FDA “Revolving Door” Gets Slammed

Last week, several news outlets wrote articles about the “revolving door” at the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), stemming from a research letter published in the BMJ. The bulk of the articles excoriated FDA employees who leave the FDA to go work for private companies in the pharmaceutical industry. The original research letter, authored by researchers Vinay Prasad and Jeffrey Bien of Oregon Health and Science University, found that nearly sixty percent of medical reviewers who left the FDA went on to work for, or consult with, the pharmaceutical industry. Prasad found the estimated figures astounding, “when you know 60 percent of your colleagues who leave go to work for the industry, it may make you more likely to be the kind of regulator that gets along well with the industry, helps them shepherd drugs through, and doesn’t push too hard on the warts in a trial.” It is important to note that the research done by Prasad and Bien only included fifty-five FDA reviewers who had worked in the FDA’s oncology products division. Of those 55 reviewers, 27% went to industry, 2% went to academia, 8% continued working for the government or doing related consulting, and 14% could not be found. Forty-nine percent continued to work for the FDA. Prasad and Bien recognized that the “transition from regulator to advising companies seems logical, but it raises concern as to whether regulators indefatigably act in the public interest.” The New York Times dub...
Source: Policy and Medicine - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs