FAA - Fundamental Conflict on Aircraft Approval?

What do you mean?!  Leaving aircraft manufacturers to be the inspector of their aircraft safety worthlessness is a problem?  NO KIDDING, yes.

Note that a more recent statement by Boeing sad they will install a safety feature for the system in question, that they removed from some aircraft to lower the cost to customers, will be installed for free on those 737 MAX aircraft.  Which means Boeing could have done that in the first place.

"Does handling of Boeing safety issue reveal ‘fundamental conflict’ for the FAA?" PBS NewsHour 3/27/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In the aftermath of a second deadly plane crash, Boeing is trying to reassure the U.S. government and the public that it is addressing the flight control system on its 737 MAX jets.  The feature is suspected of a role in the fatal Ethiopian Airlines incident in March as well as an October Lion Air crash.  Amna Nawaz reports and talks to science correspondent Miles O’Brien for technical details.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION - Rats Abandon 'King Rat'

"Resignations add to turmoil as Trump legal team weighs options" PBS NewsHour 7/21/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  It was a tumultuous day at the White House, with major personnel shakeups involving the public faces of the Trump presidency.  The resignations of Press Secretary Sean Spicer, and the spokesman for the president's legal team, came amid reports that Trump lawyers are hunting possible conflicts of interest by Robert Mueller.  Hari Sreenivasan talks to Rosalind Helderman of The Washington Post.

TRUMP - Big Conflict of Interest

"Deutsche Bank Remains Trump's Biggest Conflict of Interest Despite Settlements" by Jesse Eisinger, ProPublica 2/9/2017

Deutsche Bank is Trump's largest lender.  While the troubled bank has settled several of the charges against it, it's still undergoing scrutiny by the Justice Department and other federal regulators, and is being overseen by six independent monitors, making conflicts of interest inescapable.

If you measure President Donald Trump's conflicts of interest by the amount of money at stake, or the variety of dicey interactions with government regulators, one dwarfs any other, his relationship with Deutsche Bank.

In recent weeks, Deutsche Bank has scrambled to reach agreements with American regulators over a host of alleged misdeeds.  But because the President has not sold his company, the bank remains a central arena for potential conflicts between his family's business interests and the actions of officials in his administration.

“Deutsche poses the biggest conflict that we know about in terms of dollar amounts and the scale of legal exposures,” says Brandon Garrett, a University of Virginia law professor and author of “Too Big To Fail: How Prosecutors Compromise with Corporations.”  In trying to clear up its outstanding regulatory troubles, the bank “may have tried to do its best to avoid the appearance of impropriety but it may be impossible for them to do so.”

Deutsche is Trump's major creditor, having lent billions to the President since the late 1990s even as other American banks abandoned Trump, who frequently bankrupted his businesses.  While the President hasn't released his tax returns, he has made public some information about his debts.  According to these incomplete disclosures and reports, the Trump Organization has roughly $300 million in loans outstanding from the bank.  Trump continues to own the business, although he has turned over day-to-day management to his sons.

At the same time that it is Trump's biggest known creditor, Deutsche is in frequent contact with multiple federal regulators.  While the bank agreed last week to pay $630 million to settle charges by New York state's top financial regulator as well as the U.K.'s Financial Conduct Authority that it had aided Russian money-laundering, it's still undergoing a related federal investigation into those activities, which it is also trying to settle.  That will be an early big test of the Justice Department under Attorney General Jeff Sessions.  The Justice Department also has an ongoing probe of foreign exchange manipulation by several banks, including Deutsche Bank.

Even if the bank clears up the ongoing federal cases, it will remain weighed down by past transgressions.  During the housing bubble, Deutsche Bank misled buyers about the quality of its mortgage securities and omitted important information.  In 2015, its London subsidiary pleaded guilty in connection with the multi-bank conspiracy to manipulate global interest rates and paid $775 million in criminal penalties.

Deutsche will soon have an astonishing six independent monitors monitoring its conduct — the most ever for one company, according to Garrett.  Drawn from the ranks of consultancies and law firms, these overseers make sure Deutsche complies with previous state and federal settlements and regulations relating to its foreign exchange manipulations, global interest rate fraud, sales of dodgy mortgage securities, derivatives trading, and sanctions evasion.

