| Abstract: | In approving the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Fiscal Year 2007 budget, the House approved an amendment that would prevent the agency from using appropriated funds to waive certain conflicts of interest identified by members of its advisory committees. The amendment, introduced by Representative Hinchey and known as the Hinchey Amendment, provides that no funds may be used to: waive a conflict of interest under Section 505(n)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) for any voting member of an FDA advisory committee or panel; or make a certification under Section 208(b)(3) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code for any such voting member. This creates a problem, as ties to industry create the very expertise that FDA values in its outside advisors-under the Hinchey Amendment, these very ties would prevent them from serving as advisors to FDA during the drug approval process. The author opposes this change in the law and argues that the Hinchey Amendment would undermine congressional efforts in 1962 and 1989 to carefully balance the goals of attracting qualified experts and protecting agency decisionmaking. Further, the author argues, this change is unnecessary at FDA, because experts on FDA advisory committees divulge their connections to the industry, because the committees offer only advice and do not make agency decisions, and because the agency is under the watchful eye of Congress, the public, and public interest groups. The Article concludes that although FDA's advisory committee conflict-of-interest process can be improved, congressional action is unnecessary, and a change in the law through amendment to an appropriations bill that does not go through the ordinary legislative process (as an amendment to the FDCA or Title 18 would) is inappropriate. Instead, recommendations from organizations studying FDA practice, such as the OIG, GAO, and IOM, should be used to carefully and reflectively amend the process at the agency level, within the existing statutory framework. |
