Special Report: IG-0819

Allegations of Conflict of Interest Regarding Licensing of PROTECT by Argonne National Laboratory

Office of Inspector General

August 5, 2009
minute read time

August 5, 2009

Allegations of Conflict of Interest Regarding Licensing of PROTECT by Argonne National Laboratory

In February 2009, the Office of Inspector General received a letter from Congressman Mark Steven Kirk of Illinois, which included constituent allegations that an exclusive technology licensing agreement by Argonne National Laboratory was tainted by inadequate competition, conflicts of interest, and other improprieties. The technology in question was for the Program for Response Options and Technology Enhancements for Chemical/Biological Terrorism, commonly referred to as PROTECT. Because of the importance of the Department of Energy's technology transfer program, especially as implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act matures, we reviewed selected aspects of the licensing process for PROTECT to determine whether the allegations had merit. In summary, under the facts developed during our review, it was understandable that interested parties concluded that there was a conflict of interest in this matter and that Argonne may have provided the successful licensee with an unfair advantage. In part, this was consistent with aspects of the complaint from Congressman Kirk's constituent.

Topic: Management and Administration

  • In February 2009, the Office of Inspector General received a letter from Congressman
    Mark Steven Kirk of Illinois, which included constituent allegations that an exclusive
    technology licensing agreement by Argonne National Laboratory was tainted by
    inadequate competition, conflicts of interest, and other improprieties. The technology in
    question was for the Program for Response Options and Technology Enhancements for
    Chemical/Biological Terrorism, commonly referred to as PROTECT. Because of the
    importance of the Department of Energy's technology transfer program, especially as
    implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act matures, we reviewed
    selected aspects of the licensing process for PROTECT to determine whether the
    allegations had merit. In summary, under the facts developed during our review, it was
    understandable that interested parties concluded that there was a conflict of interest in
    this matter and that Argonne may have provided the successful licensee with an unfair
    advantage. In part, this was consistent with aspects of the complaint from Congressman
    Kirk's constituent.