After taking eight months to respond to a House committee’s questions about policies on handling of sexual misconduct cases, a letter from NIH has provided answers that critics describe as vague and inadequate.
Far from making the controversy go away, the NIH response to congressional investigators, dated April 10, in effect leaves it to the next NIH director—likely Monica Bertagnolli—to stem the political fallout and directly spell out which parties are responsible for eradicating sexual harassment and closing the loopholes that allow non-compliance to persist.
“The NIH’s inadequate handling of sexual harassment claims undercuts any credibility it may have in advancing women in science,” Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, said to The Cancer Letter. “I hope, if confirmed, Dr. Bertagnolli will institute a culture of transparency and accountability on this serious issue.”
The House inquiry is led by McMorris Rodgers and H. Morgan Griffith (R-VA), chair of the House E&C Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
NIH officials declined to provide a copy of the April 10 letter in response to a request from The Cancer Letter. “You would need to ask the [House] committee for a copy of the [NIH] letter,” said a spokesperson from the NIH Office of the Director.
Earlier this week, President Joe Biden announced his intent to nominate Monica Bertagnolli as the next NIH director. Bertagnolli, the first woman to serve as NCI director, if confirmed by the Senate, will be the second woman ever to serve as permanent NIH director (The Cancer Letter, April 14, 2023).
Questions related to NIH’s ability to respond comprehensively to allegations of misconduct are highly likely to crop up as part of Bertagnolli’s confirmation process.
It’s also highly likely that Bertagnolli would welcome these questions and the overall challenge.
The House committee’s probe—initiated in 2021—was triggered 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).
At that time, as group chair of Alliance, Bertagnolli issued the following statement:
Last Friday, the oncology community became aware of allegations of improper conduct by a former Alliance member, Dr. Axel Grothey, following the publication of a Cancer Letter article detailing this issue.
The article raises many troubling issues for our community. It is absolutely clear that abusive or bullying behavior of any form cannot be tolerated, and it is particularly egregious if an individual in a position of authority or power uses these tactics to coerce more vulnerable colleagues.
None of us, no matter what our relative status, can abdicate responsibility for maintaining a professional environment that is respectful and supportive of all our members.
When difficult situations arise, each of us can be a force for positive change. This current event reminds us all how important it is to care, to listen, and to support our colleagues in the best way we know how.
NIH needs to do more, critics say.
“As the E&C Committee’s letter to the NIH in March of this year aptly noted, the issues arising from the Grothey case is only one manifestation of a broader concern affecting NIH grantees and NIH-supported researchers,” Shea Holman, chief operating officer and counsel for The Purple Method, said to The Cancer Letter. “And the NIH’s half-hearted responses [April 10] to repeated requests from the committee for updates do little to assuage concerns that the agency is committed to taking this pervasive harassment problem seriously.”
A guest editorial by Holman appears here.
The Purple Method is a consulting firm focused on addressing and preventing sexual harassment in the workplace. Founded and led by the team that launched The Purple Campaign, the firm’s clients include global companies, international non-profits, venture capital firms, as well as small businesses. [Disclosure: Ally Coll, CEO of The Purple Method, is stepdaughter to Paul Goldberg, editor and publisher of The Cancer Letter.]
“While [NIH] has taken important steps to create safer and more respectful workplaces for employees, there is still much room to improve,” Holman said. “NIH leadership must commit to ‘walking the walk’ rather than just ‘talking the talk.’”
The House probe of NIH policies on sexual misconduct has been hampered by partisanship, as Democrats on the E&C Committee declined to join the investigation.
Individually, Democrats in the House and Senate have expressed frustration with NIH’s policies for dealing with misconduct and harassment.
At a May 4 hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Labor-HHS, Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) pressed NIH Acting Director Lawrence A. Tabak for answers as to why David Gilbert—a genome researcher who left Florida State University in 2021 following an investigation that found Gilbert committed “severe and pervasive” sexual harassment—received a $2.5 million grant from NIH last year at the San Diego Biomedical Research Institute (The Cancer Letter, May 12, 2023).
“That happened despite the fact that Congress directed NIH to make it mandatory for institutions to inform NIH when scientists or key staff are removed or otherwise disciplined due to harassment, bullying, retaliation, or hostile working conditions, despite NIH posting publicly that you require notification from all of your award recipients despite NIH’s knowledge of the investigation’s finding,” Murray, chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, said at the hearing. “And I just have to say it is completely unacceptable.
“So, I need to ask you today, what is NIH doing to fully implement the requirement under last year’s law that such actions must be reported to the agency? And how are you using that requirement to enforce workplace protections against harassment?”
