The problem is that too many qualified advisers have ties to industry. Or the FDA isn’t looking hard enough. That’s what the Integrity In Science Project concludes after reviewing the FDA’s latest report on the make-up of its advisory panels. Little has changed in the 15 months since Congress required the agency to document its efforts to find scientists without conflicts.

In a report sent to Capitol Hill on Jan. 31, FDA commish Andy von Eschenbach disclosed that 24 percent of advisers to the agency’s seven centers and offices received conflict-of-interest waivers between November 2005 and January 2007. The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research had the worst performance, with 146 of 417 advisers, or 35 percent, requiring waivers because they owned stock in, consulted for, or served on the speakers’ bureaus of firms with products up for approval or their competitors.

The non-profit group then quotes an editorial that ran in The Lancet in 2005 to make its point: “It is hard to believe that in a country with 125 medical schools – not to mention the pool of international experts – the FDA cannot find experts who do not have financial ties with companies whose products are under review.”
[tags]Conflicts Of Interest, FDA[/tags]