LAST WEEK'S decision by the Food and Drug Administration to once again delay expanded access to the morning-after pill shows the extent to which the Bush administration is willing to deny science for cheap political gain.
Back in December 2003, an FDA advisory committee voted 23 to four to approve over-the-counter sales of the drug. Despite the outstanding committee majority and concurrence within the scientific community, the application was rejected in May of 2004 over concerns about sale of the drug to women younger than 17. Barr Laboratories, the manufacturer of Plan B, reapplied, seeking to sell the drug over-the-counter only to women over 17. Last Friday, despite the FDA fully backing sale of the drug to women over 17, they further delayed the sale of the morning-after pill, citing concerns over the logistics of restricting sale of the drug to those over 17. According to The Washington Post, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration Lester Crawford explained the decision as based on concern over what age teens can understand how to take the drug. Crawford called for 60 days of "public comment" on the restriction to enforce the age limit.
The FDA has already received over 17,400 letters expressing public opinion over the controversial drug and had over a year and a half to work out how to restrict sale of the drug. The decision by the FDA is blatantly political in nature. The drug is controversial as some believe its ability to prevent pregnancy after sex amounts to abortion.
The politicization of the issue and the blatant ignoring of evidence contrary to administration policy has a resounding impact on the ability of the FDA to carry out its duties as a nonpartisan government agency. The further stalling of the application led to the resignation of assistant FDA commissioner for women's health and director of the Office of Women's Health Susan Wood, stating that she could "no longer serve as a staff when scientific and clinical evidence, fully evaluated and recommended for approval by the professional staff here, has been overruled." According to The Washington Post, in an e-mail she sent out to her staff and FDA colleagues, she explained that the FDA's decision to once again delay expanded access to the drug is "contrary to my core commitment to improving and advancing women's health."
The morning-after pill debacle is far from the first time the Bush administration has chosen to override findings by the scientific community in favor of political gain. Denying scientific evidence in favor of narrow administration policy is standard operating procedure for the Bush administration.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the FDA is only one example in a long history of the administration choosing to wield unnecessary influence on science in favor of policy. The organization, which encompasses over 100,000 members, including 47 Nobel laureates, has been pressing for the "redirection of scientific research to pressing environmental and social problems" since 1967.
Other instances include pressuring the Center for Disease Control to end a program called "Projects that Work" which investigated different approaches to sexual education, suppression of an Environmental Protection Agency study that found the bipartisan Clean Air Act to be more effective in reducing mercury contamination than the Bush administration's Clear Skies Act and rejecting CDC-recommended candidates for a panel on lead poisoning in favor of individuals who opposed tightening the federal lead poisoning standards in line with administration policy.
In 2002, the EPA published a report on climate change and the state of the environment. The Bush administration actually went as far as to censor the report, deleting entire passages and heavily editing the document.
According to a New York Times article published in 2003, an annual EPA report which contained a section on climate change was released with the passage omitted, under the discretion of White House officials. Other passages, particularly those warning of the dire effects of issues such as ozone depletion on human health, were heavily edited.
Decisions based on sound scientific evidence should be made exactly on that: science. The Bush administration's extensive history of ignoring and blatantly censoring findings unfavorable to administration policy hurts the credibility of both the Agencies and the administration.
Sophia Brumby's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at sbrumby@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