Indeed, the independent monitor of Deutsche's derivatives reporting, Paul Atkins from Patomak Partners, has his own conflict of interest.  Atkins served on Trump's transition team and played a role in appointing federal financial regulators.  He is now monitoring whether Trump's business partner complies with the terms of a settlement with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on derivatives reporting.

A Patomak spokeswoman declined to comment.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve has regulators sitting in Deutsche's offices, as it does with every big bank, keeping a watchful eye on the firm's safety and soundness.  Last year, the Fed failed Deutsche Bank during its annual stress test, finding that it had insufficient capital and could not withstand another financial crisis.  And the Securities and Exchange Commission and the CFTC regulate its investment banking and trading activities.

A Deutsche Bank spokeswoman declined to comment.  The White House did not return an email seeking comment.

The Trump Organization's wide-ranging business dealings could raise quandaries for an array of government agencies, from the Department of Labor, which regulates the company's employment practices, to the General Services Administration, which leases Trump his hotel in Washington, D.C.  “Just about everything that every branch, every type of enforcement, every action from every agency could touch on Trump's conflicts.  There is no end to the corruption and ethics concerns,” Garrett says.

But the potential conflicts may be most acute at the Justice Department.  Whether the Justice Department walks away from an investigation or takes a hard line against Deutsche Bank, its every move will be scrutinized as either too tough or too weak.

With new management, Deutsche Bank has embarked on an effort to rebuild its reputation.  Deutsche CEO John Cyran has conducted an apology tour for the bank's multiple and serial misdeeds.  The money-laundering settlement isn't Deutsche's only recent move to close out government probes.  In January, it agreed to pay $95 million to end a tax fraud investigation by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.  And in December, it became one of the last of the global banks to resolve civil charges over the creation and sale of misleading mortgages investments, agreeing to pay a penalty of $3.1 billion.

In these agreements, Deutsche capitalized on the Obama Department of Justice's eagerness to settle, according to defense attorneys who don't represent the bank but are familiar with the cases.  Outgoing administrations desire to wrap investigations up so departing prosecutors may shine their resumes on the way out the door.

The Obama administration had an added incentive to reach settlements because it worried the Trump administration Justice Department might seek smaller penalties or otherwise go soft on corporations.  That helps explain why Deutsche Bank's mortgage securities settlement, which included $4.1 billion in credit for consumer aid in addition to the penalty, was far below the $14 billion figure reported in the fall as Justice's opening bid.  While most observers expected that figure to come down sharply, Deutsche's terms were still widely considered favorable.

Even so, Deutsche's share price remains depressed as investors worry about the bank's future payouts and ongoing fragility.  The bank faces class action suits alleging efforts to manipulate interest rates and the currency markets.

Given the government's responsibilities, Trump's regulators face a fraught and sensitive task of proving their independence and fair-mindedness when it comes to Deutsche Bank.  Prior White Houses have taken great care to avoid interfering in Justice Department investigations and prosecutions.  Despite his early support for Trump's campaign and their personal friendship, Sessions has said he will not recuse himself from any Justice Department probe into the President, the Trump family or any of his political advisors.

The relationship Deutsche Bank has with the President cuts two ways, defense lawyers and former prosecutors say.  It might be advantageous to be in business with a President who appears to regard the office as an opportunity for brand enhancement and enrichment.  The bank might hope for leniency from the President's regulators because of its business ties to him.

There are signs that Deutsche's new management is not eager to continue serving as Trump's financier.  Trump sued the bank in 2008 to avoid paying a loan for a Trump hotel in Chicago.  The parties settled, but lawsuits have a way of fraying friendships.  A former top executive at Deutsche Bank says the current top management does not like the real estate developer.  “They don't want to do business with him anymore,” he says.

Given the tension, Deutsche may worry about the mercurial President.  The bank's concern is that the Trump administration could use its regulatory powers to secure better business terms.  Nationalist strains course through his inner circle.  A top Trump economic advisor recently accused Germany of currency manipulation.  Trump, some observers fear, may seek to boost American financial institutions over foreign ones like Deutsche.

