The “Revolving Door” between Regulatory Agencies and Industry: A Problem That Requires Reconceptualizing Objectivity
- 869 Downloads
There is a “revolving door” between federal agencies and the industries regulated by them. Often, at the end of their industry tenure, key industry personnel seek employment in government regulatory entities and vice versa. The flow of workers between the two sectors could bring about good. Industry veterans might have specialized knowledge that could be useful to regulatory bodies and former government employees could help businesses become and remain compliant with regulations. But the “revolving door” also poses at least three ethical and policy challenges that have to do with public trust and fair representation. First, the presence of former key industry personnel on review boards could adversely impact the public’s confidence in regulatory decisions about new technology products, including agrifood biotechnologies. Second, the ‘‘revolving door’’ may result in policy decisions about technologies that are biased in favor of industry interests. And third, the ‘‘revolving door’’ virtually guarantees industry a voice in the policy-making process, even though other stakeholders have no assurance that their concerns will be addressed by regulatory agencies. We believe these three problems indicate a failure of regulatory review for new technologies. The review process lacks credibility because, at the very least, it is procedurally biased in favor of industry interests. We argue that prohibiting the flow of personnel between regulatory agencies and industry would not be a satisfactory solution to the three problems of public trust and just representation. To address them, regulatory entities must reject the traditional notion of objectivity. Instead they should adopt the conception of objectivity developed by Sandra Harding and re-configure their regulatory review on the basis of it. That will ensure that a heterogeneous group of stakeholders is at the decision-making table. The fair representation of interests of different constituencies in the review process could do much to inspire warranted public confidence in regulatory protocols and decisions.
KeywordsEthics Conflict of interest Genetically modified (GM) organisms Objectivity Policy Regulatory agencies Revolving door Risk assessment
Kuzma’s work on this article was supported in part by National Science Foundation NIRT Grant SES-0608791 (Wolf, PI; Kokkoli, Kuzma, Paradise, Ramachandran, Co-PIs). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The authors would also like to thank Laura Yerhot, Research Assistant, Humphrey Institute, University of MN, for her initial literature review on the subject. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers who made helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.
- Arnesen, T., & Nord, E. (1999). The value of DALY life: Problems with ethics and validity of disability adjusted life years. British Medical Journal, 319, 1423–1425.Google Scholar
- Beauchamp, T. L., & Walters, L. (1999). Ethical theory and bioethics. In T. Beauchamp & L. Walters (Eds.), Contemporary issues in bioethics (5th ed., pp. 1–32). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- Brom, F., de Baker, E., DeBlonde, M., & de Graaff, R. (2006). Corporate moral responsibility. The Hague: Manual, LEI.Google Scholar
- Calmes, J. (2008). Financial crisis may give rise to new era of regulation. International Herald Tribune: The Global Edition of the New York Times. October 13.Google Scholar
- Ceccoli, S. J. (2004). Pill politics: Drugs and the FDA. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J., & Rogers, J. (1983). On democracy: Toward a transformation of American society. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
- Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Eggan, D., & Kindy, K. (2010). Three of every four oil and gas lobbyists worked for federal government. The Washington Post. Available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/21/AR2010072106468.html?hpid=topnews. Accessed 22 July 2010.
- EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). (1983). Guidelines for performing regulatory impact analysis (EPA-230-01-84-003). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
- EPA, Environmental Protection Agency. (1998). Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. Federal Register, 63(93), 26846–26924.Google Scholar
- Ferrara, J. (1998). Revolving doors: Monsanto and the regulators. The Ecologist, 28(5), 280–287.Google Scholar
- Gaskell, G., Einsiedel, E., Priest, S., Eyck, T. T., Allum, N., & Torgersen, H. (2001). Troubled waters: The transatlantic divide on biotechnology policy. In G. Gaskell & M. Bauer (Eds.), Biotechnology 1996–1999: The Years of Controversy (pp. 96–115). London: Science Museum Press.Google Scholar
- Harding, S. (1998). Is science multicultural? postcolonialism, feminism, and epistemologies. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indian UP.Google Scholar
- Harding, S. (2004). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “Strong Objectivity?”. In S. Harding (Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies (pp. 127–140). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Hartsock, N. (1998). The feminist standpoint: Developing the grounds for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In S. Harding (Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies (pp. 35–53). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Jasanoff, S., & Wynne, B. (1998). Science and decisionmaking. In S. Rayner & E. Malone (Eds.), Human choice and climate change (pp. 1–87). Columbus: Battelle.Google Scholar
- Karwaki, T. E. (1996) The FDA and the biotechnology industry: A symbiotic relationship? 71 Washington Law Review, 821.Google Scholar
- Kerwin, C. M. (2003). Rulemaking: How government agencies write law and make policy (3rd edn., Chap. 2, pp. 39–85). CQ Press, “The Process of rulemaking”.Google Scholar
- Kunreuther, H., & Slovic, P. (1996) Science, values, and risk. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 545, Challenges in Risk Assessment and Risk Management, 116–125.Google Scholar
- Layton, L. (2010). FDA considers approving genetically modified salmon for human consumption. The Washington Post. Available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/06/AR2010090602424_pf.html. Accessed 7 September 2010.
