JUST WEEKS after former FEMA Chief Michael Brown stepped down from his office in a controversial post-hurricane Katrina sideshow, Food and Drug Administration Chief Lester Crawford resigned from his position amidst speculation that his own financial interests in pharmaceutical companies had affected his management of the agency. Both Brown and Crawford were appointed by President Bush, and their actions have left the agencies distraught and wanting of some legitimacy. Bush ought to take this into consideration in making future appointments, for the incompetence and untrustworthiness displayed by many of his past appointees is disturbing and threatens the American public's security.
While Crawford, unlike Brown, demonstrated the professional credentials to direct the FDA, his self-interest was problematic: Most recently, he sought to halt over-the-counter prescription of the emergency contraceptive "morning-after pill" against the recommendation of agency scientists. The Associated Press reports that it is suspected that Crawford held stock in pharmaceutical companies which compete with Barr Pharmaceuticals, manufacturers of the emergency contraceptive Plan B, and that this motivated his decision.
A high-dose contraceptive, Plan B can prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours after sexual intercourse. According to Barr Pharmaceuticals, it is more effective the sooner it is taken. Plan B is currently available in all states. In all but seven, a prescription is currently necessary in order to obtain it.
Crawford was able to take advantage of the significant moral-political divide present within our country today: Pro-life groups are quick to classify the morning-after pill as an abortive remedy. Because of this, he was initially able to divert attention from his personal interest in preventing over-the-counter sale of the drug.
Regardless of whether or not Crawford actually has something to hide, an important lesson can be learned here. Politics should not serve as the steering force for a federal bureaucratic agency like the FDA. The agency's mission is straightforward and simple -- to ensure that food and pharmaceutical products are safe for the American public's consumption. And taken at facevalue, that end appears rather apolitical. In fact, the only measuring stick which is appropriate for the FDA's determination of a product's safety is scientific testing. It is not appropriate for administrative decisions to be made based on moral or financial interests.
So what of the scientific testing done on Plan B? FDA scientists returned results indicating that the drug was safe for over-the-counter sale. But Crawford found another way to put the drug's sale on hold, against the recommendation of FDA experts, claiming that there was no effective way to limit minors' access to Plan B.
The Director of the FDA's Office of Women's Health resigned over this obviously ridiculous claim. The federal government already regulates the sale of both alcohol and tobacco products based on an age qualification. And while this regulation might not be 100 percent effective, it does create a significant barrier for minors in their pursuit of obtaining such products. Further, because Plan B is more effective the earlier it is taken, it is unlikely that underage females would be able to obtain the drug in a timely fashion without a prescription.
For whatever reason it is speculated that Crawford halted the drug's over-the-counter sale, one thing is clear: There was a lapse of administrative integrity on his behalf. A federal agency's actions should remain value-free and politically neutral. Crawford should have heeded the scientists' study and allowed for the over-the-counter dispensation of the drug. But as we've seen, it is often the case that federal agencies' decisions boil down to politics, either personal or ideological. Crawford made a decision which was not up to him. Questions over regulations of the sort he decided upon, when not based on scientific evidence, are properly left only to our elected officials.
Both the Bush Administration and the Senate should consider the appointments of Brown and Crawford embarrassments and should be more careful in the future. Federal officials should not be appointed in an aristocratic fashion -- neither friendship nor political patronage are enough to ensure that operations are handled correctly. Considering that both FEMA and the FDA are among the most important federal agencies in terms of protecting public health and safety, our elected officials should highly scrutinize potential appointees. As we've seen, appointed officials can severely compromise their respective agencies' effectiveness.
Todd Rosenbaum's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at trosenbaum@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | YesterdayLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 3 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
