Under pressure from a US Senate Finance Committee investigation, renowned psychiatrist Charles Nemeroff is giving up the post he held for 17 years and must follow new restrictions on his outside activities, according to an Emory University statement.

Moreover, Emory will not submit any National Institutes of Health grant or other sponsored grant or contract requests in which Nemeroff is listed as an investigator or has any other role for a period of at least two years. However, Nemeroff will remain as a professor in the psychiatry department, focusing on clinical care and teaching. (For a full list, see this Emory letter to the NIH). In October, by the way, the NIH suspended a grant to Emory (see here).

“I regret the failure of full disclosure on my part that has led to the current situation,” Nemeroff says in the statement. “I believe that I was acting in good faith to comply with the rules as I understood them to be in effect at the time. I pledge to continue my cooperation in working with Emory to clarify and strengthen our current system of disclosure here and throughout academic medicine.”

The step comes after Emory was embarassed by the Senate investigation, which focuses on alleged conflicts of interest among academics who receive payments from drugmakers while simultaneously receiving NIH grants. The probe found Emory was aware Nemeroff failed to properly disclose payments but did nothing (back story). Now, Emory’s own investigation found Nemeroff received more than $800,000 from Glaxo, which paid Nemeroff more than any other drugmaker, but he never reported the fees. There were more than 250 speaking engagements between 2000 and 2006.

“Though Dr. Nemeroff viewed these talks as educational lectures not subject to disclosure, Emory policies required otherwise. The investigation determined that Dr. Nemeroff should have abided by the policies and/or sought clarification if, as he later stated, he believed the policies and regulations were ambiguous,” according to the Emory statement.

Emory School of Medicine Dean Tom Lawley adds: “As a Department Chair, particularly one who had been under heightened scrutiny, Dr. Nemeroff should have reported the payments from (Glaxo) and other companies, and the fact that he did not has resulted in these actions being taken.”

Among the new restrictions: Nemeroff must seek review and approval by the dean’s office of any and all outside compensated engagements before he accepts them, and mustl report any and all outside compensation. He will be limited to accepting payment for ACCME-accredited speaking engagements sponsored by academic institutions or professional societies. ACCME is the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education.

At the same time, Emory insist it has found no evidence that Nemeroff’s outside speaking activities affected clinical care for patients enrolled in clinical trials, and no evidence his activities biased scientific research. Nemeroff contended his lectures were not product-specific but were limited to general medical topics such as depression and bipolar disorder. A review to date, based on his speaker slides and on interviews with attendees at presentations, supports that contention, Emory maintains.

Emory officials failed to explain why they did not take any action previously against Nemeroff, but the university is now supporting another Senate initiative - the Physicians Payments Sunshine Act (look here) - to require drug and device makers to disclose all payments to doctors.

“We strongly support the public reporting by pharmaceutical and medical device companies of all payments to academic physicians and researchers,” Fred Sanfilioppo, says in the statement. “With access to a common set of data, medical schools, lawmakers, and most importantly the general public will have the transparency needed to ensure objectivity and accountability in biomedical research, clinical practice, and educational activities.”

Here is a statement sent us by Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate committee, who spearheaded the proble: “Emory’s swift and sure-footed response sets an example for other research institutions to follow and for the National Institutes of Health to hold up as the kind of standard it expects from all those receiving federal research dollars. Accurate disclosure and transparency are fundamental to the integrity of medical research. Without them, the public trust is violated and public confidence in the system is legitimately shaken.”