Public confidence in U.S. health agencies has plummeted—and the driving factor is clear: conflicts of interest. When regulators, advisors, and institutions are financially entangled with the industries they oversee, impartiality becomes questionable. Americans are increasingly skeptical of the motivations behind FDA approvals, CDC guidance, and public health policy decisions.
Skepticism about pharmaceutical influence at the Food and Drug Administration dates back to the 1992 passage of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), which allowed drugmakers to fund FDA review processes. Over the years, financial entanglements have proliferated. Doctors involved in drug approvals often receive research grants, speaking fees, stock holdings, and maintain prior employment ties to the very companies whose products they evaluate.
Even today, drug trials claiming overwhelming benefits—such as those involving GLP-1 medications—are frequently funded by the companies selling them. When financial incentives dominate research, it is difficult to expect impartial conclusions. Conflicts of interest at this level undermine the agency’s credibility and shake public trust.
A Pattern of Conflicted FDA Commissioners
Appointed in 2017, Dr. Scott Gottlieb brought with him a well-documented history of pharma ties. The New York Times reported that he had consulted extensively for major drug firms and earned millions in the process.
Past and present FDA commissioners exemplify this conflicts of interest challenge. Dr. Scott Gottlieb, appointed in 2017, had extensive consulting ties to major pharmaceutical firms. Dr. Robert Califf, serving under both Presidents Obama and Biden, had even more extensive financial connections, raising concerns about regulatory independence. Even Dr. Margaret Hamburg, an earlier commissioner, acknowledged the shortage of non-conflicted experts while later facing scrutiny for her own affiliations, highlighting how conflicts of interest at the top levels of the FDA can undermine public trust.
Even Dr. Margaret Hamburg, an earlier FDA commissioner, voiced concern about the shortage of non-conflicted experts—yet was later scrutinized for her own industry affiliations, highlighting persistent conflicts of interest within regulatory leadership.
The CDC Foundation: Private Dollars, Public Influence
Not many Americans know that the CDC Foundation, created by Congress in 1992, exists to attract corporate donations—a structure that can create conflicts of interest. Contributors include Bayer, 3M, Kaiser Permanente, and Wells Fargo. In 2018, lawmakers raised concerns about anonymous donors to both CDC and NIH foundations, highlighting the potential influence of private funding on public health decision-making.
The issue became impossible to ignore in 2017 when Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald, newly appointed CDC Director, was revealed to have accepted $1 million from Coca-Cola while in Georgia public health leadership—creating a direct conflict with anti-obesity efforts.
She was forced to resign just six months later after purchasing tobacco stocks.
Revolving Doors and Lingering Doubts
Dr. Tom Frieden, her predecessor, publicly championed Tamiflu during an outbreak—while reportedly holding financial ties to the drug’s maker. And Dr. Julie Gerberding, before him, pivoted directly from heading CDC to leading Merck Vaccines in the same year she stepped down. Conflicts of Interest
Even Dr. Robert Redfield, who led the CDC through 2021, faced allegations of misrepresenting experimental data—yet another strike against public confidence in science-based governance.
Systemic Incentives for Conflict
The problem isn’t just individual—it’s institutional. There are three pharmaceutical lobbyists for every U.S. lawmaker, and over two-thirds of Congress accepted pharma campaign contributions in 2020. At the same time, leading medical journals increasingly publish industry-funded studies once viewed as suspect, while mainstream media gains heavily from pharma ad revenue.
This structural entanglement raises critical questions: If regulators, lawmakers, and researchers are all intertwined with Big Pharma, who’s truly safeguarding public health?
Call to Action
If we want to restore public trust in health institutions, we must demand transparency, accountability, and independence from industry influence.
➡️ Join the movement for ethical health policy and physician-led advocacy at StanfordPhysicianAdvocate.org
Read More from StanfordPhysicianAdvocate.org:
- Hidden Crisis in Health Care: How Corporate Greed is Undermining Patient Care
- The Financial Pressures Reshaping Physician Priorities
- Transforming Health Care Leadership: Prioritizing Care for Providers and Patients
- How a Coaching Culture Reduces Physician Burnout
- How Vaccine Hesitancy is Reviving Deadly Childhood Diseases