Matt Herper of Forbes, in his article, Why Presidents Don't Shape The FDA, writes:
Generally speaking, Democrats like Obama want to ensure that medicines are safe and are less concerned with being friendly to the pharmaceutical industry, and Republicans like Romney believe in lowering regulatory barriers and getting medicines to market faster. But the reality is no president makes the FDA his top priority — which means that the agency is often shaped as much by the opposition as by the commander in chief.
In the bigger picture, this is an illustration that when it comes to reshaping federal agencies, Presidents are not as powerful as you might think — and a reminder that just because a politician campaigns for a change does not mean that he or she will be able to execute it.
The important truth to remember is that the FDA is an agency driven be career staff. Of the 11,000 or so employees, under a dozen are political appointments (including the Commissioner). And all of those Schedule Cs reside within the Office of the Commissioner. That means 100% of employees in every FDA center are career government workers. Put another way – drugs are being reviewed exclusively by career employees.
To refer to the “Obama FDA” or the “Bush FDA” or a future "Romney FDA" is valid only insofar as the presidentially-appointed Commissioner sets an agenda. And that is if the Commissioner has an agenda and (most importantly) can enlist senior career officials to buy into it.
During my tenure at the FDA, Commissioner Mark McClellan was able to convince the career leadership that the role of the agency was to be regulator and colleague to industry and, most importantly, change-agent. I believe we had many successes because of this agenda – and the public health was well served.
The most important tool any President has to impact the performance of the FDA is in his choice of an FDA Commissioner. And that appointment must be confirmed by the United States Senate.
Herper concludes:
From an FDA perspective here, the lesson may be that it’s best to insulate the agency from politics as much as possible. One way to do that, according to Peter Pitts of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, would be to put FDA commissioners on six-year terms, protecting them from political churn.
More to the point, a six-year term would allow a Commissioner to more fully pursue his or her agenda.
Neither President Obama or Governor Romney has demonstrated any interest in a fixed term for the Commissioner. At least not yet.
