Slashdot Mirror


The FDA Spied On Its Own Scientists

retroworks writes "The New York Times has an interesting article about efforts by the Food and Drug Administration to locate a source of 'leaks' within the agency. The search became a slippery slope involving trojans, keyloggers, screenshot captures, and an investigation that eventually became an allegory for management overkill. The article describes how the investigation of one employee expanded to five, and how the investigation of five led to other staff (including the interception of correspondence to President Obama). The Agency struggled with the gray area between protecting trade secrets of drug companies (which had applied for FDA approval) and censoring researchers with legitimate questions about the Agency's approval process."

3 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. Re:On the one hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Theres is also a chain of command to be respected, john douche going to the new york post over a finding without informing anyone is also wrong

    there is 2 sides to this coin, your only looking at the shiny one

    How do you think the FDA knew who to monitor? The scientists used the chain of command and were told to STFU. Then they leaked the information and contacted Congress. A special investigation determined that their concerns were valid and that an investigation would be needed due to "a substantial and specific danger to public safety".

    Four of the scientists were fired. See, that is what the chain of command does. It makes it easy to put together a complainers list.

    The end result: four scientists had to lose their jobs in order to protect the public from faulty medical imaging devices. Would you prefer that nobody leaked anything and that the faulty medical imaging devices were released to hospitals?

  2. Re:This is understandable by rohan972 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Anyone working for any government department has the moral right to act in the interest of the public to the best of their ability. If you read TFA you'd know that:

    "the F.D.A. program may have crossed legal lines by grabbing and analyzing confidential information that is specifically protected under the law, including attorney-client communications, whistle-blower complaints to Congress and workplace grievances filed with the government"

    Other administration officials were so concerned to learn of the F.D.A. operation that the White House Office of Management and Budget sent a government wide memo last month emphasizing that while the internal monitoring of employee communications was allowed, it could not be used under the law to intimidate whistle-blowers. Any monitoring must be done in ways that "do not interfere with or chill employees' use of appropriate channels to disclose wrongdoing,"

    Members of Congress from both parties were irate to learn that correspondence between the scientists and their own staff had been gathered and analyzed.

    While you may have to do what the boss says, when you're a public servant and the White House as well as members of Congress from both parties come are on your side and your actions are specifically protected by law, you ARE doing what the boss says.

    And to cap it off: A confidential government review in May by the Office of Special Counsel, which deals with the grievances of government workers, found that the scientists' medical claims were valid enough to warrant a full investigation into what it termed "a substantial and specific danger to public safety."

    They were doing the right thing.

  3. Don't expect privacy if you work for the Fed. by PerlPunk · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sorry, as someone who has worked for the fed and has held a security clearance, I don't sympathize with the journalist who wrote the WP article. If you work for the federal govt, then you have absolutely no expectation of privacy for communications sent using federal equipmentt. It's in the U.S. laws, and HR in all the places I worked where the fed was involved made sure you knew that. And yes, there is a legitimate public interest for the government to find out who is leaking confidential information. Lives, reputations, and public confidence is often at stake in these matters.