Today the Ralph Nader-inspired Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is hosting a seminar to address the question "Government Science Panels: Fair and Balanced?" The question to be analyzed: whether federal advisory panels should include representatives who have financial ties to companies that may have a stake in the proceedings.
CSPI already has its answer to the question of the day: they see scientists in a virtual dichotomy. Either a scientist is honest and imbued with "integrity" -- as demonstrated by the fact he or she has never consulted for industry or accepted industry funding, or the scientist is potentially dishonest and surely lacking in integrity as a result of "financial ties" to corporations. Such ties might result from his or her institution receiving corporate research funds from, for example, a pharmaceutical company -- or the scientist in question may have served at some point as a consultant to a corporation. In CSPI's dichotomy, only the former group of scientists -- ones not "tainted" by industry ties -- should be permitted to serve.
Assuming that our federal regulatory agencies wish to be advised by the best and brightest scientists in the country, the exclusion of professionals exclusively on the basis of "financial ties" leaves in the available pool of scientists only those who have never been selected to advise industry or worked in research projects funded by corporations. Clearly, these would not necessarily be the best and brightest scientists. Instead, many of these remaining scientists would be those industry chose not to work with -- or those who had such antipathy for industry that they made a decision not to consult or accept research monies.
A representative of the Food and Drug Administration -- Dr. Scott Gottlieb, Deputy Commissioner -- will be represented on the FDA panel today. And judging from an FDA press release issued this morning, he will not concur with CSPI's dichotomy separating "trustworthy" scientists (read: no industry ties) from "potentially untrustworthy ones" ones (read: "industry ties"). Today's FDA statement re-affirms the Agency's intention to find the most competent and accomplished scientists for FDA scientific advisory panels -- regardless of "financial ties." The FDA is clearly aware that in cases of an obvious conflict of interest (for example, an employee of a drug company whose product is being evaluated by the committee) the scientist would be asked to recuse him or herself. And the Agency remains in favor of financial disclosure and "transparency." But -- contrary to what CSPI has been arguing for years -- the FDA confirmed this morning that the mere fact that a scientist has consulted with a corporation or had research projects funded by them will not be grounds for exclusion from an advisory panel.
The increasing discrimination against scientists tagged as having "industry ties" has been called "the new McCarthyism in science." It is discriminatory, it deprives government agencies of the talent and expertise they need, and it serves to promote the fallacy that the opinions of all or most U.S. scientists are for sale. Such a fallacy is frankly insulting to tens of thousands of scientists who have excelled in their fields to such a point that industry leaders come to them for advice and guidance. The FDA deserves kudos for seeing this dichotomy for what it is: a travesty that is a disservice to American consumers, science, and medicine.
Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., MPH, is president of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).
