Dr. Fredrickson 
Page Two 
proceedings are initiated, recipients may be inclined to sit 
back and wait for NIH to uncover violations; they will have 
little incentive to seek actively to uncover and correct 
non-complying practices themselves. In order to provide that 
incentive, NIH should consider revising its MUA to provide 
for retrospective relief and damages. For instance, an institu- 
tion could be permitted to receive prospective funding but 
required to reimburse NIH for all or part of the federal monies 
expended during the period in which it was out of compliance. 
Similarly, in those cases where fund termination is selected as 
an appropriate remedy, the non-complying institution could be 
required to provide NIH with the results of research already con- 
ducted, and to pay for setting up additional facilities and 
replicating experiments elsewhere. Regardless of whether NIH 
has the authority to impose fines without additional legislation, 
it clearly has the authority to enter into contracts which 
provide that its grant of funds is contingent upon compliance, 
and which permit it to seek reimbursement for any funds expended 
upon activities not conducted in accordance with contractual 
assurances . 
We urge that HEW consider specific performance and retro- 
spective remedies, rather than limiting its enforcement arsenal 
to a single inflexible and inadequate enforcement weapon. 
Herbert Semmel, Attorney 
Deborah AguSf Student Intern 
Enclosure 
SAN : vl 
cc: Peter J. Libassi 
General Counsel 
[A-375] 
