As OMB Watch reported several weeks ago, controversy erupted around the relationship between a National Institutes of Health (NIH) center and a scientific consultant with industry ties. The Environmental Working Group, a D.C. public interest organization, found that NIH's Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (within the National Toxicology Program) is largely managed by Sciences International, Inc., a private consultant which exhibited industry bias in its research. Now, as The Pump Handle points out, an official with the National Toxicology Program wrote a letter to Sciences International suspending the relationship. Read more from The Pump Handle.

In today's New York Times, there appears a story by reporter Gardiner Harris about FDA's new guidance intending to reduce conflicts of interest on agency advisory boards. (Note: The story refers to the proposal as "rules" but it is actually "draft guidance" which, unlike rules/regulations, does not carry the force of law.) The guidance is a response to an increasing problem at FDA: Scientists determining the public safety of drugs and medical devices often have financial ties to the products or industry on which they are commenting. There are pros and cons to the draft guidance. The good:

As Reg•Watch blogged yesterday, a House committee held a hearing to investigate the Bush administration's manipulation of government climate science. The hearing was the second by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to examine political interference in climate science. Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) called the first hearing after the White House Council on Environmental Quality's refused to turn over documents the committee had requested. In his opening remarks, Waxman said CEQ has turned over eight boxes but has not yet fulfilled the months old request. Still, the evidence the committee has seen "suggests there may have been a concerted effort directed by the White House to mislead the public about the dangers of global climate change." The testimony of Philip Cooney was nothing to write home about. Cooney was CEQ chief of staff (in between stints at the American Petroleum Institute and Exxon-Mobil) until 2005. He resigned after it was discovered he had altered climate science documents to plant seeds of doubt. Not surprisingly, Cooney claimed his actions were completely justified and cited a National Academies of Science report as his basis. The committee quickly shot holes through his defense. Waxman pressed Cooney on a verbatim quote from the NAS report he had completely removed. The sentence indicated the breadth and severity of climate change. Read more from The New York Times

Today, The New York Times published a story documenting a recent and disturbing trend in government: allowing the regulated to write regulations. The story begins by detailing an IRS program in which tax lawyers and accountants are encouraged to draft rules on behalf of IRS. These tax professionals — who make money by finding new ways to reduce their clients' tax burden — will now formulate the regulations they will later be subject to. I challenge you to find a better example of a conflict of interest. The IRS program is merely the tip of the iceberg. The article goes on to broadly discuss the outsourcing of regulations: It is common for special interests of all types to be closely involved in drafting legislation and shaping rule making. But in recent years there has been a quickening pace of moves to outsource the actual work of regulation, hiring contractors to write the rules. Considering, as the article states, "Rule making is the heart of what Washington does," one would think federal regulators would take the process seriously. Instead, the federal government is passing the buck, then allowing industry to pocket it.