Speculation swirls about Obama's EPA and FDA heads

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The science community is abuzz with speculation about who President-elect Barack Obama's picks will be to run two key agencies that consumer groups charge buckled to industry pressure during the Bush administration. Enviros, researchers and company execs are all jockeying for candidates to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when Obama takes the reins.

The Associated Press reports that "more than a half-dozen names are in circulation," for the top FDA job, including the Cleveland Clinic's Steven Nissen, a cardiologist and prominent whistleblower who was an early critic of Vioxx, the blockbuster drug that Merck pulled off the market amid concerns that it dramatically ups the risk of heart attacks in vulnerable patients. Another public advocate mentioned by the AP is Joshua Sharfstein, commissioner of Baltimore's health department. Sharfstein, a former aide to California Rep. Henry Waxman, took up a high-profile fight to curb young children's use of over-the-counter cough medicines, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Drugmakers are pushing pharma-friendly FDA commissioner Janet Woodcock for the top slot, Bloomberg News reports. Woodcock, an internist and rheumatologist, has served in the FDA for 22 years; she now heads the agency's drug division.

Another candidate reported to be in the running: George Washington University occupational and environmental health Prof. Susan Wood, who directed the FDA's Office of Women's Health until "she resigned on principle over the continued delay in approving emergency over-the-counter contraception" in 2005, according to her bio on the university's Web site.

Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women & Families, told Bloomberg that her organization "is discussing the possibility of recommending FDA candidates with a coalition of groups," but notes that she would back Nissen, Sharfstein or Wood.

Bloomberg's projected short list for EPA top dog: Democratic Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, 60, once considered to have a shot at Obama's veep slot ultimately filled by Delaware Sen. Joe Biden; Kathleen McGinty, former secretary of Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection; Mary Nichols, chair of California's Air Resources Board; and Ian Bowles, secretary of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.

A flashier but potentially fiery pick, according to Bloomberg: enviro activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., scion of the Kennedy dynasty and occasional Rolling Stone contributor. Kennedy, 54, son of Ethel and the late Sen. Robert Kennedy, chairs the Waterkeeper Alliance, an organization based in Irvington, N.Y., dedicated to promoting clean water, but he has taken some heat from the science community for his belief in a connection between autism and vaccines, an issue examined in detail by Scientific American Mind columnists Scott O. Lilienfeld and Hal Arkowitz in 2007.

Photo courtesy of U.S. Senate

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe