It seems that some disclosures of classified information can lead a person to poverty, ignominy and a jail sentence, while others provide a royal road to fame and fortune. Some leaks are relentlessly investigated, while others are tolerated or encouraged.
This apparent inconsistency, as notably illustrated once again in the phenomenon of author Bob Woodward, was examined by Michael Isikoff in “‘Double standard’ in White House leak inquiries?”, NBC News, October 18.
In the wake of an earlier Woodward book in 2007, Rep. Henry Waxman noted a similar discrepancy in the Bush Administration’s response to leaks.
“The administration seems to be inconsistent in their approach in these cases, and it’s troubling,” Rep. Waxman said at a March 16, 2007 hearing. “They raise very serious questions about whether White House policies on sensitive information are driven by political considerations. If it’s a critic [who discloses classified information] they are going to investigate, they’re going to really stop it. When it comes to people in-house, people they like, people they trust, well, the investigation hasn’t even started with regard to those people.”
Improving public awareness of FDA Advisory Committees would improve public trust and deter misinformation related to the approval of medical products.
FAS has been a leading voice for action on this topic, and has developed a compendium of 150+ heat-related federal policy recommendations.
Proposed bills advance research ecosystems, economic development, and education access and move now to the U.S. House of Representatives for a vote
The absence of consistent voting privileges for patient representatives on Advisory Committees hinders representatives from providing an voice on behalf of the community they represent.