Americans trust the Food and Drug Administration to make life-and-death decisions in the open. Yet in recent months, the agency has increasingly convened ad-hoc “expert panels” that meet without Federal Register notice, formal transcripts, standard conflict of interest reviews, or recorded votes.
…
This shift from advisory committees to “expert” panels isn’t bureaucratic streamlining — it’s a retreat from transparency, scientific rigor, and public accountability.
Advisory committees, to be sure, are no walk in the park. Meetings can run long, financial-conflict screening sometimes sidelines key voices, and the paperwork mandated by the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act [FACA] can feel like regulatory Velcro. Yet those very frictions serve a purpose: They force the agency to disclose data, document dissent, and let clinicians, patients, and the public watch the sausage being made.
Related on the SLP
Congress should act before this becomes institutionalized. Lawmakers could amend FACA to clarify that any FDA meeting convened to offer regulatory advice — no matter what it’s called — must comply with FACA’s transparency and balance requirements.
