Institutions receiving NIH funds through grants or cooperative agreements would be required—by federal law—to notify the NIH director when a principal investigator or other key personnel are removed or disciplined for “harassment, bullying, retaliation, or hostile working conditions.”
In a committee report that accompanies the appropriations bill, lawmakers used unusually strong language to allege inaction on the part of NIH’s leaders:
“The Committee is deeply frustrated by NIH’s failure to implement its direction to address harassment in extramural research settings,” House appropriators wrote on page 151 of the bill report.
By directly requiring NIH-funded institutions to report rogue behavior, the new provision goes one step further, compared to past efforts by Congress to address harassment in academia:
“Both the Statement of managers accompanying the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Public Law 116–94) and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260) directed NIH to revise its guidance to make clear that grantees must identify any changes to key personnel on an award that are related to concerns about harassment,” House appropriators wrote in the report. “The Committee has included a new general provision to require institutions that receive NIH funding to notify the agency when key personnel are removed from their position for harassment.”
The requirement, approved by the House Appropriations Committee in the July 15 markup of the FY2022 Labor-HHS funding bill, is expected to be considered in the full House of Representatives in the coming week.
The provision represents a cultural shift toward striving for gender equity in academic medicine and is in line with a renewed commitment in government and academia to address racial injustice and health disparities.
The disclosure requirement would make it more difficult for researchers accused of harassment and sexual misconduct to move from institution to institution without anyone being the wiser. A recent investigation by The Cancer Letter presented the case of oncologist Axel Grothey, who was allowed to resign from a position at Mayo Clinic but was able to shift to another job and maintain his position on an NCI steering committee (The Cancer Letter, May 28, 2021).
The Grothey case came to light only because a medical licensure board in Minnesota got involved. State licensure boards and hospital credentialing bodies play no role in cases that involve basic scientists and other non-clinical faculty, in effect allowing perpetrators to escape public scrutiny.
The House committee bill would apply to clinicians and non-clinicians alike.
If the disclosure provision contained in the committee bill is signed into law, NIH would have the authority to “issue regulations” that would delineate reporting requirements for institutions.
It’s unclear whether the reported information would become public record. Also, it’s too early to tell whether non-academic entities that receive NIH funding—such as government contractors or companies involved in Cooperative Research and Development Agreements or the Small Business Innovation Research program—would be subject to the requirement.
The proposed statutory language directs NIH to take immediate action:
SEC. 247. The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall hereafter require institutions that receive funds through a grant or cooperative agreement during fiscal year 2022 and in future years to notify the Director when individuals identified as a principal investigator or as key personnel in an NIH notice of award are removed from their position or are otherwise disciplined due to concerns about harassment, bullying, retaliation, or hostile working conditions. The Director may issue regulations consistent with this section.
“NIH does not comment on pending legislation,” NIH officials said in a statement to The Cancer Letter.
“Necessary steps”
The Grothey reportage by The Cancer Letter prompted NCI Director Ned Sharpless to remove Grothey from the NCI National Clinical Trials Network’s Gastrointestinal Steering Committee, which Grothey co-chaired. More than 10 cancer organizations and institutions have censured or barred Grothey (The Cancer Letter, June 4, 2021).
Responding to questions about the House provision on harassment, NIH officials said “necessary steps” were taken when they were informed of Grothey’s misconduct.
“As we have shared with The Cancer Letter before, while Axel Grothey was not an NCI employee or grantee, NIH does not tolerate pervasive or severe harassment of any kind, including sexual harassment, whether it is within the agency, at research organizations that receive NIH funding, or anywhere else NIH-funded activities are conducted,” NIH said in a statement to The Cancer Letter. “Once we were made aware of the issue, we took the necessary steps in the swiftest and most direct way possible.”
In April and May 2019, two women reported Grothey’s misdeeds to NIH and NCI, documents obtained by The Cancer Letter show. NIH wasn’t exactly helpful—the Office of Extramural Research sent an automated response and never followed up, one of the women said.
