DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

VUL 2 8 1961

Dear Mr. Clark:

I deeply regret that rether heavy commitments have delayed
uy acknowledgnent of your letter of some weeks ago posing questions
concerning Federal support of medical research.

You esked two questions coneerning the work of
of Consultents on Medical Research. The first had to do with
“eonflict of interest.” The answer to this is quite simple.
Federal support of medical research for fifteen years has relied
heavily on non-Govermment scientists and informed laymen in the
review procedure leading to the awarding of research grents. This
procedure has been almost universally approved in acedemic and
seientifie circles of the country end has served to allay fears
which might otherwise have developed as to Government control in
ereas where independence and freedom are particularly valued. It
would heave been very difficult for the Senate Appropriations
Committee to have selected e panel for study of this program fron
some relationship to the research program of the country as
supported by the National Institutes of Health. The consultents
undertook to document in their report their judgnents and ¢on-
clusions. The objectivity of the study and the factual basis for
Se etane Rate ae bean canlaunly quetienst. The report stands
on its own.

Your second question had to do with the extent to which the
findings of the Camittee were an expression of the views of the
NIH itself. Since much of the work of the consultants was directed
toward the NIH program, it wes reasonable that the Committee should
hear from responsible NIH officials in deteil. The Director of the
NIH, his immediate essocietes, and the Directors of each of the
Institutes were heard as witnesses, and they provided a considereble
amount of fectual dete. The Committee heard, altogether, more than
one hundred individual witnesses and hed access to voluminous written
neterial, & partiel listing of which was included in the report.
Every segnent of our society which hed interest in medical research
wes represented among the witnesses, including organized medicine
and dentistry, the pharmaceutical industry, the insurance industry,
of

Pederal agencies other than the NIH, voluntary health agencies, private
foundations, general and professional educational associations, and
individuals with unique experience and knowledge. I can say unequivo-
cally thet the findings of the Comittee were arrived et by an objective
and independent procedure.

You asked also for my judgnent es to the chief reasons for
Congressional support of medical research in recent years. I would say
there are four principal reasons: enlightened leadership of competence
and understanding in both houses of Congress, the deep concern of the
Americen people as reflected in the Congress for answers to our major

You asked, finally, my coment on John Russell's charges in lest
October's HARPER'S having to do with the medical research effort. I do
not accept Mr. Russell's comments in his article, nor do I think they
represent the views of the vast majority of the medical scientists of
the country. Yo substantiate his cherges, the facts as presented in
the report of the Committee of Consultants on Medical Research would

i
$
|

Sincerely yours,
(Signed) Boisfeuillet Jones

Boisfeutllet Joos
(Health and Me@ical Affairs) —

ec: fon. John E. Fogarty
House of Representatives