American Council on Science and Health American Council on Science and Health
About
ACSH
¥ Contact
ACSH
¥ Support
ACSH
¥ My
ACSH
¥ Advanced
Search
 
ACSH.org   Home   . .   Health Issues   . .   News Center   . .   Publications   . .   Events   . .   FactsAndFears   .  

Health Facts And Fears

Archives >

Printer Format icon Printer Format
E-mail Information icon E-mail Information
March 27, 2007

The Biased Fight Against Bias

By Jeff Stier, Esq.

The Food and Drug Administration's tightening of conflict-of-interest rules will allow them to claim that they are using only conflict-free scientists, but this is in fact not the case.

Bias in one form or another can never be completely eliminated. The FDA is barring scientists with a direct financial conflict, but are they banning scientists who may have some other type of bias? For example, what if a scientist has built a career on the notion that only diet can lower cholesterol -- but then a new and valid study points to an effective drug, which makes all of that scientist's research outdated and wrong? That scientist too will have a bias. It's called careerism.

The new rules only remove one potential type of bias -- a pro-pharma one at that -- and ignore other potential biases. Potential advisory committee members who believe that pharmaceutical products are dangerous and harm the environment will not be subject to the new ruling. Thus, the FDA will be left with a pool of researchers who are skewed toward an anti-pharma bias. However, if the best qualified scientists are often hired by drug companies (to advise within their field of expertise), it follows that the FDA, by avoiding those scientists, is now limiting itself in ways that hurt the agency's ability to understand our increasingly complex pharmacopeia.

This is more of a PR move than a drug-safety move -- a response to activists' misguided fear that "drug safety" (essentially, the risks from side effects) should be our overarching concern, without any corresponding consideration of drug benefits. The new rules may cater to that fear, but they will do nothing to improve drug safety -- they will likely hamper, not enhance, the public's access to safe and effective products.


Jeff Stier is an associate director at the American Council on Scienceand Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).


NOTE: Watch for ACSH's upcoming report on controversies surrounding  "industry-funded science."

See also: ACSH's report on Weighing Benefits and Risks in Pharmaceutical Use.
benefits and risks book cover


Dispatch!
Want to receive ACSH's daily email blast on the latest public health news and junk science scares?
(Here's a sample)
Enter your email below. (It will be kept strictly confidential — will not be sold).
Subscribe to ACSH.org RSS  FactsAndFears posts on YOUR site
Search Archives Icon for Search
Search

Icon for Browse Archives Browse Archives

Sign In Icon for Sign In

Username:

Password:

Sign In Now >>

Forget your password?

Register

Why register with ACSH?
You'll be able to:
¥ Post comments to articles
¥ Subscribe to e-bulletin
¥ Receive immediate or scheduled updates


Register Now >>


AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH  |  1995 BROADWAY, 2ND FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10023-5860
TELEPHONE: (212) 362-7044  |  FAX: (212) 362-4919  |  E-MAIL: GEN. ORGANIZATION MAILBOX: acsh (at) acsh.org; IND. STAFFER: [last name or last name followed by first initial]@acsh.org 

Copyright © 1997-2004 American Council on Science and Health  |  Privacy Policy  |  All Rights Reserved
.

Founded in 1978, ACSH is a consumer advocacy organization directed and advised by over 350 physicians, scientists and policy advisors. ACSH promotes the use of sound, peer-reviewed science in the formation of a full  spectrum of  public health policies, including those related to food, pharmaceuticals, environmental chemicals, lifestyle factors, consumer products and terrorism preparedness and response.