madely385

[madely385]

Financial transactions and interest transfers between pharmaceutical companies and FDA approval experts

According to Science magazine, the FDA has a complex interest relationship with pharmaceutical companies during the drug approval process. These relationships are not limited to direct monetary transactions, but also include non-monetary returns such as job offers and expanded influence. The FDA's drug approval process often relies on the advice of external expert review teams, and these experts often have close ties with pharmaceutical companies, which increases the possibility of conflicts of interest.

According to Science's statistics, between 2008 and 2014, 66 of the 107 physician consultants involved in the approval of 28 new drugs received "sponsorship" or "remuneration" from pharmaceutical companies after the drug was approved. Among them, 26 received more than $100,000, and 7 even received more than $1 million. The 17 highest-paid experts received a total of up to $26 million in research funding, most of which came from their previous review subjects (pharmaceutical companies) or their competitors. In addition to direct monetary transactions, pharmaceutical companies often transfer benefits to experts by providing research funds, consulting fees, etc.

Pharmaceutical companies also transfer benefits to FDA approval experts by providing positions and expanding influence. For example, many experts working at the FDA choose to join pharmaceutical companies or provide consulting services to them after leaving their jobs. This "revolving door" phenomenon makes the relationship between the FDA and pharmaceutical companies more complicated and close.

This interest transfer phenomenon has caused serious damage to the fairness and credibility of the FDA. The public began to question the fairness of the FDA's approval process and the safety of approved drugs. At the same time, this phenomenon also increases the uncertainty and risk in the drug approval process. Due to the existence of interest relationships, experts may be influenced by pharmaceutical companies during the review process and make unfair decisions.