There has been a good deal of talk coming out of the FDA these days about improving transparency. For example, there has been set up a Transparency Task Force, and on June 24, the FDA held a Transparency Meeting which can be viewed on the Web site. And they have even begun a Transparency Blog. There is no reason to believe that these efforts are anything other than sincere efforts to bring more transparency to the agency and its decision-making process.
- Anesthetic and Life Support Drugs Advisory Committee – 10 members, no links;
- Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee – 14 members, 13 links;
- Anti-Viral Drugs Advisory Committee – 13 members, no links;
- Arthritis Drugs Advisory Committee – 8 members, 6 links;
- Cardiovascular Drugs Advisory Committee – 12 members, 11 links;
- Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee - 8 members, no links;
- Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee – 10 members, 5 links;
- Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee – 6 members, no links
- Non Prescription Drugs Advisory Committee – 12 members, 2 links
- Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee – 13 members, 9 links;
- Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, 7 members, 6 links;
- Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology Advisory Committee – 9 members, 9 links
- Pharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee – 11 members, 1 link
- Pulmonary Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee – 13 members, 9 links
- Reproductive Drugs Advisory Committee - 10 members, 5 links
And this is just looking at CDER. Of the 143 sitting members of CDER Advisory Committees, there is only information available about for about half of them – specifically 78 of them. That's not very transparent.
Did you post this concern on the FDA Transparency Blog?
not yet, but i plan to.