A survey conducted by The Cancer Letter in 2020 found that women who experienced gender bias and sexual harassment in academic medicine unanimously rated their institutions’ response as inadequate (The Cancer Letter, Oct. 2, 2020).
Nearly 60% of women in academia have experienced sexual harassment on the job, according to a June 2018 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The NASEM study found no evidence that current policies, procedures, and approaches—which often focus on symbolic compliance with the law and on avoiding liability—have resulted in a significant reduction in sexual harassment (The Cancer Letter, June 15, 2018).
“Statutory assistance”
It may have been necessary for Congress to legislate reporting requirements into existence.
In a May 26 hearing before the Senate appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, NIH Director Francis Collins said NIH has asked institutions to report harassment and sexual misconduct, but lacked authority to require such reporting.
“I wish we were able to simply require—at the present time, legally, we are told we don’t have that authority,” Collins said to Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), chair of the Senate appropriations subcommittee. “We would have to go through a two-year rulemaking effort, or we would need statutory assistance.”
The House bill would provide that statutory assistance, said Heather Pierce, senior director of science policy and regulatory counsel at the Association of American Medical Colleges.
“We believe the language included in the House Appropriations Committee’s spending bill is intended both to grant NIH the authority and direct NIH to require notification to NIH if an investigator or personnel are removed from their position or disciplined for harassment or related reasons, in a policy that would be closer to the approach taken by the National Science Foundation,” Pierce said to The Cancer Letter.
“Eliminating harassment will require a multipronged approach, and the AAMC continues to urge leaders in academic medicine to make this goal a top priority.”
The new provision in the House bill is a “positive first step,” said Jennifer Pegher, executive director of the Association of American Cancer Institutes.
“However, it is concerning that a reporting mechanism isn’t outlined in detail,” Pegher said to The Cancer Letter. “AACI encourages open dialogue among its members about important issues—including diversifying the oncology leadership pipeline and addressing disparities in cancer research and care—and stands against harassment and intimidation in all forms.”
The American Society of Clinical Oncology is working to address harassment issues more directly in professional development programs, said Julie Gralow, ASCO chief medical officer.
“ASCO hasn’t weighed in on the legislative provision with regard to the NIH at this point,” Gralow said to The Cancer Letter. “However, we’re watching it closely, and generally support accountability on this front.”
As it stands, the House provision is unlikely to encounter opposition from Senate appropriators, given Murray’s commitment to eliminate harassment in biomedical research. President Joe Biden is likely to support the requirement.
“Whatever we need to do,” Murray said at the May 26 hearing. “We cannot afford to have this agency’s potential limited or its success threatened by bias, discrimination, harassment, or assault in the workplace.
“Unfortunately, we know that in the biomedical research community, the prevalence of researchers of color is too low and the prevalence of sexual harassment is too high. These are real problems with real consequences for biomedical research and the people who do the lifesaving work we’re all benefiting from today.
“I commend NIH for the efforts it has taken on both of these fronts so far, NIH has done work to examine barriers to diversity among its researcher ranks and how its own practices have reinforced structural biases that allow discrimination to persist, but more work remains to tear down barriers and create lasting change,” Murray said. “And when it comes to sexual assault… NIH must do more to use its enormous influence with the research community to enforce change in the nation’s universities and research institutions.
“I expect NIH to continue building on its efforts so far to remove racism, discrimination, and harassment from research. And I will continue to follow up on that progress.”
Unabridged statements from AAMC, ASCO, and AACI follow:
Senior director,
Science policy and regulatory counsel,
Association of American Medical Colleges
Eliminating harassment will require a multipronged approach, and the AAMC continues to urge leaders in academic medicine to make this goal a top priority.
