From the article:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Safety and Innovation Act has recently relaxed conflict-of-interest rules for FDA advisory committee members, but concerns remain about the influence of members’ financial relationships on the FDA’s drug approval process. Using a large newly available data set, this study carefully examined the relationship between the financial interests of FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) advisory committee members and whether members voted in a way favorable to these interests.
[...] There appears to be a pro-sponsor voting bias among advisory committee members who have exclusive financial relationships with the sponsoring firm but not among members who have nonexclusive financial relation- ships (ie, those with ties to both the sponsor and its competitors). These findings point to important heterogeneities in financial ties and suggest that policymakers will need to be nuanced in their management of financial relationships of FDA advisory committee members.
(Score: 2) by AnonTechie on Thursday September 18 2014, @12:07PM
Apart from the many unnecessary MBA buzzwords, the study confirms what people have suspected for a long time.
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @01:53PM
What I find strange. (Well, actually, I've come to expect this as normal behavior)
There is now public evidence that FDA committee members were basically bribed and compromised doing their jobs.
The least to expect is they get fired, I'd prefer some legal issues for them as well though.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @03:36PM
One dollar, one vote.