Michael Causey, Editor & Publisher, eDataIntegrityReport.com
Note to well-meaning FDA officials and their new “transparency” initiative: It’s going to take more than naming a task force and holding a few public meetings to convince most folks you are committed to reversing the Bush Administration’s tight control on information and access.
Like most others who have weighed in on the issue, I strongly support the FDA’s stated goal of opening up more of its operations to public scrutiny and comment. But as Jim Dickinson, Editor of FDAWEB and a long-time journalist covering the agency noted, “so far [the FDA transparency initiative] is a bit of a disappointment.”
Specifically, Jim and I wonder if the FDA’s PR office will relax some of its controls when it comes to interviewing actual FDAers who are the subject matter experts. Officially, it’s almost impossible for an FDA subject matter expert to speak with reporters outside the PR office.
As Jim notes in a strong comment posted on the transparency blog site last month, “Installing the FDA Press Office as the single spigot for FDA information reaching the news media, and through the media, the wider world beyond, is the antithesis of transparency.”
But as Jim told me yesterday, the FDA should loosen that grip if it is serious about transparency. He remembers a time (as do I) before the Bush Administration took charge, when the FDA was much more open with its information and its subject matter experts. “I was talking about this with one of our consulting editors who is a former Denver District Director, and he doesn’t remember having to deal” with these kind of constraints.
I’m all for progress when it comes to things like more fuel-efficient cars and BlackBerry’s, but I think it’s time we went back to the good old days on this one.
For now, I’ll wait to see what the Transparency Initiative comes up with before I pass judgment. But guys like Jim and me are going to be mighty interested in how the Press Office handles, or doesn’t, as the case may be, press interview requests in the future.
Michael,
You’re absolutely right on this one, and it benefits all of us that you’re on the job.
Maybe it’s understandable (but wrong!) that the Bush administration was so paranoid that they closed off all possible information channels to the American public, and journalists certainly got the worst of it. But this is supposed to be a new day, isn’t it? This is an area where we really need change, and “change” is the watchword of this administration. So let’s see it here — and now.
Americans need to have information. We are all at risk from so many different quarters. The only hope we have is to be able to get enough information to make informed decisions. If the FDA clams up, we cannot make informed decisions and are then at the mercy of an agency that appears to be more concerned about covering their hind quarters than actually protecting the public.
Keep up the drum beat, Michael!