US national academies' panellists are accused of financial conflicts
Authors: Bob Roehr
Journal: BMJ (2006)

Nearly one in five scientists on the study panels of the US National Academies of Science have direct financial ties to companies or industry groups with a direct stake in the outcome of the study, says a report by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. However, it does not say how or even whether these ties affect the recommendations made in those studies.

The report evaluated the ties of 320 panel members who served on 21 committees over the past two and a half years. It found that 18% of the panellists had such direct ties. More than 8000 scientists serve on more than 500 studies looked at by the national academies in a typical year.

At a forum held this week at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, Merrill Goozner, the report’s author and director of the centre’s integrity in science project, called on the national academies to extend their definition of financial conflicts of interest beyond having any monetary ties within the last five years. Those who fail to disclose such links should be banned from participating on a study panel for three years, he said.

The report also seeks to expand the national academies’ definition of balance to include ideological perspectives and not just technical expertise: if a panel member has worked for a conservative think tank, then someone from a liberal equivalent should also be appointed.

Mr Goozner said that, despite these weaknesses, “Over the past few years, I could only find one or two instances where public interest groups complained about the quality of the report.”

The findings of the centre’s report mirror charges of financial conflicts of interest that have been raised about members of advisory panels at the US Food and Drug Administration.

“The FDA is facing a crisis in public confidence; the American people no long trust it to protect their health,” said Steven Nissen, interim chairman of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. He listed changes he would like to see at the agency and concluded that cleaning up its advisory panels was a small but useful step.

An FDA deputy commissioner, Scott Gottlieb, defended using people with ties to industry on advisory panels, as their expertise was needed. He said only a relatively small group of doctors have important experience as clinical triallists.

Furthermore, the FDA has standing advisory committees rather than ad hoc ones. A member often serves for four years. It is difficult to predict what will come before a committee or how a member’s research and financial ties will change during that period.

That is why the agency evaluates conflicts of interest and grants waivers where the conflicts are not likely to affect judgment. A minor stock holding or having served on a safety monitoring committee for a trial of a competing company’s drug would merit a waiver.

Dr Gottlieb said the FDA needs to become more transparent in that process. The agency announced that it was revising its guidance on conflicts of interest and will more clearly and openly explain why a waiver is granted.

Ensuring Independence and Objectivity at the National Academies is available at http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/nasreport.pdf.