In recent months, Deutsche has also sought to renegotiate its loans with Trump, according to a Bloomberg report, in an effort to reduce its exposure to the President.  The bank hoped to eliminate the President's personal guarantee on loans.  But such a move would not eliminate the conflict of interest, since the President's company, which Trump still owns, would remain on the hook to pay back the loans.

Correction, Feb 10, 2017: Patomak Global Partners' Paul Atkins is monitoring whether Deutsche Bank complies with the terms of a settlement with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on derivatives reporting.  This story incorrectly said the settlement was with New York state financial regulators.

TRUMP NOT FILES - In Violation of Our Constitution

"Why Trump Would Almost Certainly Be Violating the Constitution If He Continues to Own His Businesses" by Richard Tofel, ProPublica 12/2/2016

The meaning of the Emoluments Clause is fairly clear.  And it all goes back to a diamond-encrusted snuffbox Ben Franklin got from Louis XVI.

Far from ending with President-elect Trump's announcement that he will separate himself from the management of his business empire, the constitutional debate about the meaning of the Emoluments Clause — and whether Trump will be violating it — is likely just beginning.

That's because the Emoluments Clause seems to bar Trump's ownership of his business.  It has little to do with his management of it.  Trump's tweets last Wednesday said he would be “completely out of business operations.”

But unless Trump sells or gives his business to his children before taking office the Emoluments Clause would almost certainly be violated.  Even if he does sell or give it away, any retained residual interest, or any sale payout based on the company's results, would still give him a stake in its fortunes, again fairly clearly violating the Constitution.

The Emoluments Clause bars U.S. officials, including the President, from receiving payments from foreign governments or foreign government entities unless the payments are specifically approved by Congress.  As ProPublica and others have detailed, Trump's business has ties with foreign government entities ranging from loans and leases with the Bank of China to what appear to be tax-supported hotel deals in India and elsewhere.  The full extent of such ties remains unknown, and Trump has refused to disclose them, or to make public his tax returns, through which many such deals, if they exist, would be revealed.  Foreign government investments in Trump entities would also be covered by the clause, as would foreign government officials paying to stay in Trump hotels, so long as Trump stands to share in the revenues.

One misconception about the Emoluments Clause in early press coverage of it in the wake of Trump's election is being clarified as scholars look more closely at the provision's history.  That was the suggestion that it would not be a violation for the Trump Organization to conduct business with foreign government entities if “fair market value” was received by the governments.

This view had been attributed to Professor Richard Painter, a former official of the George W. Bush administration, and privately by some others.  But Professor Laurence Tribe, the author of the leading treatise on constitutional law, and others said the Emoluments Clause was more sweeping, and mandated a ban on such dealings without congressional approval.  Painter now largely agrees, telling ProPublica that no fair market value test would apply to the sale of services (specifically including hotel rooms), and such a test would apply only to the sale of goods.  The Trump Organization mostly sells services, such as hotel stays, golf memberships, branding deals and management services.

The Emoluments Clause appears in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.  It bars any “person holding any office of profit or trust under” the United States from accepting any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign state” “without the consent of the Congress.”  The word “emolument” comes from the Latin emolumentum, meaning profit or gain.  The language of the clause was lifted in its entirety from the Articles of Confederation which established the structure of the government of the United States from 1781 until the ratification of the Constitution in 1788-89.  The clause was derived from a Dutch rule dating to 1751.

The clause was added to the draft Constitution at the Constitutional Convention on Aug. 23, 1787 on a motion by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina.  As Gov. Edmund Randolph of Virginia explained to his state's ratification convention in 1788, Pinckney's motion was occasioned by Benjamin Franklin, who had been given a snuffbox, adorned with the royal portrait and encrusted with small diamonds, by Louis XVI while serving as the Continental Congress's ambassador to France.  As Randolph said,

“An accident which actually happened, operated in producing the restriction.  A box was presented to our ambassador by the king of our allies.  It was thought proper, in order to exclude corruption and foreign influence, to prohibit any one in office from receiving emoluments from foreign states.”

The Continental Congress in 1786 had consented, after a debate, to Franklin keeping the snuffbox, as it had earlier with a similar gift to envoy Arthur Lee.  At the same time, consent also was given to diplomat John Jay receiving a horse from the King of Spain.

