The NYT commissioned the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) to look at the backgrounds of the 32 scientists on the FDA's advisory panel for the safety of Celebrex, Bextra and Vioxx in light of evidence of cardiac risks to patients.
The NYT reports:
"The center found that at least 10 of the 32 panel members had consulted for or received research support from Pfizer, which makes Celebrex and Bextra; Merck, which makes Vioxx; or Novartis, which is seeking approval for a similar drug. Had the votes of those 10 scientists been excluded, the panel would have favored withdrawing Bextra from the market and blocking the return of Vioxx. Only Celebrex would have been deemed safe to use."
On one hand, many argue that it's next to impossible to find "experts" that have not been engaged in drug company consulting. On the other, people argue that these dual roles for medical researchers endanger unbiased medical science that is truly in the public interest.
In a related story, "Some Scientists Say New Ethics Rules May Damage NIH" (March 3, 2005), WSJ reports of new ethics rules announced by the NIH that forbid any of the 18,000 NIH employees from consulting for drug companies, and prohibits 6,000 NIH employees from holding stock in pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies. The new rules have produced conflict within the NIH with rumors that rules will dissuade many prestigious scientists from pursuing positions there.
