When
Politics Defeats Science
By Susan F. Wood
Wednesday, March 1, 2006;
Washington Post A17
Since my resignation six months ago as assistant commissioner of
women's health at the Food and Drug Administration, I have been
traveling around the country meeting with men and women, fellow
scientists and health care professionals. I have shared my concerns
that our federal health agencies seem increasingly unable to operate
independently and that this lack of independence compromises their
mission of promoting public health and welfare.
At every stop I am reminded that whether it is the environment, energy
policy, science education or public health, the American public expects
our government to make the best decisions based on the best available
evidence.
Yet, at a recent hearing of the House Appropriations subcommittee on
labor, health and human services, we saw once again that this is not
happening. Reps. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) and Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.)
questioned FDA acting commissioner Andrew C. von Eschenbach about the
delay in approving the application to make Plan B emergency
contraception available over the counter to women 17 and older. Von
Eschenbach responded that the agency was carefully reviewing the
thousands of comments received in response to last-minute concerns
raised about the feasibility of making the same product available over
the counter for most women but keeping it on prescription for young
teens. This exchange confirmed my suspicion that, like his predecessor,
von Eschenbach is unable or unwilling to let the science and the
scientists guide FDA policy and decisions, and that the real answer as
to whether the FDA will allow Plan B over the counter for those 17 and
older is no.
Time and again in my travels I am asked, "What happened to derail Plan
B?" I have to answer honestly that I don't know. The manufacturer
agreed to take the "controversial" issue of young teens' access to
emergency contraception off the table in 2004; now we are talking only
about adult access to safe and effective contraception. Over 98 percent
of adult women have used some form of contraception. So what is the
objection?
Perhaps it is that posed by a small but vocal political minority that
insists on labeling emergency contraception as abortion, or at least
confusing the two. One of the main questions I hear is, "Does this pill
cause an abortion?" In fact, the only connection this pill has with
abortion is that it has the potential to prevent the need for one.
Emergency contraceptive pills work exactly the same way as other birth
control pills, and they do not interfere with or harm an existing
pregnancy. Emergency contraception is simply a higher dose of daily
birth control pills; it is not RU-486, the "abortion pill." Indeed,
emergency contraception has been used as a method to prevent unintended
pregnancies for decades by women who had physicians advise them on how
many pills in their regular pill pack to take. So people who are
comfortable with oral contraceptives as methods of contraception should
be just as comfortable with emergency contraception.
Having spent 15 years working for the federal government, nearly five
of which were at the FDA, I care deeply about what's happening in the
federal agencies, particularly our health agencies. Nearly 25 cents of
every consumer dollar is spent on products regulated by the Food and
Drug Administration. We count on the FDA for the safety and
effectiveness of our medicines, vaccines and medical devices, and for
the safety of the blood and food supply. The American public does not
want to -- nor should it -- have to think twice about the quality and
reliability of information it is getting from the FDA. Its reputation
as the international gold standard for regulatory agencies, and as a
body that sets the bar very high when it comes to scientific evidence
and integrity, is being put at risk over adult access to contraception.
Why would the administration risk such a reputation over this?
Von Eschenbach could demonstrate his commitment to the FDA's
independence and scientific integrity and help restore staff morale and
waning public credibility by stopping the rulemaking process and
approving access to Plan B for women 17 and older. Instead, he
continues to hide behind a wasteful and pointless bureaucratic process.
Congress needs to step in and restore the FDA's independence and its
ability to make decisions based on the evidence.
It's been nearly three years since the first application came in to
make Plan B emergency contraception available over the counter, so that
women, including rape victims, could have a second chance to prevent an
unintended pregnancy and the need for an abortion. How many chances
have we missed? I still can't explain what is going on here, and why
women 17 and older are still denied this product in a timely way. When
did adult access to contraception become controversial? And why have we
allowed it to happen?
The writer is a former assistant commissioner of the Food and Drug
Administration and is a senior policy adviser to the Reproductive
Health Technologies Project.