The clause was part of the basis for Alexander Hamilton's defense of the Constitution, in Federalist 22, as addressing “one of the weak sides of republics”: “that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption.”

There is no question that the Emoluments Clause applies to the President.  President Obama's counsel sought an opinion in 2009 on whether it barred him from accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.  The Justice Department concluded that it did not, in part based on historical precedent (the Prize had also been awarded to Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, Vice President Charles Dawes and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger), but primarily because the Norwegian group that awards the prize was not deemed a governmental entity.

The clause does not seem ever to have been interpreted by a court, but it has been the subject of a number of opinions, over the years, of the Attorney General and the Comptroller General.

Nearly all of these opinions have concluded that the clause is definitive.  In 1902, an attorney general's opinion said it is “directed against every kind of influence by foreign governments upon officers of the United States.”  In 1970, a comptroller general opinion declared that the clause's “drafters intended the prohibition to have the broadest possible scope and applicability.”  A 1994 Justice Department opinion said “the language of Emoluments Clause is both sweeping and unqualified.”  Among the ties deemed to violate the clause was a Nuclear Regulatory Commission employee undertaking consultant work for a firm retained by the government of Mexico.

Congress has passed one law giving blanket approval to a set of payments from foreign government entities.  Known as the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, it is limited to gifts of “minimal value” (set as of 1981 at $100), educational scholarships and medical treatment, travel entirely outside the country “consistent with the interests of the United States,” or “when it appears that to refuse the gift would likely cause offense or embarrassment or otherwise adversely affect the foreign relations of the United States.”  The specificity of these few exceptions reinforces the notion that other dealings with foreign government entities is forbidden without congressional approval.

One Attorney General opinion from the Reagan administration offers the possibility of a more permissive interpretation of the Emoluments Clause, indicating it could be limited to “payments which have a potential of influencing or corrupting the recipient.”  But whatever the meaning of this, it was the same Reagan Justice Department that banned the NRC employee from the Mexican-funded consultancy a year later.

Ironically, an “originalist” reading of the clause — usually favored these days by conservatives as exemplified by the late Justice Antonin Scalia and current Justice Clarence Thomas — would seem to bind Trump more stringently, while a “living constitution” approach — exemplified by liberals such as the late Justices Louis Brandeis and Thurgood Marshall — might offer him greater latitude.

Clearly, deciding what the Emoluments Clause means in a specific case is a complicated legal question.  (The opinion on Obama's acceptance of the Nobel Prize runs to 13 printed pages.)  But just as clearly, the judges of its meaning with respect to President Trump will be politicians rather than the Supreme Court.

The controversies that swirled around Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton established a number of key points.  Among them are that the sole remedy for a violation of the Constitution by a President in office is impeachment, and that the House of Representatives is the sole judge of what constitutes an impeachable offense, while the Senate is the sole judge of whether such an alleged violation warrants removal from office.  (Impeachments are very rare: articles of impeachment have been voted against only two presidents, Andrew Johnson and Clinton, both of whom were acquitted by the Senate, while Nixon resigned ahead of likely impeachment.  Fifteen federal judges have also been impeached, and eight removed, while four resigned.)

The arguments of scholars and lawyers on the meaning of the Emoluments Clause may influence the public, and their elected representatives.  But if Trump decides not to dispose of his business, it will be up to Congress to decide whether to do anything about his apparent violation of the Constitution.

"Is there a line between Trump's business and political interests?" PBS NewsHour 11/28/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Donald Trump's business dealings with companies around the world have raised questions of possible conflicts of interest once he takes office.  The New York Times recently published a lengthy piece on potential issues; William Brangham speaks with one of the investigation's reporters, Eric Lipton, for details on separating political and economic power, Trump-branded properties and more.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 11/25/2016

"Shields and Brooks on cabinet picks and conflicts of interest" PBS NewsHour 11/25/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In the past week, President-elect Donald Trump has announced several White House appointments and policy ideas.  Judy Woodruff speaks with syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks about Trump's choice to oversee the Department of Education, his interview with the New York Times, possible conflicts of interest and the top contenders for secretary of state.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  But first to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

And we welcome both of you on this day after Thanksgiving.

