s investigation into the case of Axel Grothey, an oncologist who was able to retain an influential advisory position at NCI even after being disciplined by three states for inappropriate sexual behavior that involved a mentee (The Cancer Letter, May 28, 2021).
The text of the March 14 letter is posted here. The committee’s new deadline for a response from NIH is March 28.
The chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House E&C Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations once again asked NIH to respond to the same 30 questions that had been submitted previously.
Government agencies rarely blow off questions from congressional oversight committees, even in today’s deeply partisan Washington. However, this has been happening with unusual frequency at NIH over the past year, sources say.
Insiders say the decisions on responding—or not responding—to congressional correspondence is usually made at the HHS level. Presumably, this means that NIH isn’t in full control of its correspondence.
Earlier this year, NIH told the E&C Committee to resend any letters that didn’t receive a timely response and, in the committee’s view, still required a response.
Thus, this week, the committee has resent three letters to NIH. In addition to the sexual harassment letter, NIH’s unanswered mail includes inquiries on scientific management review and what the committee described as “misallocated funds and grants.”
The March 14 letter on sexual misconduct, signed by Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), and H. Morgan Griffith (R-VA), is addressed to NIH Acting Director Lawrence A. Tabak. The previous letter was signed by the committee’s Republican members, who were then in the minority. The Democrats, then the majority, declined to sign the letter.
They need to demonstrate to the country that they’re taking these matters seriously.
E&C Committee spokesman
“The Energy and Commerce Committee needs more transparency from NIH leadership for how they plan to better foster a culture of respect in the scientific community, especially for women,” an E&C Committee spokesman said to The Cancer Letter. “They need to demonstrate to the country that they’re taking these matters seriously.”
NIH officials did not respond to questions from The Cancer Letter. NIH hasn’t had a Senate-confirmed leader since Dec. 19, 2021, when former NIH Director Francis Collins stepped down (The Cancer Letter, Oct. 8, 2021).
Altogether, the E&C committee has sent three letters to NIH on this issue since The Cancer Letter’s 2021 coverage of Grothey’s misconduct. Though the Grothey controversy involved NCI, the institute isn’t a part of the unanswered-letters kerfuffle.
The first letter, sent to NIH in August 2021, received a response from Tabak’s office within five weeks (The Cancer Letter, Sept. 24, 2021). In October 2021, NIH also briefed Republican committee staff on handling of misconduct issues.
After Collins’s departure, NIH became less responsive to congressional inquiries and blew past deadlines in the months leading up to the 2022 midterm elections, sources say.
Congressional committees have a kit of remedies for compelling responses from federal agencies. These include staging hearings that can turn ugly, exercising subpoena power, and leveraging influence over the appropriations process.
It should be noted that NIH has been refining its processes for confronting a wide range of misconduct by grantees.
Effective July 9, 2022, all institutions that receive funds from NIH are required to report relevant cases of misconduct, including sexual harassment, bullying, and retaliation, within one month, or risk violating NIH regulations and federal law. Prior to fiscal year 2022, NIH did not have statutory authority to implement the reporting requirement (The Cancer Letter, Ending Sexual Misconduct in Academic Medicine).
Nevertheless, the NIH requirement doesn’t do enough to address prevalent under-reporting of misconduct incidents, experts say. This would require a holistic approach that creates robust and transparent procedures for reporting, investigation, and corrective action (The Cancer Letter, July 15, 2022).
The E&C Committee’s list of 30 questions for NIH—if answered—is anticipated to provide granular detail into NIH’s reporting and accountability processes. Following are some of these questions:
- How does the NIH detect the “passing the rogue” problem (i.e., universities exchanging faculty members accused of misconduct) referenced in NIH’s PowerPoint presentation during the Oct. 26, 2021, staff briefing?
- If a grantee institution retaliated against a complainant, how would the NIH know about it, and what actions would be taken?
- The NIH reports to have the ability to request Title IX (and possibly other) investigations outside of the NIH. In how many cases were these requested? What determines whether these are requested? In reviewing the OER’s policy, if noncompliance with Title IX protocols is found, what steps does the NIH take?
- NIH has created a separate reporting mechanism by which victims or targets may report and responses often indicate a “need to know” basis. Please define criteria or circumstances by which NIH feels a reporter/target/survivor needs to know?
- Has the NIH contacted any complainants to assess their sense of safety after disciplinary action to validate institutional reports?
- How does the NIH work with the grantee institution in instances where violence has occurred? Are the perpetrators ever stripped of grants?
