Friday, January 29, 2021

Disregard my request to talk, pls. I believe the better approach is for you to write Gretchen and ask her to review the package she has (NAM) and the others (AAAS (re-review), CDC and Dan David) once her office receives them. We discussed that approach last evening. From me, Gretchen knows Tony wants final decisions and is pressing you to go to HHS to get them. Pls contact her first. Up until now, OGC has not been the reason for the delay. (I said last night that NAM’s delay lies mostly with me.) Perhaps Gretchen only needs a reason to ask for a revised prioritization of her work. To clarify: NAM is pending with Gretchen. Once Randy gets it, he may agree with us and then there is no need for it to go to OGE. Marilyn gave us comments on AAAS on Jan 7. We asked AAAS for more information on Jan 12, and pinged them on Jan 27. CDC will go to OGC on Monday and it will be approved. (I misspoke before. We needed something from NIAID prior to forwarding the package to OGC, and we got that today.) Dan David was reviewed in 2011 (Gretchen sent me the attached email), so if we can confirm a few things with Dan David – it’s very likely we can, that should be approved too. Re: GA Tech and Vanderbilt, we’re in agreement that those are closed? Tony was told that he could not receive the money from GA Tech. He has not been told our conclusion re: Vanderbilt. (I attempted that in my draft status email this morning.) I briefly discussed both awards with Gretchen and she also agrees, but has not seen the paperwork. Her agreement was based on their grantee status. If you still want to go to HHS, pls see below. From: Tabak, Lawrence (NIH/OD) [E] < @nih.gov> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 1:36 PM To: Jaffe, Holli Beckerman (NIH/OD) [E] < @od.nih.gov> Cc: Schwetz, Tara (NIH/OD) [E] < @nih.gov> Subject: Draft for your review Importance: High Draft - let me know what you think. I would send to HHS C-O-S, his counselor Dawn O’Connell, and Anne Reid. With apologies for adding to your very full plate. I am writing to you in my role as NIH Deputy Ethics Counselor to ask for help in expediting OGC’s review of a number of awards for Dr. Anthony Fauci. I am told (and appreciate) that OGC staff are now working on ethics clearance for new appointees, but several awards need (or soon will need) OGC’s attention. Given the visibility of Dr. Fauci and the visibility of these prestigious awards it is becoming increasing uncomfortable for him to explain why no decision has been reached. This will be further compounded by the latest award that Dr. Fauci has been notified about (the Dan David prize from Israel) which they wish to announce on Feb 15. To be clear, Dr. Fauci knows he can accept the honor of these awards, but each also comes with a Released significant monetary award. The sponsors byforChairman are eager information as toRand whether Paul he can accept the cash prizes. [Tony’s assistant routinely tells the sponsors as soon as NIAID is notified that Tony is an award recipient that the cash prizes need heighten review. And we don’t just want to say no; we want to try to get to yes. Yes takes time.] Would it be possible to elevate the priority of the review of these awards by OGC please: National Academy of Medicine Gustav O. Lienhard award CDC Foundation Fries Prize AAAS Philip Abelson Prize The Dan David Prize lat

Holli: Here is discussion from 2011. If you can confirm that nothing has changed, including the “attendant events” that are now mentioned on the web site, this should be helpful. I did all of the leg work. Ed took this information to OGE and OGE accepted the award as bona fide even though the subject area to be recognized changes, etc.: The Dan David Foundation awards three $1 million Dan David Prizes each year (since 2002), recognizing past, present, and future achievements. For each time dimension, a field is chosen, and one or more recipients are selected. If more than one recipient is selected in a field, the cash prize is shared. The categories for 2012 are: Past – History/Biography; Present – Plastic Arts; and Future – Genome Research. Notably, laureates donate 10% of their prize money to graduate students of their choice. NASA and DOE employees are among the prior recipients (they received the award in 2007). International panels of experts in each of the fields to be recognized evaluate the nominees based upon the description of each field of recognition posted on the web site and submit reports to the Dan David Prize Board (an international panel selected by the Dan David Foundation Board). The DDP Board makes the final determination as to which nominee(s) in each category have achieved that which the prize is intended to recognize (as described in the category descriptions). More information is available at: http://www.dandavidprize.org/, including the composition of the DDP Board. After reviewing the web site, other publicly available information, and the materials