FROM THE EDITORS
 |
Well, too bad.
There’s a reason these bonuses are needed. Without them, the agency would be severely lacking in expertise. The private sector offers much better pay than the public sector, which means reviewers and other personnel are always at risk of crossing over to work for industry.
Although most of the bonuses are paid to those at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, some CDRH employees are affected too. When device companies and consulting firms hire someone with years of experience at CDRH, they trumpet that to anyone who will hear. Why? Because not only are these people supremely qualified for their new jobs, but also, their previous position brings a new level of credibility to whomever hired them. Thus, they are in high demand, and FDA sometimes needs to make it worth their while to stay.
This wasn’t always the case. Thirty or 40 years ago, science and engineering didn’t have the prestige or the salary level that they do now, and the money wasn’t much different whether you worked for FDA or a device or drug company. (My grandfather was a chemist who oversaw clinical trials for a pharmaceutical company. He was underpaid his whole career. That wouldn’t have been the case had he been born 30 years later.)
But since the 1980s, the device and pharmaceutical industries have become big business. That means they have the resources and the willingness to pay good money to the top scientists and engineers. The public sector, FDA especially, can’t keep up with that. Although many FDA employees are fine with taking less money in exchange for the satisfaction of performing such an important mission, when the private sector comes calling with a lucrative offer, it’s hard to say no. That’s where the retention bonuses come in. Even with them, the top FDA employees still make less than they would in the private sector. It’s just not ridiculously less.
If Congress thinks the agency hasn’t protected the public health as well as it would like— imagine how much worse it would be if all the most experienced personnel left. The criticisms show a stunning ignorance of market forces and a willful disregard for budget issues.
According to an Associated Press report, “FDA officials say the bonuses are necessary to keep vital employees from moving to the private sector; congressional critics say the money would be better spent on improving safety.” Here’s a brilliant idea: How about Congress giving the agency enough money to do both?
If Congress would appropriate the proper amount required for the agency to fulfill its mission, instead of shortchanging it year after year, this would be much less of an issue. You can learn more about this situation in this month’s Q&A with Steven Grossman, executive director of the FDA Alliance, an organization that is lobbying Congress to increase FDA’s budget. (The story starts on page 62.) At press time, House and Senate subcommittees had decided to allocate more than $1.7 billion for FDA’s budget, but FDA Alliance believes that the agency needs $2 billion just to regain its operational level from four years ago.
Ironically, one reason the bonuses exist place is because Congress doesn’t give the agency enough money to pay its personnel what they deserve. But I’m not surprised that Congress is unable to see itself as one of the causes of the problem.
Erik Swain for the Editors
