Proposals to lower the threshold from $10,000 to $5,000 for reporting outside income for university researchers under NIMH contract were released last week. Long awaited, they follow criticism and scrutiny leading to congressional investigations, and a public loss of faith as a result of conflicts-of-interest of individuals employed by universities. The new proposals update the 1995 guidelines from HHS, and outline how:

income from non-profit entities other than institutions of higher education... would be subject to the SFI definition. We are proposing this change due to the growth of non-profit entities that sponsor such activities since the current regulations were promulgated in 1995. Some of these non-profit entities receive funding from for-profit entities that may have an interest in the outcome of the Investigators' research (e.g., foundations supported by pharmaceutical companies or other industrial sectors). As a result, we believe it would promote objectivity in biomedical and behavioral research if income in excess of the relevant monetary threshold received from such non-profit entities for teaching and advisory committee-related activities were included

The responses to this have been mixed. Science Magazine preferred the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations asking for all disclosure, not waiting until a threshold such as the NIH guidelines. An editorial in JAMA by Dr. Francis Collins, NIH director, said the time had come for such guidelines that will be posted on a public Web site. He said:

"Clearly, investigators, institutions, and NIH need to redouble collaborative efforts to uphold the integrity of federally funded biomedical and behavioral research. If NIH-supported researchers fail to disclose the full extent of their financial interests, universities fail to comprehensively manage FCOI, or NIH fails to diligently oversee the entire system, public trust will be jeopardized in ways that may have far-reaching implications for the future of science."