As Paul Krugman wrote a couple of weeks ago, we should scrutinize all government agencies for their leadership assignments. Despite opening people's eyes to the potential harm that an ill-placed agency advisor can cause, it turns out that Hurricane Katrina handily hid non-FEMA politics from the attention. The San Diego Union-Tribune wrote September 15, 2005 in "Political Meddling Hidden by Katrina", that on several fronts political maneuvering was taking place while public attention was focused on Katrina.
For instance, Bunnatine Greenhouse, a veteran at the Army Corps of Engineers was fired for her "job performance" based on her public questioning of the non-competitive $10 billion dollar award to Kellog, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, in the Iraq *reconstruction*. Another woman, Julie Myers was placed at the head of immigration and a web of the intricate connections that led to her assignment surfaced. Finally, Susan Wood resigned from the FDA to protest serial delays by the agency in approving "Plan B". Indeed the flurry of attention on the disaster probably distracted potential interest about these personnel *re-assignments*.
Hopefully, Hurricane Katrina was a wake up call to those who forgot the important role that leaders in seemingly obscure government agencies can play in our government and lives. It's high time that we scrutinize some government agencies and the FDA is a good target.
The FDA had been criticized by scientists and the public long before questions about Vioxx safety gained national attention. "Plan B" only intensified the questions swirling around the agency. The delays approving the "morning after pill", a drug that could potentially reduce the need for abortion, infuriated not only scientists, but doctors and politicians. Many scientists agreed with Jeffrey Drazen et al, in their assessment that the FDA has "made a mockery of the process of evaluating scientific evidence, disallusioned many of the participation scientist both inside and outside the agency and squandered the public trust."
The FDA appeared unphased by the stream of criticism following Susan Wood's resignation over Plan B delays. Rumors circled that a *male veterinarian* had been named for the position. Then a different "acting director" was named, Theresa Toiga, and the agency blithly denied making the previous assignments. People were aghast at that assignment; Norris Alderson. Public outrage ensued because a male veterinarian was assigned to the Women's Health Committee. How did it happen?
Lester Crawford the acting commissioner who just resigned, made the nomination. Lester himself is a "pharmacologist and veterinarian by training" who was also contentious pick. He was grudgingly approved by the Senate to lead the FDA in July 2005, despite reports of "alleged personal improprieties", as the Los Angeles Times put it (April 15, 2005). Perhaps his assigned reflected a comfortable with a fellow veterinarian in another leading role. But now that Crawford has abruptly quit -- too much attention on the agency for the administration's liking? -- we're spared further speculation about his motives. The Center For Science in The Public Interest has a press release here, stating their disappointment with his departure.
The quick new pick to replace Crawford in the FDA is Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, "a longtime friend of the Bush family [who was previously] the executive vice president of M.D. Anderson in Houston". Von Eschenbach's assignment to two departments, the National Cancer Institute and the FDA, is controversial because the FDA oversees approval of cancer drugs, therefore the dual assignment could create conflicts of interest. However, the choice of Von Eschenbach is cheered by those who want to see drugs especially for cancer gain approval with less bureaucracy.