our NASA colleagues were able to provide, I made contact with the Chair of the Dan David Foundation Board, Professor Itamar Rabinovich, and the administrative Director of the Prize, Ms. Smadar Fisher. Based on all of the information I have been able to obtain , it appears that the Prize program is “owned” by the Dan David Foundation, although there is a relationship between it and Tel Aviv University pursuant to which Tel Aviv provides space and administrative support for the award program. Professor Rabinovich was the President of Tel Aviv University when Dan David began his Foundation and an agreement was reached. Professor Rabinovich confirmed that the Foundation could opt to move the administrative headquarters of the Prize out of the University. Upon review of the web site, you may also notice reference to French Collaboration. The Dan David Foundation entered into an agreement with the French Government in 2006. Professor Rabinovich has said that this was intended to further the international outreach efforts of the Foundation. In alternating years the Prize ceremony is held in France. In exchange, two or three seats on the Dan David Prize Board “belong” to the French. The current composition of the Board is at: http://www.dandavidprize.org/about/about-the-board.html. Based upon the available information, and in light of OLC’s opinions (particularly the more recent award opinion covering the President’s Nobel Prize), I do not think the Dan David Prize implicates the Emoluments Clause or the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act. Although Tel Aviv University is an NIH grantee, I do not think the Dan David Prize implicates our Supplemental Standard because the Prize appears to be from the Dan David Foundation, a separate entity that does not appear to be a grantee or otherwise have any business dealings with the NIH. Moreover, although the recipient is expected to give a lecture (at a symposium, and in addition to acceptance remarks during the presentation ceremony), the Dan David Prize appears to be a bona fide award made as part of an established program of recognition that an NIH employee, including Dr. Collins, might be permitted to accept (assuming no change in the program or other individualized issue). Again , the award appears to be from the Dan David Foundation. I have found no record of any business interactions between NIH and the Dan David Foundation, so OGE’s source limitation is not an issue. Although there is a symposium at which the recipients are expected to give a presentation, I have been told they Released give talks about their work over the course of theirby Chairman careers, Randscience rather than current Paul and theory, and $1 million is far outside of the range of typical honoraria paid for individual presentations. From videos available on the internet (at sites not presently blocked by NIH security measures), it appears that the Prize ceremony is quite elaborate, well-attended, and in keeping with what we expect such an event to “look like.” Press reports that coincide with the announcement of each year’s winners appear to reflect that this is a significant award/honor. Gretchen H. Weaver, J.D. Supervisory/Senior NIH Ethics Counsel DHHS/OGC/Ethics Division phone: fax: NOTICE: THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), ETHICS DIVISION IS INTENDED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE RECIPIENT(S) NAMES ABOVE AND MAY CONTAIN PROTECTED, PRIVILEGED, OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT SHOULD NOT BE TRANSMITTED TO UNAUTHORIZED ADDRESSEES. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS. EMPLOYEE RECIPIENTS ARE COUNSELED THAT DISCIPLINARY ACTION FOR VIOLATING FEDERAL ETHICS REGULATIONS MAY NOT BE TAKEN AGAINST ANY EMPLOYEE WHO HAS ENGAGED IN CONDUCT IN GOOD FAITH RELIANCE UPON THE PRIOR ADVICE OF ANY AGENCY ETHICS OFFICIAL, PROVIDED THAT THE EMPLOYEE HAS MADE FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES. IF EMPLOYEE CONDUCT IS POTENTIALLY SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL SANCTIONS UNDER CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND RELATED STATUTES, RELIANCE OF THE ADVICE OF AN AGENCY ETHICS OFFICIAL IN INTERPRETING THE SCOPE OF SUCH STATUTES IS A FACTOR THAT MAY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN EXERCISING PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION. EMPLOYEES ARE CAUTIONED THAT DISCLOSURES TO AN OGC ATTORNEY ARE NOT PROTTECTED WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. ALL EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING AGENCY ATTORNEYS, ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS TO THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. From: Jaffe, Holli Beckerman (NIH/OD) [E] @od.nih.gov> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 2:16 PM To: Weaver, Gretchen (NIH/OD) [E] < @od.nih.gov> Subject: FW: Dan David Prize My quick thoughts From: Jaffe, Holli Beckerman (NIH/OD) [E] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 11:40 AM To: Tabak, Lawrence (NIH/OD) [E] < @nih.gov> Cc: Schwetz, Tara (NIH/OD) [E] @nih.gov> Subject: Dan David Prize I’m lost as to what Tony wants you to raise with HHS at this VERY early time. It’s not a pending HHS matter yet, though once we transmit the package, HHS could be helpful in telling OGC that this is a top priority (and not clearing other OPDIVs’ appointees). NEO needs time to assemble the package. From a quick review of the website, I know we’ll need to contact the award sponsor for additional information. For example: Laureates in each selected field are chosen by the Dan David Prize Board, based on the recommendations of International Review Committees comprised of world-renowned experts in the relevant fields. Will need to confirm that both the Review Committee and the DD Board used written selection criteria, either the same or different. Also need to know who makes up the Committee and Board (so can likely prove both are independent of Tel Aviv U.) Nomination requirements include: “A detailed description of the nominee’s work (1-2 pages), stipulating reasons why the nominee merits the Dan David Prize. Reference should be made to the importance of the work, its impact and its projected influence in the relevant field.” Might be able to use “importance of the work, its impact and its projected influence in the relevant field,” are selection criteria. Would need sponsor to confirm that selections are based on these factors. Prize winners are requiredReleased byAward to participate in the Chairman Ceremony andRand PaulEvents. Will need to know what the Attendant the details of the Award Ceremony and get a list of the Attendant Events. From the website, seems attendant events include a symposia. Also, we need clarification of Tel Aviv University’s involvement. The University’s involvement could be consequential if NIAID has any projects with it. My guess is that the University is NOT involved in the recipient selection process; it appears to host the symposia. The latter involvement likely will not affect the determination. How can I help? Holli Beckerman Jaffe Director, NIH Ethics Office @od.nih.gov To clarify: Released by Chairman Rand Paul NAM is pending with Gretchen. Once Randy gets it, he may agree with us and then there is no need for it to go to OGE. Marilyn gave us comments on AAAS on Jan 7. We asked AAAS for more information on Jan 12, and pinged them on Jan 27. CDC will go to OGC on Monday and it will be approved. (I misspoke before. We needed something from NIAID prior to forwarding the package to OGC, and we got that today.) Dan David was reviewed in 2011 (Gretchen sent me the attached email), so if we can confirm a few things with Dan David – it’s very likely we can, that should be approved too. Re: GA Tech and Vanderbilt, we’re in agreement that those are closed? Tony was told that he could not receive the money from GA Tech. He has not been told our conclusion re: Vanderbilt. (I attempted that in my draft status email this morning.) I briefly discussed both awards with Gretchen and she also agrees, but has not seen the paperwork. Her agreement was based on their grantee status. If you still want to go to HHS, pls see below. From: Tabak, Lawrence (NIH/OD) [E] < @nih.gov> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 1:36 PM To: Jaffe, Holli Beckerman (NIH/OD) [E] < @od.nih.gov> Cc: Schwetz, Tara (NIH/OD) [E] < @nih.gov> Subject: Draft for your review Importance: High Draft - let me know what you think. I would send to HHS C-O-S, his counselor Dawn O’Connell, and Anne Reid. With apologies for adding to your very full plate. I am writing to you in my role as NIH Deputy Ethics Counselor to ask for help in expediting OGC’s review of a number of awards for Dr. Anthony Fauci. I am told (and appreciate) that OGC staff are now working on ethics clearance for new appointees, but several awards need (or soon will need) OGC’s attention. Given the visibility of Dr. Fauci and the visibility of these prestigious awards it is becoming increasing uncomfortable for him to explain why no decision has been reached. This will be further compounded by the latest award that Dr. Fauci has been notified about (the Dan David prize from Israel) which they wish to announce on Feb 15. To be clear, Dr. Fauci knows he can accept the honor of these awards, but each also comes with a significant monetary award. The sponsors are eager for information as to whether he can accept the cash prizes. [Tony’s assistant routinely tells the sponsors as soon as NIAID is notified that Tony is an award recipient that the cash prizes need heighten review. And we don’t just want to say no; we want to try to get to yes. Yes takes time.] Would it be possible to elevate the priority of the review of these awards by OGC please: National Academy of Medicine Gustav O. Lienhard award CDC Foundation Fries Prize AAAS Philip Abelson Prize The Dan David Prize lat