Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics

, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp 575–599 | Cite as

The “Revolving Door” between Regulatory Agencies and Industry: A Problem That Requires Reconceptualizing Objectivity

  • Zahra MeghaniEmail author
  • Jennifer Kuzma


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.


Ethics 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.


  1. Abraham, J., & Davis, C. (2007). Deficits, expectations and paradigms in British and American drug safety assessments prising open the black box of regulatory science. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 32(4), 399–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Bozeman, B., & Sarewitz, D. (2005). Public values and public failure in US science policy. Science and Public Policy, 32(2), 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brom, F., de Baker, E., DeBlonde, M., & de Graaff, R. (2006). Corporate moral responsibility. The Hague: Manual, LEI.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Ceccoli, S. J. (2004). Pill politics: Drugs and the FDA. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, J., & Rogers, J. (1983). On democracy: Toward a transformation of American society. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  9. Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Eggan, D., & Kindy, K. (2010). Three of every four oil and gas lobbyists worked for federal government. The Washington Post. Available at Accessed 22 July 2010.
  11. Ehrhardt, A., & Meyer-Bahlburg, H. (1981). Effects of prenatal sex hormones on gender-related behavior. Science, 211, 1312–1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). (1983). Guidelines for performing regulatory impact analysis (EPA-230-01-84-003). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  13. EPA, Environmental Protection Agency. (1998). Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. Federal Register, 63(93), 26846–26924.Google Scholar
  14. Ferrara, J. (1998). Revolving doors: Monsanto and the regulators. The Ecologist, 28(5), 280–287.Google Scholar
  15. Fischer, F. (2004). Professional expertise in a deliberative democracy: Facilitating participatory inquiry. The Good Society, 13(1), 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fung, A. (2007). Democratic theory and political science: A pragmatic method of constructive engagement. American Political Science Review, 101(3), 443–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Grundmann, R., & Stehr, N. (2003). Social control and knowledge in democratic societies. Science and Public Policy, 30, 183–1886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harding, S. (1998). Is science multicultural? postcolonialism, feminism, and epistemologies. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indian UP.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Karwaki, T. E. (1996) The FDA and the biotechnology industry: A symbiotic relationship? 71 Washington Law Review, 821.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Kuzma, J., & Besley, J. (2008). Ethics of risk analysis and regulatory review: From bio- to nanotechnology. Nanoethics, 2(2), 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuzma, J., Larson, J., & Najmaie, P. (2009). Evaluating oversight systems for emerging technologies: A case study of genetically engineered organisms. Journal of Law Medicine and Ethics, 37(4), 546–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kuzma, J., & Meghani, Z. (2009). A possible change in the U.S. risk -based decision making for emerging technological products: Compromised or enhanced objectivity? EMBO Report, 10, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lang, J. T., & Hallman, W. K. (2005). Who does the public trust? The case of genetically modified food in the United States. Risk Analysis, 25(5), 1241–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Layton, L. (2010). FDA considers approving genetically modified salmon for human consumption. The Washington Post. Available at Accessed 7 September 2010.
  31. Levidow, L., Murphy, J., & Carr, S. (2007). Recasting “substantial equivalence”: Transatlantic governance of gm food. Science, Technology and Human Values, 32(1), 26–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton UP.Google Scholar
  34. Longino, H. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton UP.Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Meghani, Z. (2008). Values, technologies, and epistemology. Journal Agriculture and Human Values, 25, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Meghani, Z. (2009). The FDA, normativity of risk assessment, GMOs, and American democracy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 22, 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meghani, Z., & de Melo-Martín, I. (2009). The US food and drug administration’s evaluation of the safety of animal clones: A failure to recognize the normativity of risk assessment projects. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 29, 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meijboom, F. L. B., Visak, T., & Brom, F. W. A. (2006). From trust to trustworthiness: Why information is not enough in the food sector. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19, 427–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mepham, B. (1996). Ethical analysis of food biotechnologies: An evaluative framework. In B. Mepham (Ed.), Food ethics (pp. 101–119). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Muir, W. M., & Howard, R. D. (1999). Possible ecological risks of transgenic organism release when transgenes affect mating success: sexual selection and the Trojan gene hypothesis. PNAS, 96, 13853–13856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nelson, L. H. (1990). Who knows: From quine to a feminist empiricism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Nelson, L. H. (1993). Epistemological communities. In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 121–160). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Newell, P. (2003). Globalization and the governance of biotechnology. Global Environmental Politics, 3, 56–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nielsen, K. (1985). Equality and liberty: A defense of radical egalitarianism. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.Google Scholar
  46. NRC (National Research Council). (1983). Risk assessment in the federal government: Managing the process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  47. NRC (National Research Council). (1996). Understanding risk. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  48. NRC (National Research Council). (2000). Genetically modified pest-protected plants: Science and regulation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  49. NRC (National Research Council). (2002). Environmental effects of transgenic plants. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  50. NRC (National Research Council). (2008). Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  51. OMB (Office of Management and Budget). (2009). Federal regulatory review. Federal Register, 74(37), 8819.Google Scholar
  52. OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy). (1986). Coordinated framework for the regulation of biotechnology. Federal Register, 51, 23302.Google Scholar
  53. OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy). (2000). Food and agricultural biotechnology initiatives: Strengthening science-based regulation. Available at Accessed 20 July 2010.
  54. PIFB (Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology). (2006a). Public sentiment about genetically modified food. Available at Accessed 20 July 2010.
  55. PIFB (Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology). (2006b). Agicultural biotechnology: Information disclosure. Available at Accessed 20 July 2010.
  56. Pollack, A. (2007). Without US rules, biotech food lacks investors. NY Times. Available at Accessed 25 January 2009.
  57. Pollack, A. (2010). Genetically altered salmon get closer to the table. NY Times. Available at Accessed 25 June 2010.
  58. Prakash, A., & Kollman, K. (2003). Biopolitics in the EU and the US: A race to the bottom or convergence to the top? International Studies Quarterly, 47, 617–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Reuters. (2001). Bush names monsanto executive linda fisher for senior EPA Job. Available at Accessed 25 March 2009.
  61. Rollin, B. (1995). The frankenstein syndrome: Ethical and social issues in the genetic engineering of animals. New York: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  62. Schrader-Frechette, K. (1991). Risk and rationality: Philosophical foundations for populist reforms. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  63. Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S., & Wiek, A. (2007). Laypeople’s and expert’s perceptions of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis, 27, 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tait, J. (2009). Upstream engagement and the governance of science. EMBO Rep, 10, S18–S22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Thompson, P. B. (2007). Food biotechnology in ethical perspective. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  66. 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 Accessed 10 February 2009.
  67. United States Regulatory Agencies Unified Biotechnology Website. (2009). Welcome. Available at Accessed 13 March 2009.
  68. 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 Accessed 12 July 2010.
  69. United States’s Food and Drug Administration. (2009) Questions and Answers about Transgenic Fish. Available at Accessed 12 July 2010.
  70. United States’s Food and Drug Administration. (2008). Center for Veterinary Medicine, Information for Consumers: Questions and Answers about Transgenic Fish. Available at Accessed 24 September 2008.
  71. United States’s Food and Drug Administration. (2008). FDA’s Mission Statement. Available at from Accessed 22 December 2008.
  72. White House (1993). Regulatory planning and review: Executive Order #12866. Available at Accessed 20 July 2010.
  73. White House (2007). Regulatory planning and review: Executive Order #12866. Federal Register 72 (14). Available at Accessed 20 July 2010.
  74. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA
  2. 2.Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, Center for Science, Technology, and Public PolicyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations