Opinion ID: 409411
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disclosure Interests

Text: 40 In contrast to the limited privacy interests, the public has a singularly strong interest in disclosure of consultants' conflicts of interest. Scientific consultants determine, in large part, who receives roughly $1 billion per year in cancer research funds. While the peer review system provides the government with needed expert advice, it also has undeniable potential for occasional abuse. Unscrupulous consultants could promote the projects of organizations with which they are connected, recommend disapproval of the projects of competitors, or, to curry favor for their own proposals, recommend projects favored by other consultants. 41 The possibility of such conflicts is more than mere speculation. HHS's program of in-house review is itself evidence that conflicts of interest are a potential problem. Also, there have been recent allegations of and investigations into conflicts of interest on the part of NCI peer reviewers. See National Cancer Institute Contract and Procurement Procedures, 1981: Hearing Before the Senate Comm. on Labor and Human Resources, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (June 2, 1981) (NCI Hearing ). For example, a 1978 investigation by HEW (the predecessor agency to HHS) into the relationship between NCI and a particular contract grantee, while it found no violation of federal conflict-of-interest standards, noted the close relationship between NCI officials and the grantee, and expressed concern that NCI consultants serve in several roles which ... are difficult to compartmentalize ... (and which) create an appearance of a conflict which could affect scientific judgment. 37 In the view of then HEW Secretary Joseph Califano, the report raised serious questions concerning the role of consultants ... who perform services both for the Department and for private entities in related areas. 38 42 One hopes, of course, that HHS's in-house review is rigorous enough to catch any abuses. But the purpose of FOIA is to permit the public to decide for itself whether government action is proper. Congress was all too aware of the (i)nnumerable times that agencies had withheld information under prior law only to cover up embarrassing mistakes or irregularities. S.Rep. at 3. FOIA was designed to prevent such incidents and establish instead (t)he right of the individual to be able to find out how his government is operating. H.R.Rep., supra note 23, at 6, 1966 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News, at 2423. 39 In light of that purpose, the public interest in disclosure is not diminished by the possibility or even the probability that HHS is doing its reviewing job right. 40 43 Our belief that public disclosure of conflict-of-interest information is vital is strengthened by Congress' passage of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. 41 This Act requires all government employees at pay grade GS-16 or above to file a highly detailed financial statement, which is available to the public. 42 Most NCI consultants, although paid a daily rate equal to GS-18, 43 are presumably not covered by the Act because it does not apply to employees who work 60 days or less a year. 44 Nevertheless, the Act shows Congress' general belief that public disclosure of conflicts of interest is desirable despite its cost in loss of personal privacy. 45 Indeed, it is hard to see how disclosure of the limited information on Form 474 can be a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy for a consultant who works just short of 60 days in a year, while regular employees with comparable or in some cases lesser responsibility must make far more extensive disclosure under the Ethics in Government Act. 46 44 In sum, when the strong interest in disclosure of potential abuses of official position is balanced against the consultants' relatively slight privacy interest in the limited information required by Form 474, we have no trouble concluding that disclosure is not clearly unwarranted.