MARK SHIELDS, syndicated columnist:  Thank you.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  David is in Philadelphia.

Let's talk about — we're getting — beginning to get a sense, Mark, of Donald Trump's administration, a little sense.  He has named two more people today to the White House.  What are we learning from this?  What are we — what do you now understand about him that we didn't understand before?

MARK SHIELDS:  Not much.

I mean, I would say that there's been the small Donald, the petty, vindictive Donald, who can be rather mean-spirited, as he was on display at The New York Times editorial board meeting, where he gratuitously took out after Kelly Ayotte, the former Republican — senior Republican senator in New Hampshire, who had — after the “Access Hollywood” tape had refused to support Donald Trump and said she couldn't get a job.

And then we see the little bit larger Donald in hiring Nikki Haley, who had, in fact, backed both Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz and in the national address, in response — the official Republican response to the President's State of the Union, had warned the party against following the siren call of those — it was a direct allusion to Donald Trump at the time.

So he was larger in spirit in choosing her.  And she certainly is a person who has demonstrated leadership and character under stress at the time of the massacre, the racial massacre at the Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston and leading in lowering the Confederate Battle Flag over the state — on the state capitol grounds.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  David?

(CROSSTALK)

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Excuse me.  I didn't mean to interrupt.

MARK SHIELDS:  Sure.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  What are you learning about Donald Trump from these appointments or announcements?

DAVID BROOKS, New York Times:  Well, I guess it's — yes, of some comfort, I guess.

Sometimes, the campaign seemed to be, as Mark said, vindictive, but sort of a depraved three-ring circus.  The transition period has not been that.  He's nominated people like DeVos or Haley who are competent people, who are more or less professional, experienced people.

They may not be, on substantive ground, all of our cup of tea.  They are very consistent with the way he campaigned, a nationalist campaign on education policy, a campaign that is enthusiastic about school choice.

But they are more or less the sort of professional version of Trump's ideology.  And I do think there is just this animating spirit here to create a sort of nationalist, populist conservatism that will in some ways stretch the Republican Party and in some ways offend a lot of conservatives.

But I think there is an animating vision here to try to create a movement that will last post-Trump, a populist movement that may even try to span some of the dividing lines that have existed so far through large economic policies, through infrastructure policies, through a tough anti-terror policy that nonetheless keeps American troops out of war.

There's an animating vision here, and it's being executed, at least in the appointments so far, in some intellectually coherent way.

TRUMP INC - Conflicts of Interest

"Many potential conflicts of interest await Trump presidency" PBS NewsHour 11/16/2016

IMHO:  There ARE conflicts of interest.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Trump Organization's assets and arrangements span the globe.  As president, Donald Trump will have the authority to appoint people to make decisions that could affect his organization.  To discuss the potential conflicts the president-elect could face, John Yang speaks with Robert Weissman of Public Citizen and Susanne Craig of The New York Times.

JOHN YANG (NewsHour):  The Trump Organization has a variety of assets and arrangements that span the globe.  And, as President, Mr. Trump will have the authority to appoint people who will make decisions that affect those businesses.

Here to discuss the potential for conflict is Robert Weissman, president of nonprofit public interest group Public Citizen, and in New York, Susanne Craig, a New York Times reporter who has writing about this story.

Welcome to you both.

Susanne, let me start with you.

This is a very complicated story.  There are a lot of parts to president-elect Trump's business holdings.  But I think the easiest example is the Trump International Hotel here in Washington, D.C.  Walk us through the potential for conflicts with that hotel.

SUSANNE CRAIG, The New York Times:  It's really interesting.

This is a hotel that just opened, and it's been — it's been in progress for a few years, and it's on the site of the old post office, which is a government property.  And Donald Trump has a ground lease for 60 years, the Trump Organization, for 60 years, to run the hotel out of that.

So there's an arrangement between the federal government, an agency called the GSA, and the Trump Organization.  And the President has the power to appoint the head of the GSA.  So it's just this incredible situation where you have got a private company that will now be — that is owned by soon to be the President that will be negotiating with a government agency where the head of that agency is appointed by the President.

