If she just saves one life, her payment is appropriate. If she incentivizes just one whistleblower to come forward with similar information, her payment is appropriate. And finally if compliance is tightened at Glaxo and other major pharmaceutical companies, her payment is appropriate.
In the last two days there has been substantial public backlash toward Cheryl Eckard. Why? Ms. Eckard recently earned a $96 million whistleblower award for providing information about Glaxo-SmithKline’s deficient drug production standards. The backlash was undeserved. This was not like winning the powerball lottery; she risked her career. What she did was noble, courageous and likely will save lives.
Ms. Eckard worked for Glaxo-SmithKline in 2002 as a quality checker. She traveled to different plants around the world checking for compliance with safety and manufacturing standards. At a company that mass-produces pharmaceuticals for international use, Ms. Eckard had a job of vital importance. It’s one thing if Nike uses low-grade leather in its shoes; it’s another if a drug company circumvents or ignores safety laws while mass-producing drugs.
When visiting Glaxo-SmithKline’s Puerto Rico plant that’s exactly what Ms. Eckard found and reported — different types and strengths of drugs were frequently bottled together without any corrective action taken by management. Think about the consequences.
Regrettably, though, and perhaps to the astonishment of Ms. Eckard, her superiors, despite her detailed reports, simply ignored her. Finally, likely after much soul searching, she risked her job in order to do the right thing. She reported Glaxo’s transgressions to the FDA and later filed suit under the False Claims Act. She didn’t do it for the money. She did it because in good conscience, she could not turn a blind eye to major safety violations.
Many will think Ms. Eckard’s receipt of $96 million is out of line and unnecessary. All she did was tell the FDA what she witnessed as part of her job. But her value should be judged against the impact she made. If she just saves one life, her payment is appropriate. If she incentivizes just one whistleblower to come forward with similar information, her payment is appropriate. And finally if compliance is tightened at Glaxo and other major pharmaceutical companies, her payment is appropriate.
Carol Eckhard is our person of the week because of the example she sets. She went to management repeatedly. Only after being rejected and ignored did she risk her job and professional reputation to report Glaxo. She did the right thing for the right reasons.
I hope that her conduct and character, not the $96 million, inspire others to follow in her footsteps.
Assisted by David Martin