The term 'so-called spy software' is suspcct. If they're communicating online, it's s freebie.
If they are whistleblowing, which this article would indicate they are, although it doesn't say specifically in the OP escerpt, it's standard practice to refute allegations of impropriety. Even if both sides are dirty.
If they are, and this is a big IF, as the FDA since Bush has been loaded with scientists in the pocket of corporations seeking to skew the data to make decisions to profit them, they are working on the side for one firm against another, this could be termed corporate espionage.
There is no privacy when transmitting data from an organization you do not own, like employees in any private concern, the owners legally can and are duty bound to follow that trail. This does not rise to the sensationalist term of 'spying,' but does sell newspapers.
JMHO.