On Thursday, more than 75 members of the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine demanded that the organization explain why for years it has been unable to return or redirect millions of dollars donated by the Sackler family, including those who led Purdue Pharma.

OxyContin’s drug helped spark a prescription opioid crisis that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives. The New York Times reported this month that despite the academies advising the government on opioid policy, the organization received $19 million from the Sackler family and appointed powerful members to its committees who had financial ties to Purdue Pharma.

One report published by the academies claimed that 100 million, or 40 percent of Americans, suffer from chronic pain. This figure, which later turned out to be inflated, was cited by drug manufacturers to convince doctors to write a large number of prescriptions for opioids.

In a letter delivered to Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences, scientists and economists called on the organization to clarify how members of the exploratory committee who ran nonprofits heavily funded by Purdue were chosen to lead the federal government on opioid policy: failure in the past? the letter asked.

“The academy looked like it had been mentally dormant for the last 30 years,” Robert Putnam, the letter’s author and Harvard public policy professor, said in an interview.

“Of course, we take the concerns of members of the National Academy of Sciences seriously, and their concerns have partly sparked very serious talk here about the return or repurposing of funds, to which the NAS remains committed,” the organization said in a statement on Friday. .

The National Academies were established in 1863 by Abraham Lincoln to advise the nation on scientific and medical matters. The institution annually elects new members—elite scientists and physicians—and provides influential advice to the White House, Congress, and federal agencies.

While about 70 percent of the national academy’s budget comes from federal funds, it also receives private donations from individuals, nonprofits, and companies including Chevron, Google, Merck, and Medtronic.

“If they start to see a problem – that is, this huge influx of private money, and private money is often associated with implicit connections – they will see that this is a threat to the basic principles of the academies,” the doctor said. Putnam spoke about the current leadership of the National Academies.

Among the signatories of the letter are eight Nobel Prize winners. The two authors are members of the National Academy of Sciences, who in 2017 called on top officials to distance the organization from the Sacklers.

Robert M. Houser, a noted sociologist, wrote in an October 2017 email to two senior Academy officials: “I have been thinking about NAS’s willingness to accept the support of the Sackler family and host events and awards—lectures, forums. , colloquia, prizes – no matter how worthy they may be.

He and another member of the Academy concluded that “NAS should distance itself from the Sacklers.” Another member was Angus Deaton, a Nobel laureate and co-author of a book on the soaring drug-related deaths and suicide among the white working class.

Dr. Deaton said in an interview that he and Dr. Houser asked to call high-ranking officials about the Sacklers’ involvement.

“More than anything, we wanted to warn them that there was a lot of trouble ahead along the way, that tens of thousands of people were dying, and the Sacklers were giving them money,” the doctor said. Deaton recalled in an interview.

Dr Hauser, who worked at the National Academies from 2010 to 2016, referred to a detailed New Yorker article about the “ruthless” marketing of OxyContin by the Sackler family in an email sent to Bruce Darling, then CEO, and James Hinchman, then COO.

“Sooner or later I thought it was going to explode in their face,” the doctor said. Houser said in an interview. “And that would really tarnish the reputation of the academies, which I vigorously defended.”

Four minutes after Dr. Houser’s initial inquiry was emailed, he received a response from Mr. Darling: “Last summer we had a conversation in the NAS Council on the same issue that you raised, and we made a decision that I would be happy to discuss with you . ”

Mr. Darling and Mr. Hinchman did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Dr. Hauser recalled that Mr. Darling had summarized the Sackler donations as something that had been discussed and required no new action. Dr. Deaton and Dr. Houser felt their concerns were dismissed.

Two National Academy reports on opioids have been criticized by experts. One, published in 2011, featured two panellists with significant financial ties to Purdue and concluded that 100 million Americans suffer from chronic pain, a number that was wildly inflated. (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention later estimated that approximately 52 million adults suffered from chronic pain, and more than 17 million adults in the United States experienced severe or more severe chronic pain.)

However, a report by armed pharmaceutical companies with the thesis that turned out to be influential with officials from the Food and Drug Administration who oversaw the approval of opioids. so what cited by Purdue Pharma lawyers in its response to the Senate inquiry.

Another Academy committee on opioid policy was singled out Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, due to some members’ ties to Purdue. This group, formed in 2016, continued the study after replacing four members.

Articles in Progressive And in V BMJor the British Medical Journal also noted the Sacklers’ connections to academies and identified additional committee members with ties to Purdue.

Friday’s letter asked for a “clear answer” to what procedures are in place to “ensure proper due diligence of advisory committee members,” among other questions.

The Academies told The Times that as of 2019, the Sackler family’s donations are no longer being used for the science events, research and awards they were intended for. The funds have “never been used to support any opioid counseling effort,” spokeswoman Megan Lowry said.

Donations totaled approximately $19 million, and funds invested in the institution’s fund totaled approximately $31 million at the end of 2021, according to the most recent available reporting. Universities that accepted Sackler’s funds, including Tufts and Brown, reallocated some of the money to addiction prevention and treatment.

Members of the Sackler family who actively ran Purdue Pharma began donating to the National Academy of Sciences in 2008. The money was used to sponsor forums and research.

In 2015 family members donated $10 million to create the Raymond and Beverly Sackler Prize for Convergence Research., according to the reports of the treasurer of the organization. Dr. and Mrs. Sackler died in 2017 and 2019. The family’s lawyer said the donations had “nothing to do with pain, medication or anything to do with the company.”

Dame Gillian Sackler, whose husband Arthur died years before OxyContin hit the market, began donating to the Academies in 2000 and has donated $5 million by 2017, Academy records show.

The day after The Times report was released, the National Academies made a statement stating that it has explored the possibility of returning or repurposing the funds. “The most important consideration will be to do this in an ethical and transparent manner,” the organization said.

The perceived lack of urgency in the statement was quickly helped by a new letter from members of the Academy. “This is another excuse as we read it,” the doctor says. Houser said.

He added: “We wrote them a letter to tell them, ‘Guys, you have to be serious, fast and sufficient in this matter.’