Cleveland Clinic fined $7.6 million for alleged mismanagement of NIH grants

Over the past five years, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has encountered significant challenges in prosecuting scientists accused of failing to disclose research support from China, resulting in a limited number of successful criminal cases1. Nonetheless, a recent settlement with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF) signals the DOJ’s continued commitment to holding research institutions accountable for lapses in monitoring external support to their faculty.

On May 17, the DOJ announced that CCF would pay $7.6 million to resolve allegations of mismanagement involving three grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH)2. This settlement is noteworthy for its record amount in cases concerning foreign research support and mandates that a senior CCF official personally attest to the accuracy of all NIH submissions. This requirement underscores the critical importance of maintaining integrity throughout the grants process.

The settlement falls under the auspices of the False Claims Act (FCA)3, a Civil War–era statute traditionally employed to prevent fraudulent claims against the government. Since 2019, the FCA has been utilized in a limited number of cases to recoup funds from institutions accused of inadequate oversight of researchers’ foreign affiliations, particularly in the context of China’s purported efforts to acquire U.S. technology.

The investigation into CCF commenced in 2018, when NIH began scrutinizing Qing Wang, a cardiovascular geneticist, based on an FBI-provided list of scientists allegedly receiving Chinese funding4. Following NIH’s inquiry and CCF’s subsequent internal investigation, Wang was charged with making false claims related to his NIH grant5. However, the DOJ dropped the charges in 2021, possibly due to evidence indicating that CCF allowed shared access to NIH’s reporting system, complicating efforts to prove Wang’s direct involvement in falsifying reports.

The evolving NIH policy on disclosing external sources of research support likely influenced the DOJ’s shift towards institutional accountability. This policy now requires comprehensive reporting of all research support, not limited to federal grants but encompassing in-kind support, foreign government grants, and funding for visiting scientists. This shift underscores a significant change in grant-making expectations and obligations.

Despite CCF’s denial of any wrongdoing and its attribution of violations to Wang, the settlement has broader implications for the research community. It serves as a cautionary exemplar for research institutions to bolster their compliance mechanisms and ensure that researchers are thoroughly informed about their disclosure obligations. The settlement also highlights the necessity for institutions to adapt to evolving regulatory landscapes to mitigate potential legal and financial liabilities.