GRASSLEY: VON ESCHENBACH'S COMMENTS DISCOURAGE AGENCY WHISTLEBLOWERS

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said comments from FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach discourage openness within the agency and raise questions about what problems the agency might be trying to conceal.

In a March 12 letter to von Eschenbach, Grassley asked him to explain comments he made that The Star-Ledger, based in Newark, N.J., reported last month. According to The Star-Ledger, von Eschenbach said he would not tolerate whistleblowers who disagree with a decision made in the agency, adding that going outside the agency is "destructive."

Several FDA employees interpreted these comments as pressure to conceal problems from Congress, Grassley said. If von Eschenbach had made the statement earlier, several concerns over the agency's culture and internal operations would still be "secret," Grassley added.

Grassley also claimed that von Eschenbach has attempted to "chill dissenting points of view and scare FDA employees into silence" before. He noted an alleged incident during the agency's approval of the antibiotic Ketek, when von Eschenbach compared the FDA to a football team and said those who disagreed with the coach might be kicked off the team. Former FDA employee David Ross testified about the comment and what he called the FDA's "culture of approval" at a recent House subcommittee hearing.

In the letter, Grassley pointed out that interfering with congressional inquiries is against the law. Hiding problems hurts both the agency and the American public, Grassley added.

Von Eschenbach must clarify his intentions behind making the statement and correct any misperceptions, Grassley said. If he did intend to stop FDA employees from speaking openly with Congress, he needs to explain his position in writing, Grassley added.

An FDA spokeswoman would not comment on whether the agency has replied to the letter.

The letter can be seen at finance.senate.gov/press/Gpress/2007/prg031207a.pdf ( http://finance.senate.gov/press/Gpress/2007/prg031207a.pdf ).

( http://www.fdanews.com/did/6_51/ )