It is 1978. I have just been refused admission to a Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association section meeting that is to hear FDA commissioner Donald Kennedy speak in a Crystal City Marriott conference room.
Outside the closed door, I see the commissioner bound off the escalator and stride toward me. He stops, looking puzzled.
“Hello Jim,” he says. “Why aren’t you inside?” Reporters usually sit in the front row, under the lectern, when Donald Kennedy addresses meetings.
“They won’t let me in,” I say.
“Then I won’t go in, either!” Kennedy responds as the door opens and the meeting’s managers surge out to greet their keynote speaker. I hang back, respectfully, just out of earshot as he talks to them. He goes inside and one of the managers comes back to me and says, sulkily, that I can go in but I must leave when Kennedy does.
Now it’s three years later, a few weeks after Ronald Reagan’s landslide victory, and Jimmy Carter’s second FDA commissioner, Jere Goyan, has been exiled by the transition team to a store-room full of cardboard cartons, a small desk and no telephone.
I walk in on him and because I have nowhere to sit, the conversation is short. His only regret about his 18 months as commissioner, he reflects, is he never got used to being in a “a goldfish bowl” all the time, meaning people like me and others could confront him almost any time.
I go upstairs and walk in on the acting commissioner, Mark Novitch, whose door is open. He’s glumly staring out at the wintry landscape below.
“How’s it feel to be commissioner?” I ask jokingly. He continues his poker-faced reverie. “I just hope they don’t undo everything we’ve done,” he murmurs before turning to face me. “And don’t print that!” He knows I wouldn’t - we’ve had a warm relationship for the past five years.
Fast-forward 18 years, to another industry meeting, in another hotel. Bill Clinton’s new FDA commissioner, Jane Henney, is sitting alone in the front row, waiting for the meeting to come to order and to be introduced as the keynote speaker. I approach, and sit one chair away from her.
“Hello, Jane,” I say (I’d known her when she was David Kessler’s deputy commissioner a few years before), “can I have a few words?”
Stone-faced, she turns slightly toward me.
“I really can’t talk with you,” she says frostily, “unless you go through the Press Office.”
The change in such media-agency relationships has been incremental, occurring so slowly since physical security and escort rules came to all federal buildings after the Oklahoma City bombing, that few of us noticed it. But at least we could still talk directly with our contacts on the telephone.
Soon that began to change. One by one, contacts we’d known and worked well with for years retired or moved out of our sphere of coverage, and were replaced by people who often seemed frightened to talk with us.
Increasingly we were referred to the FDA Press Office, staffed by people we liked and who did their best for us, but who had previously understood that their role was to help mass media, not trade press who were assumed to not need their help because of our intimacy with the agency and our beats.
By the time George W. Bush came into office, our isolation from trusted, confidential sources had become almost complete. Not a single word of notice for this change had been given to us.
When Barack Obama was elected, partly on a promise to “open the government,” I cultivated what I thought would be the enabling friendship of his choice for FDA principal deputy commissioner, Joshua Sharfstein. We got on well, with me sharing our vast electronic database of FDA stories with him, helping him “come up to speed,” and conversing by phone and email several times a week for the first six months of his FDA service.

The FDA has been muzzled? Good!
(If only.)
Next step? Abolish.
Jim,
You do not need to quote the FDA to air the FDA's historical and current records (failures, crimes, aggression). The FDA has its own bully pulpit: the central monopoly on the use of violence and coercion everywhere, a.k.a., Washington D.C.
Your last thoughts above, on state control, are your best. You should use that fire to blaze a trail of discussion on the role of govt: who should control whose personal habits, health and wealth, and whether agencies like the FDA should even exist. By doing so, you might even encourage your FDA buddies to seek honest work in the private sector, where they actually would be economically and socially productive.
All the best,
#1 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Tue 7 Dec 2010 at 06:24 PM
Jim -
This story is bigger than the FDA, it goes throughout the government, especially in areas where "objective reality" might differ from "the good news" -- science, economics, and the military. It is the most destructive from the point of view of science, as that should never be subjective, horrible when applied to economic numbers (rather than to economic matters of opinion) and most traditional, although still quite questionable, in the military. It is nearly impossible to construct rational policies or decide between policy alternatives when the actual on-the-ground information on which such decisions should be based is controlled, limited, suppressed, or otherwise distorted. Rather than indicating that regulatory agencies should be shut down, your story should be expanded to include the reporting on climate change and many other areas where the government seems to be more intent on suppressing results than openness.
And Dan, as someone who actually eats luncheon meats or peanut butter products on occasion: viva FDA, give 'em what they need to get their jobs done and protect American consumers from the kind of adulterated food horror stories that happen in China all the time. You may find them to be a PITA in your work or you may be arguing on the grounds that all government is bad government, but there is a reason all of these social protection organizational structures came into existence, and it's not just for the heck of it. Power derives from the people, but it can certainly be perverted by sufficient applications of Big Money, and our only defense against that is our government; you individually do not stand a chance against Monsanto, let alone Monsanto plus AT&T plus Golman-Sachs plus Exxon-Mobil. So please, get involved, don't assume that a world run by just those corporations with no governments to moderate their effects would be a better thing. Think of Bhopal or the BP spill, with no one to demand accountability or attempt damage control or cleanup. Think of working for Don Blankenship; it's a job, yes, but if he has no fear of regulatory agencies, he does not correct dangerous violations, and you have an increased chance of paying for that with your life. Strengthen the inspectors and regulators, give them back the powers that have been systematically stripped from them since 1981. Getting rid of them is exactly what the Don Blankenships of the world want you to do.
#2 Posted by Heather, CJR on Mon 13 Dec 2010 at 04:55 PM