http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/06/health/06fda.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1102309532-vKL2y0kvGpR2QwDrg+HXHQBy GARDINER HARRIS
Published: December 6, 2004
<snip>
Dozens of former and current F.D.A. officials, outside scientists and advocates for patients say that the agency's efforts to monitor the ill effects of drugs that are on the market are a shadow of what they should be because the White House and Congress forced a marriage between the agency and industry years ago for the rich dowry that industry offered.
Under the 1992 agreement, the industry pledged to give the agency millions - in the 2003 fiscal year, $200 million - but only if the agency spent a specified level of money on new drug approvals.
As Congressional support sank since then, the agency has cut everything else but new drug reviews.
</snip>
This is a long article...you get the gist here if you're not up for reading the whole thing. The recent outcry over EPA's proposed "research" into child exposure to home pesticides in Florida also entailed a federal agency receiving money from industry, in that case it would be the American Chemistry Council (used to be called the Chemical Manufacturers' Association).
Should federal agencies charged with protecting the public be taking money from regulated entities for research purposes?
b_b