- Lewenstein, B. (2005). What counts as a ‘social and ethical issue’ in nanotechnology? HYLE International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 11(1), 5–18.Google Scholar
- Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton UP.Google Scholar
- Longino, H. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton UP.Google Scholar
- Mattera, P. (2004). USDA Inc.: How Agribusiness has hijacked regulatory policy at the US Department of Agriculture. Agribusiness Accountability Initiative and Corporate Research Project, Good Jobs First.Google Scholar
- Mepham, B. (1996). Ethical analysis of food biotechnologies: An evaluative framework. In B. Mepham (Ed.), Food ethics (pp. 101–119). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Nelson, L. H. (1990). Who knows: From quine to a feminist empiricism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
- Nelson, L. H. (1993). Epistemological communities. In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 121–160). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Nielsen, K. (1985). Equality and liberty: A defense of radical egalitarianism. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.Google Scholar
- NRC (National Research Council). (1983). Risk assessment in the federal government: Managing the process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- NRC (National Research Council). (1996). Understanding risk. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- NRC (National Research Council). (2000). Genetically modified pest-protected plants: Science and regulation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- NRC (National Research Council). (2002). Environmental effects of transgenic plants. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- NRC (National Research Council). (2008). Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- OMB (Office of Management and Budget). (2009). Federal regulatory review. Federal Register, 74(37), 8819.Google Scholar
- OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy). (1986). Coordinated framework for the regulation of biotechnology. Federal Register, 51, 23302.Google Scholar
- OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy). (2000). Food and agricultural biotechnology initiatives: Strengthening science-based regulation. Available at http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/html/0058.html. Accessed 20 July 2010.
- PIFB (Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology). (2006a). Public sentiment about genetically modified food. Available at http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Public_Opinion/Food_and_Biotechnology/2006summary.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2010.
- PIFB (Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology). (2006b). Agicultural biotechnology: Information disclosure. Available at http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Summaries_-_reports_and_pubs/PIFB_AgBiotech_Info_Disclosure_Workshop_Report.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2010.
- Pollack, A. (2007). Without US rules, biotech food lacks investors. NY Times. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/washington/30animal.html?pagewanted=print. Accessed 25 January 2009.
- Pollack, A. (2010). Genetically altered salmon get closer to the table. NY Times. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/business/26salmon.html?hp. Accessed 25 June 2010.
- RDWG (Revolving Door Working Group) (2005). A matter of trust: How the revolving door undermines public confidence in government and what to do about it.Google Scholar
- Reuters. (2001). Bush names monsanto executive linda fisher for senior EPA Job. Available at http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Monsanto-Fisher-EPA-Job.htm. Accessed 25 March 2009.
- Rollin, B. (1995). The frankenstein syndrome: Ethical and social issues in the genetic engineering of animals. New York: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
- Schrader-Frechette, K. (1991). Risk and rationality: Philosophical foundations for populist reforms. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Thompson, P. B. (2007). Food biotechnology in ethical perspective. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- United States General Accounting Office. (2004). Report to congressional requesters “federal advisory committees additional guidance could help agencies better ensure independence and balance” GAO-04-328. Available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04328.pdf. Accessed 10 February 2009.
- United States Regulatory Agencies Unified Biotechnology Website. (2009). Welcome. Available at http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/. Accessed 13 March 2009.
- United States’s Food, Drug Administration. (2008). FDA’s Response to Public Comment on the Animal Cloning Risk Assessment, Risk Management Plan, and Guidance for Industry. Available at http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AnimalCloning/ucm055491.htm. Accessed 12 July 2010.
- United States’s Food and Drug Administration. (2009) Questions and Answers about Transgenic Fish. Available at http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/ResourcesforYou/ucm047112.htm. Accessed 12 July 2010.
- United States’s Food and Drug Administration. (2008). Center for Veterinary Medicine, Information for Consumers: Questions and Answers about Transgenic Fish. Available at http://www.fda.gov/cvm/transgen.htm. Accessed 24 September 2008.
- United States’s Food and Drug Administration. (2008). FDA’s Mission Statement. Available at from http://www.fda.gov/opacom/morechoices/mission.html. Accessed 22 December 2008.
- White House (1993). Regulatory planning and review: Executive Order #12866. Available at http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/direct/orders/2646.html. Accessed 20 July 2010.
- White House (2007). Regulatory planning and review: Executive Order #12866. Federal Register 72 (14). Available at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/07-293.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2010.
- Wiktorowicz, M. E. (2003). Emergent patterns in the regulation of pharmaceuticals: Institutions and interests in the US, Canada, Britain, and France. Journal of Health, Politics, Policy and Law, 28, 615–658, pp. 634–635.Google Scholar