In this case, the “original institution was not completely forthcoming” about the extent of Gilbert’s behavior, Tabak said at the hearing.
In the April 10 letter, Tabak didn’t specify penalties NIH could impose on institutions that fail to comply with reporting requirements.
While NIH is setting the tone and issuing regulations and reporting requirements consistent with the law, experts say it can do more to ensure that institutions create robust follow-up protocols for victims and don’t “pass the harasser” (The Cancer Letter, July 15, 2022).
In the April 10 letter, critics say NIH did not provide substantive responses to crucial questions posed by the E&C Committee.
Consider these metrics: The committee’s original letter, dated Aug. 11, 2022, includes 30 questions over six pages. The NIH response took up three pages.
Unanswered questions include:
- How does 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 NIH know about it, and what actions would be taken?
- NIH indicated it was working with HHS Office of Civil Rights in September 2020. What was the outcome of these interactions? How many targets of discrimination or retaliation have been contacted as a result? Were NIH investigations or institutional Title IX investigations (or others) reviewed? Please provide specifics.
- NIH reports to have the ability to request Title IX (and possibly other) investigations outside of 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 NIH take?
- How much has NIH allocated to resources to respond to targets and survivors in harassment cases involving NIH in some way?
- Has NIH (or working with other agencies) contacted any complainants to assess their sense of safety after disciplinary action to validate institutional reports?
- Following reports to NIH, how many follow up communications from complainants requesting any information pertinent to a prior allegation involving NIH grants or its handling have NIH responded to? What is the median response time (aggregate by year please)? How many have not been responded to and why?
- Women of color are also particularly vulnerable to sexual harassment. How is NIH handling reports from intersectional discrimination cases?
- What is the credentialing requirement for NIH officials handling reports of harassment or abuse? Are personnel trauma-informed? Are recipient institutions encouraged or required to have trauma-informed personnel handle victims/complainants for investigations and post determination?
NIH’s response
NIH-funded researchers accused of sexual misconduct and reported to NIH will be investigated and subjected to consequences proportional to the severity of the violation—including removal from NIH-affiliated positions as well as termination of awards.
It is absolutely clear that abusive or bullying behavior of any form cannot be tolerated, and it is particularly egregious if an individual in a position of authority or power uses these tactics to coerce more vulnerable colleagues.
Monica Bertagnolli
“Individuals who have been found to violate their institution’s policy on harassment, discrimination, or related professional misconduct will not be asked to serve in NIH peer review and may be removed from service if they are standing members of study sections,” Acting NIH Director Tabak wrote in the April 10 letter. “If necessary, we may take additional actions ranging from restricting award funds to suspending or terminating the award as outlined in Section 8 of the NIH Grants Policy Statement.”
Tabak’s response, obtained by The Cancer Letter, comes eight months after E&C requested answers to 30 questions about the “pervasive culture of sexual harassment” in biomedical research.
On March 14, the committee sent a reminder letter, stating that they expect the NIH Office of the Director to respond (The Cancer Letter, March 17, 2023; Sept. 16, 2022).
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).
NIH has taken “many substantive actions” within the extent of NIH’s grant authorities to address harassment and discrimination in NIH extramural biomedical science, including the development and implementation of policies and processes, Tabak said.
“Please be assured, NIH agrees that the process to notify us about incidents should be simple, and persons should feel safe doing so,” Tabak wrote in the April 10 letter to the committee. “To streamline the reporting process, NIH launched a website to inform the public and grantee community of the process by which allegations of harassment in NIH-funded activities can be made to and evaluated by NIH.
“Importantly, NIH designed an NIH Anti-Harassment Portal which can receive allegations anonymously from the biomedical research community or notifications from extramural institutions of allegations made to them. Allegations can also be received via the GranteeHarassment@nih.gov mailbox. In addition, each NIH Institute or Center (IC) designates a point person (a Research Integrity Officer) to receive allegations from IC staff and to send the allegations to the Office of Extramural Research (OER) via a secure module.”
According to NIH’s grantee harassment website, allegations of harassment or discrimination received by NIH are assessed by staff in OER to determine whether there is a link to NIH funds, whether the allegation is sufficiently specific, and whether the allegation represents harassment or discrimination—including retaliation for reporting harassment or discrimination, Tabak said.
“If additional information is needed from the complainant, and if contact information is provided, OER will reach out to the complainant via the GranteeHarassment@nih.gov account. Follow up usually occurs via email, but complainants may request a phone call,” Tabak wrote.
