In the Wall Street Journal, Scott Gottlieb details the case of the criminal prosecution of InterMune's CEO, Scott Harkonen, who committed the crime of publicizing the results of a study. The FDA disagreed with his conclusions (though federal health agencies use similar methodology in determining "comparative effectiveness"), and the federal government charged him with wire fraud, resulting in six-month sentence for house arrest. Harkonen is appealing to the Ninth Circuit on First Amendment grounds, but the problem is not new: the government has been going after pharmaceutical companies for truthful speech about scientific studies for some time if the consequence might be to publicize the possibility of an off-label use for a drug—an issue explored in detail at an AEI conference I helped organize in 2008. The tale of former District of Massachusetts federal prosecutor Michael Loucks in the New York Times illustrates the perverse incentives for overcriminalization by prosecutors: a prosecutor who makes a name for himself by aggressively expanding the government ambit of what can be criminally charged not only makes himself famous, but creates a market in private industry for his work later.