• The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is banning direct pharmaceutical industry employees from its advisory committees to reduce corporate influence and improve transparency, as announced by its new Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary.
• Advisory panels have long included experts with financial ties to drug companies, raising concerns about impartiality in drug approvals and safety decisions.
• While direct employees are barred, exceptions exist for specialized expertise, and indirect conflicts (e.g., consulting fees, research grants) persist among many committee members.
• Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has pushed for stricter conflict-of-interest rules, aligning with this policy, but critics argue it doesn’t go far enough to address deep-seated financial ties.
• The FDA faces skepticism due to past controversies, and while the move is a step toward transparency, critics stress that broader reforms are needed to fully restore confidence in the agency’s impartiality.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is taking steps to remove pharmaceutical industry employees from its advisory committees in an effort to restore public trust and reduce corporate influence.

FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary announced the policy shift on Thursday, April 17, framing it as a move toward “radical transparency.” But while the change sounds like a win for accountability, critics argue that deep-seated conflicts of interest – from consulting fees to research funding – will still linger.

For decades, the FDA has faced accusations of being too close to the companies it regulates. Advisory committees, which help guide the agency’s decisions on drug approvals and safety, have often included scientists and doctors with financial ties to pharmaceutical giants. While these experts bring valuable knowledge, their industry connections raise concerns about impartiality. (Related: There is a war between Big Pharma and the American people … and the FDA just chose to side with Big Pharma.)

Makary acknowledged this problem, stating that while collaboration with industry is necessary for efficiency, scientific evaluations must remain independent. The new policy bars direct employees of drug companies from serving on these panels, but they can still attend meetings as observers.

Despite the ban, the FDA’s announcement leaves room for exceptions. If a committee requires specialized expertise only available from an industry insider, that person may still be allowed to participate. Additionally, some panels are legally required to include non-voting industry representatives under the FDA Modernization Act of 1997.

More troubling, however, are the indirect conflicts. Many committee members – though not direct employees – have received consulting fees, research grants, or royalties from drugmakers.

For example, Dr. Paul Offit – a prominent vaccine expert on the FDA’s advisory panel – co-invented a rotavirus vaccine later commercialized by Merck. His hospital holds the patent, which Merck licenses – a financial entanglement that critics say blurs objectivity.

Kennedy’s push for cleaner committees

The move aligns with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s broader campaign to root out corporate influence in federal health agencies. Kennedy has been vocal about his distrust of the FDA’s relationship with Big Pharma, calling for stricter conflict-of-interest rules.

Earlier this year, he pledged to replace advisory members with financial ties to industry – a promise that may now be gaining traction. Yet skeptics question whether this policy goes far enough.

A 2021 investigation found that every member of the FDA committee that authorized Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines had ties to pharmaceutical companies. Similarly, a recent review of a heart device panel revealed that 10 of 14 doctors had financial connections to manufacturer Abbott.

Public confidence in the FDA has eroded, particularly after controversial decisions during the pandemic. The agency’s abrupt cancellation of a key vaccine advisory meeting earlier this year fueled suspicions of political interference. Meanwhile, whistleblowers have accused the FDA of rushing approvals under industry pressure – a perception Makary hopes to change.

By elevating patient and caregiver voices, the FDA aims to counterbalance corporate influence. But unless it also addresses the web of financial ties among supposedly “independent” experts, critics argue that real reform remains elusive.

Head over to FDA.news for more similar stories.

Watch Robert Scott Bell and Nicole Mueller-Yuri discussing why a shakeup of the FDA’s advisory boards is a good thing in this clip.

This video is from The Robert Scott Bell Show channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

FDA to bar pharma employees from advisory committees.

The FDA & Big Pharma Alliance: Lethal cover ups.

FDA buries scientific misconduct to protect Big Pharma.

FDA approved Big Pharma drugs without effectiveness data.

The world according to the FDA and Big Pharma.

Sources include:

ChildrensHealthDefense.org

Reuters.com

FiercePharma.com

Brighteon.com