> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.fdaweb.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# House Committee Probes Retaliation Against Former FDA Fellow
- URL: https://www.fdaweb.com/house-committee-probes-retaliation-against-former-fda-fellow/
- Published: 2016-03-28T12:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-14T20:51:14.000Z
- Author: David McFarland
- Tags: FDA Policy/General, #legacy-id-D5135199

> The House Committee on Science, Space and Technology has opened an investigation into the dismissal of a researcher working under a fellowship at CBER, particularly allegations that the fellow was terminated in retaliation for his 2014 testimony before Congress during the Ebola crisis that may have cast the agency in a negative light. In a [recent letter](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2776335-NyanSmithlet.html?ref=fdaweb.com) to FDA Commissioner **Robert Califf**, committee chairman **Lamar Smith** (R-TX) says he has information suggesting CBER managers retaliated against the fellow by removing him from his position at the agency, removing his name from a scientific research paper he worked on, and removing his name as the first inventor on a patent for a medical test he developed. The fellow was identified as **Dougbeh Chris Nyan** in a *Washington Post* [article](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiH7aq3qeTLAhVG1x4KHQlxC8wQqQIIHTAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fpowerpost%2Fwp%2F2016%2F03%2F28%2Fdid-fda-remove-scientists-name-from-article-and-invention-in-retaliation%2F&usg=AFQjCNGdFIPG3cGQ4wPCd0ucwRr7Zjymzw&bvm=bv.117868183,d.dmo).  
>  
>  
>  
> After his testimony at the Ebola hearing, CBER managers **Sanjay Kumar** and **Deborah Taylor** began putting pressure on the fellow and monitoring his activities, according to the letter. Three months later, the fellow was informed by the two managers that his fellowship was being terminated due to a lack of funding. “Ironically, the organization responsible for initiating the fellowship agreement, facilitating the fellowship, and providing funding for the fellowship did not inform the fellow of a funding deficiency,” it said. “This raises serious questions about the motives of FDA management in terminating the fellowship, including whether there ever was a funding deficiency , as cited by the fellows superiors at the FDA.”  
>  
>  
>  
> After he left the agency, Taylor reportedly reached out to the fellow and apologized for her role in his termination, suggesting there was a plot to oust him that was directed by Kumar. “These peculiar communications from Dr. Taylor raise further questions about the circumstances surrounding the fellow’s termination and the motives that fueled FDA management officials’ plot to terminate a successful and well-accomplished member of the (Division),” the letter said.  
>  
>  
>  
> The Committee’s letter requested that FDA produce all documents and communications among CBER employees referring or relating to the fellow. It also requested all documents and communications referring or relating to disciplinary actions against all fellows in CBER’s Laboratory of Emerging Pathogens, which is where the fellow performed his work product.  
>  
>  
>  
> Charges of retaliation by current and former employees have long dogged FDA and its personnel managers. In 2012, a lawsuit by former CDRH whistleblowers said that their private emails and electronic activities on their computers were illegally monitored by FDA and used against them in internal wrongdoing probes. While at the Center, the plaintiffs brought to light alleged instances where supervisors overrode reviewers’ recommendations not to approve unsafe medical devices.  
>  
>  
>  
> The lawsuit arose after the medical device reviewers went [public in 2008](http://www.fdaweb.com/login.php?sa=v&aid=D5110260&searchWords=whistleblowers&cate=S&stid=%241%24zD2.AL3.%24woniC6j5k.PhrKfH5LN9u.) about agency management overruling their opinions without supporting evidence and tried to intimidate them when they voiced their concerns. At the time, the whistleblowers asked for Congress’ help, saying their managers have “failed to follow the laws, rules, regulations, and agency guidance to ensure the safety and effectiveness of medical devices and consequently, they have corrupted the scientific review of medical devices.”  
>  
>  
>  
> In 2014, a House and Senate Republican staff report ([see story](http://fdaweb.com/login.php?sa=v&aid=D5127829&searchWords=retaliation&cate=S&stid=%241%24%2FK4.aM1.%24BUImMsbYA06GOJwrVNyX6%2F&ref=fdaweb.com)) found that the agency’s policies still do not offer sufficient protection for whistleblowers. The [report](http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/FDA-Staff-Report-final.pdf?ref=fdaweb.com) recommended that procedural safeguards requiring surveillance approval by senior officials are not enough. “The FDA should ensure that programs used to monitor employees do not collect personal information such as bank account numbers or passwords for personal e-mail accounts,” it said. And it recommended FDA establish procedures that ensure protected whistleblower communications cannot be used for retaliation, and that protected communications are not retained or shared for any reason.