How not to avoid a conflict of interest

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. launched his political career on claims that federal health agencies are hopelessly corrupt. So it’s more than a little ironic that he’s become a prime example on how not to avoid conflicts of interest.

This week, four Democratic senators wrote a letter to Kennedy seeking clarity on whether his family benefited from a $50 million settlement that vaccine manufacturer Merck agreed to regarding its Gardasil vaccine in June. Kennedy played a key role in organizing that lawsuit as a consultant for Wisner Baum, where his son works as an associate attorney.

This is a headache of Kennedy’s own making. Before he was confirmed as health and human services secretary, he released an ethics agreement — required of all Cabinet nominees — indicating that he would retain a financial stake in the lawsuit, which claimed that Merck concealed health risks from the HPV shot. The unusual arrangement would have allowed him to receive 10 percent of any fees awarded to the firm’s clients.

That whipped up a storm of criticism, given that he would oversee multiple agencies that regulate Merck as HHS secretary. Eventually he relented, divesting himself personally from the lawsuit. But in doing so, he transferred his financial interest to his son.

Brent Wisner, managing partner at the firm, said that neither Kennedy nor his son will receive fees generated from the lawsuit. “Regulators are supposed to be adverse to the industry they regulate, and that is exactly where Secretary Kennedy comes from, whether you agree or disagree with his policies and politics,” Wisner said in a statement.

In any case, the settlement raises eyebrows given that a large body of evidence supports the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness. The senators also note that Kennedy refused to recuse himself from any “decisions and communications” that might have played a role in the outcome of the litigation.

If government officials want to avoid questions of impropriety, they need to go out of their way to show that they will not personally benefit from their own policies. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest will inevitably raise questions about whether it colors decision-making. Kennedy could have nipped this in the bud by fully divesting from the lawsuit at the onset. HHS did not respond to a request for comment.

Despite Kennedy’s promises to close the “revolving door,” he has done little to improve government ethics. Just last week, an advisory panel at the Food and Drug Administration recommended loosening restrictions on peptides, one of Kennedy’s pet causes. HHS appointed multiple members to the panel who promote the drugs or work for companies that sell them.