“Once OER has the needed information, the recipient institution is given 30 days to respond to a letter from OER leadership. A letter is also sent to the complainant, letting them know that we have reached out to the institution. The recipient institution may respond to indicate that they have already received and handled the complaint, or they may initiate an inquiry or investigation.”
NIH has long expected grantee institutions to report harassment findings and disciplinary actions for NIH-funded researchers, Tabak wrote.
“Importantly, Section 239 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (Public Law 117-103), Division H, Title II granted NIH the authority to make this expectation into a requirement, mandating that NIH require recipient institutions to notify NIH when individuals identified as Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) or other Senior/Key personnel in an NIH notice of award are removed from their position or are otherwise disciplined by the recipient institution due to concerns about harassment, bullying, retaliation, or hostile working conditions.”
Effective July 9, 2022, NIH-funded institutions that do not report relevant cases in a timely manner would be considered to be in violation of NIH regulations and of federal law (The Cancer Letter, July 15, 2022).
The NIH’s half-hearted responses [April 10] to repeated requests from the committee for updates do little to assuage concerns that the agency is committed to taking this pervasive harassment problem seriously.
Shea Holman
“On May 10, 2022, NIH implemented this provision by publishing NOT-OD-22-129 ‘Updated Requirements for NIH Notification of Removal or Disciplinary Action Involving Program Directors/Principal Investigators or other Senior/Key Personnel’ to inform grantee institutions of their statutory obligation to notify NIH of disciplinary actions and the process by which to notify NIH,” Tabak wrote in the April 10 letter.
“When recipient institutions notify NIH that an individual on an NIH award has been removed from their position or has been otherwise disciplined by the recipient institution due to concerns about harassment, bullying, retaliation, or hostile working conditions, OER will follow up with the recipient institution for additional details as needed.”
Once an institution or an individual reports allegations of misconduct to NIH, the Office of Extramural Research will ask the institution for information about disciplinary actions that are being taken or the outcome of the investigation.
“Depending on the situation, the institution often removes the individual from NIH awards for a set time period and works with NIH on implementing alternative arrangements, or NIH places specific award conditions on the award if the individual has returned to NIH work after a period of administrative leave,” Tabak wrote. “For example, NIH may require quarterly reports that assess the individual’s workplace environment. In situations in which the individual has resigned or been terminated, the recipient institution may decide to terminate an award or transfer the award to an investigator at their institution.”
Deidentified data—on the number and outcomes of allegations NIH has received related to harassment and discrimination involving projects at NIH-supported institutions—are posted to a public website and regularly updated multiple times each year, Tabak said. Additional generalized data on research misconduct and professional misconduct, including harassment, were published on the NIH Open Mike blog in March 2023.
According to Tabak, NIH policy and procedure announcements from 2022-2023 related to combatting discrimination and harassment in NIH-funded activities include the following:
- March 20, 2023: NIH released its Fiscal Years 2023-2027 NIH-Wide Strategic Plan for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA). The plan articulates NIH’s overarching vision for embracing, strengthening, and integrating DEIA into our various activities.
Among other things, the plan also regularly discusses NIH’s approach to addressing harassment and discrimination in biomedical research. For instance, the plan notes NIH will launch its Workplace Civility and Equity Survey as a triennial NIH-wide survey for federal employees, contractors, and all other NIH staff.
The survey seeks to identify the prevalence of harassment and discrimination at NIH, with the goal to provide actionable results to help inform strategies towards a diverse, equitable, inclusive, accessible, and harassment-free NIH workplace. The plan also notes that NIH is committed to advancing DEIA principles throughout all its functions. - December 22, 2022: NIH revised the NIH Grants Policy Statement to incorporate requirements from 45 CFR 75.30311 and Standards for Internal Controls in Federal Government in which recipient organizations are expected to establish codes of conduct which define expectations of integrity and ethical values and criteria of competence of personnel involved in the work supported by NIH grant funds.
This includes assuring work environments are free of discriminatory harassment and are safe and conducive to high-quality work. - February 11, 2022: NIH published NOT-OD-22-074 “Plans to Promote Safe Environments at Conferences Supported by NIH Grants and Cooperative Agreements” to inform applicants for NIH Support for Conferences and Scientific Meetings (R13/U13) that a Plan to Promote Safe Environments is required as part of Just-In-Time materials.
“We appreciate your attention to NIH’s efforts to assure safe and respectful workplaces wherever NIH-supported research is conducted,” Tabak wrote in the April 10 letter. “Reiterating a statement OER Director [Michael] Lauer made earlier [last] year, wherever NIH research activities take place, our priority will always be to do what we can to eliminate harassment and ensure that the integrity of scientific endeavor is never compromised by the fundamental injustice of workplace harassment.”
