Editorial: FDA’s political science

Tuesday, Sept. 27, 2005 | 9:25 a.m.

On Friday Lester M. Crawford, the embattled FDA commissioner, resigned abruptly without giving specifics. His tenure was punctuated by criticism that FDA decisions were based more on politics than on science. One of those controversial actions was a decision to delay approving over-the-counter dispensation of Plan B, an emergency contraceptive pill that studies have shown to be safe but which religious conservatives with close ties to the Bush administration had opposed. The action was so egregious that the director of the FDA's Office of Women's Health, Dr. Susan Woods, resigned in protest. Separately, the FDA in recent years has had a cozy relationship with drug makers, and Crawford has been roundly criticized for not disclosing potential health risks from drugs, including the painkiller Vioxx.

The Food and Drug Administration's new interim chief must cure the turmoil created by the agency's ailing regulation standards. But Dr. Andrew C. Eschenbach's prognosis for success is marred by his intent to also stay on as director of the National Cancer Institute. Eschenbach's job at the National Cancer Institute involves applying for -- and winning -- FDA approval on drugs.

Eschenbach's own comments in the aftermath of his presidential appointment show the potential for conflicts. The values held by the FDA commissioner and those of the NCI director are contradictory, he acknowledged in an interview with the Associated Press last week. Crawford will simultaneously be charged with assuring the safety of new drugs while speeding them to the market.

Although Eschenbach has said he would give "100 percent commitment" to both posts, it is absurd that Eschenbach, the FDA commissioner, will be scrutinizing drug-approval applications submitted by people working for Eschenbach, the NCI director. Last we checked, 100 percent can't be split in two.