So just the potential there for conflict, you can just see it coming 100 miles away.  And the GSA is already saying they are preparing for it and they're looking at it.  Imagine that situation and multiply it by so many when you look at all the different things that could happen with the various companies that Donald Trump owns and the business interests that he has.

JOHN YANG:  And, also, Susanne, in that hotel are workers who might want to unionize.

SUSANNE CRAIG:  Who might want to unionize.

And this situation's actually been playing out in Las Vegas, where he co-owns a hotel in Las Vegas, and that hotel has — the workers there have tried to unionize, and the National Labor Relations Board, which has got presidential appointees on it, has actually — the board has ruled against Donald Trump even in the days before the election, so yet another example playing out in real time already where you have got conflict between the private — the private holdings and now government agencies that will have presidential appointees on them.

HEALTH - Doctors Paid to Advise and Promote Big Pharma

"Double Dip:  Doctors Paid to Advise, Promote Drug Companies That Fund Their Research" by Charles Ornstein and Ryann Grochowski Jones, ProPublica 3/25/2014

Excerpt

This story was co-published with The Boston Globe.

Pharmaceutical companies pay for the clinical trials that Dr. Yoav Golan conducts on antibiotics at Tufts Medical Center.

They also pay him tens of thousands of dollars a year to give speeches and advice on behalf of their drugs.

If Golan worked at some teaching hospitals, he would be barred or severely restricted from accepting both research funding and personal payments for promotional speaking or consulting from drug makers.  These hospitals fear the money could influence clinical findings, or at least create the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Yet Tufts and many other academic medical centers allow doctors to accept overlapping payments — and some doctors still take them.

A ProPublica analysis shows that more than 1,300 practitioners nationwide received both research money and speaking or consulting fees from the same drug maker in 2012.  All told, they received more than $90 million in research grants — plus nearly $13 million for speaking engagements and another $4 million for consulting.

Critics say doctors who conduct a clinical trial while accepting personal payments from the company sponsoring the study can feel beholden to the drug maker.

“The pharmaceutical company has a paramount stake in a favorable outcome.  The [research] grant recipient has a stake in a favorable outcome and the honorarium recipient or consultant has yet another stake in the outcome,” said David Rothman, director of the Center for Medicine as a Profession at Columbia University.  “It’s not only my lab.  It’s my mortgage.”

ProPublica used its Dollars for Docs database, which tracks payments to practitioners by 15 drug companies, to conduct the review.  Not every company discloses all types of payments — research, speaking and consulting — or distinguishes between the types.  The analysis covered the nine companies that disclosed payments in this form.

Golan, an infectious disease specialist, was the only doctor who received speaking, consulting, and research payments from three companies in 2012, the most recent year for which data has been compiled.  Pfizer, Merck, and Forest Labs gave Tufts $51,000 for his research that year, in addition to paying him $125,000 to speak about their drugs and $13,000 for consulting.  His speaking fees ranked second nationally among all the researchers examined, and his total personal payments ranked fourth.

Golan referred questions to the public relations department at Tufts Medical Center, which said in a statement that Golan complies with its research conflict-of-interest policy and that officials keep a close watch over his work.

“Dr. Golan’s work has contributed to the development of two important antibiotics, including the first antibiotic developed in the past 25 years to treat the growing threat of deadly C. difficile,” the statement said.

Pharmaceutical companies’ payments for promotional speaking and consulting appear to have decreased in recent years, as blockbuster drugs have lost patent protection and the push for transparency has advanced.  Beginning this fall, all drug companies will have to publicly disclose payments they made to doctors, under the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, part of the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

But industry-backed clinical studies, which can lead to advances in care, have largely been seen as a separate matter.

ProPublica’s is the first large-scale analysis of how frequently researchers receive additional payments from companies that fund their clinical trials.  About 10 percent of researchers for the nine companies examined for this story also received money for speaking or consulting, or both.

One doctor’s conflicts:  When research meets promotion

Dr. Yoav Golan, an infectious disease specialist at Tufts Medical Center, received speaking, consulting and research payments from three companies in 2012, the only physician in ProPublica’s Dollars for Docs database that met those criteria.  Some ethicists question doctors’ abilities to stay impartial when receiving both research and personal payments from pharmaceutical companies.