FROM THE EDITORS

At a hearing in July, some members of Congress voiced their displeasure that FDA has increased spending on bonus payments to retain certain employees, especially reviewers.

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