Sexual, gender, or any other form of harassment has no place in biomedical research. NIH has undertaken a number of initiatives in recent years to help deter harassment, including directing awardee institutions to notify the agency if changes in investigators or key personnel on NIH awards are related to concerns about harassment, bullying, retaliation, or hostile working conditions.
Through written policy and also the explicit commitment from Dr. Francis Collins to address harassment in intramural research and for NIH funded research at grantee institutions, these actions have sent an important message to the community that such conduct will not be tolerated and that NIH is committed to ensuring a safe and equitable environment for all researchers, including trainees.
One issue that NIH has raised repeatedly as a barrier to taking additional actions with respect to harassment in the extramural research is the lack of statutory authority to require institutions to report findings or disciplinary actions taken as a result of harassment in the absence of changes to the grant.
We believe the language included in the House Appropriations Committee’s spending bill is intended both to grant NIH the authority and direct NIH to require notification to NIH if an investigator or personnel are removed from their position or disciplined for harassment or related reasons, in a policy that would be closer to the approach taken by the National Science Foundation.
This expectation is one of several parallel actions being taken at the federal and organizational levels to promote a culture of inclusiveness and respect, and we are committed to working with NIH and our members to ensure such an expectation is fulfilled appropriately.
Eliminating harassment will require a multipronged approach, and the AAMC continues to urge leaders in academic medicine to make this goal a top priority. We continue to convene discussions on the topic among our constituency groups and have developed a number of resources to help guide their work.
Chief medical officer,
American Society of Clinical Oncology
ASCO is also actively working to address harassment issues more directly in our professional development programs including developing ideas for more focused resources to offer ASCO members who experience harassment.
ASCO hasn’t weighed in on the legislative provision with regard to the NIH at this point. However, we’re watching it closely, and generally support accountability on this front.
ASCO is committed to providing information, resources, and programs that promote inclusion, professionalism, and professional opportunity across the oncology community. At all ASCO events we require that participants show respect in their speech and actions and refrain from harassing speech or behavior, including sexual harassment.
Our meetings and journals offer important platforms, as well as safe and supportive environments, where research on this issue can be presented and published to not only shine a light on sexual harassment, but also to help bring about needed change. ASCO is also actively working to address harassment issues more directly in our professional development programs including developing ideas for more focused resources to offer ASCO members who experience harassment.
We have multiple policies and processes to respond to a complaint of harassment. If the issue arises during an ASCO event, we have an online tool for any participant to report unacceptable conduct. ASCO’s immediate response will focus on maintaining a safe and respectful educational environment at the event. If ASCO becomes aware of allegations of harassment concerning a member of the Society, we follow our member discipline procedures and determine if there are grounds to sanction the member.
As an employer, ASCO does not tolerate sexual harassment or any conduct that violates the rights, privacy, safety, or dignity of individuals on the basis of personal characteristics, including gender. We have a number of organizational policies and HR procedures in place to enforce these standards and expectations in our workplace, including mandatory sexual harassment training for every employee and an anonymous hotline to report concerns.
Executive director,
Association of American Cancer Institutes
AACI encourages open dialogue among its members about important issues—including diversifying the oncology leadership pipeline and addressing disparities in cancer research and care—and stands against harassment and intimidation in all forms.
AACI supports efforts to eliminate harassment and believes these new provisions serve as a positive first step toward addressing hostile workplace conditions in the research setting. However, it is concerning that a reporting mechanism isn’t outlined in detail.
In its role as an association representing 103 leading cancer centers in the United States and Canada, AACI provides a platform for cancer centers to share challenges and develop best practices. AACI encourages open dialogue among its members about important issues—including diversifying the oncology leadership pipeline and addressing disparities in cancer research and care—and stands against harassment and intimidation in all forms. However, specific policies to protect clinical trainees and mentees are established by individual cancer centers.
As a membership organization, AACI does not work directly with clinical research personnel. Individual cancer centers develop their own policies regarding harassment complaints, or follow the policies established by their parent institutions, such as hospitals and universities.
