July 25, 2006

FDA scientists asked to distort data

A survey by the Union of Concerned Scientists shows that:

Large numbers of agency scientists reported interference with their scientific work.

* Almost one in five (18 percent) responded, "I have been asked, for non-scientific reasons, to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information or my conclusions in an FDA scientific document."

* More than three in five (61 percent) knew of cases in which "Department of Health and Human Services or FDA political appointees have inappropriately injected themselves into FDA determinations or actions."

* Three in five (60 percent) also knew of cases "where commercial interests have inappropriately induced or attempted to induce the reversal, withdrawal or modification of FDA determinations or actions." Fifty percent also felt that non-governmental interests (such as advocacy groups) had induced or attempted to induce such changes.

* Only half (51 percent) feel the "FDA is acting effectively to protect public health."

* One-fifth (20 percent) say they "have been asked explicitly by FDA decision makers to provide incomplete, inaccurate or misleading information to the public, regulated industry, media, or elected/senior government officials." In addition, more than a quarter (26 percent) feel that FDA decision makers implicitly expect them to "provide incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading information."

* Two in five (40 percent) said they could not publicly express "concerns about public health without fear of retaliation." More than a third (36 percent) did not feel they could do so even inside the confines of the agency.

Nearly 1,000 out of 6,000 FDA scientists responded to the mail survey.

Posted by schwitz at July 25, 2006 07:16 AM | TrackBack
Comments

In the interest of full disclosure: I work for Environmental Working Group, a DC-based public health watchdog.

I attended the CSPI forum in DC yesterday and have summed up the arguments of the various panelists here on the Enviroblog:

http://www.enviroblog.org/2006/07/are_the_national_academies_fai_1.00htm#more

Definitely some spirited debate from a nicely "balanced" panel of six--none of whom sugar-coated their opinions about others in the room.


Posted by: Matthew at July 25, 2006 10:55 AM
The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.