Draft for your review

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