WASHINGTON, DC - Republican leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee today sent a referral letter to HHS’ Office of the Inspector General regarding an NIH grant awarded for research related to traumatic brain injury that became a source of public controversy. The grant was to be funded through a donation by the National Football League to the Foundation for the National Institutes for Health (FNIH) as part of the Sports and Health Research Program (SHRP) - a public-private partnership with the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The SHRP was established for the purpose of supporting “research on serious medical conditions prominent in athletes and relevant to the general population."
Earlier this year, media outlets and a subsequent report by the committee’s Democratic staff alleged the NFL attempted to inappropriately influence NIH decision-making related to this grant award. However, based on the information available to Republican committee staff, these reports failed to address critical questions related to the conduct of NIH that may have contributed to the controversy and delay in awarding this grant.
In order to ensure the integrity of NIH grant processes, prevent future breakdowns in NIH grant decision-making, and advance the critical research related to head trauma and sports related injuries, the committee leaders pose five questions for potential examination by the independent HHS watchdog:
1. Why didn’t the NIH require the NFL to pay pursuant to the terms of the agreement?
2. If the actions of the NFL or its advisors were clearly inappropriate, as the Democratic staff report concludes, why did NIH and FNIH engage with representatives of the League and perpetuate the impression that the dialogue was appropriate? If confronted with inappropriate conduct by a donor, what are NIH’s responsibilities to flag and address such behavior?
3. Did NIH adhere to the terms of the MOU regarding donor communications?
4. What are NIH policies for the control of non-public information, including information related to Notice of Grant Awards, as well as non-funded grant proposals? Were they followed in this series of events?
5. How does NIH evaluate conflicts of interest between applicants and donors in public-private partnership grant programs such as SHRP?
The Energy and Commerce Committee has been conducting a broad review of concussions and brain injuries in America. The parties involved in this controversial grant making process all play an important role in addressing that challenge.
In the letter to the HHS OIG, the committee leaders concluded, “While this grant award has become an unfortunate distraction from the greater issue of improving the science of traumatic brain injury (TBI), given the significant public attention to these events, it is clear that a thorough and objective review by the HHS OIG is necessary. This review is important to the strength and integrity of the SHRP, as well as the independence of NIH decision-making."
The letter was signed by Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Tim Murphy (R-PA), Health Subcommittee Chairman Joseph Pitts (R-PA), and Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee Chairman Michael C. Burgess, M.D. (R-TX).
Read a full copy of the letter, HERE.
