Revolving Door in Pharma: Recent Example Reignites Concerns

Former FDA drug regulator Patrizia Cavazzoni rejoins Pfizer, reigniting concerns about the “revolving door” between government and industry.

Quick Takes

• Dr. Patrizia Cavazzoni, former FDA drug evaluation director, becomes Pfizer’s chief medical officer
• The move highlights ongoing “revolving door” concerns between FDA and pharmaceutical industry
• Critics argue such transitions undermine FDA’s credibility and independence
• New HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pledges to address industry-government transitions
• Calls for stricter guidelines to preserve regulatory integrity and public trust

Cavazzoni’s Career Shift Sparks Debate

Dr. Patrizia Cavazzoni, who recently stepped down as director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, has accepted a position as chief medical officer at Pfizer. This move has reignited discussions about the “revolving door” between regulatory agencies and the industries they oversee. Cavazzoni’s transition from Pfizer to the FDA in 2018 and back to Pfizer in 2025 exemplifies a pattern that has raised concerns among public health advocates and government watchdogs.

At Pfizer, Cavazzoni’s responsibilities will include overseeing global regulatory interactions, monitoring drug safety, and providing medical information to doctors. This high-level position underscores the value that pharmaceutical companies place on individuals with regulatory experience.

Another FDA “expert” gets her BigPharma golden parachute.
—
Pfizer appoints FDA’s former top drug reviewer Patrizia Cavazzoni to be its chief medical officer

Cavazzoni worked for Pfizer prior to leaving for the FDA in 2020, where she served as Director of the FDA’s Center for… https://t.co/RIG2SzWhdp pic.twitter.com/CjBMmS2LN2

— Prodigal (@ProdigalThe3rd) February 24, 2025

Concerns Over Regulatory Independence

Critics argue that the frequent movement of officials between regulatory agencies and the industries they once regulated could compromise the integrity of oversight processes. Dr. Robert Steinbrook, Director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, voiced concerns about this trend.

“Patrizia Cavazzoni left Pfizer in 2018 to work at the FDA, so her return to Pfizer after leaving the FDA is totally unsurprising.” Dr. Steinbrook stated, “Cavazzoni’s move demonstrates that the revolving door between the FDA and the industries it regulates is alive and well and continues to undermine the FDA’s credibility as a public health agency.”

This sentiment is echoed by various public health advocates who worry that such career transitions could lead to potential conflicts of interest and might influence regulatory decisions. The concern is that regulators might be lenient in their oversight, consciously or unconsciously, with an eye toward future employment opportunities in the industry.

Calls for Reform and Ethical Guidelines

In light of these concerns, there are growing calls for stricter ethical guidelines and reforms to address the revolving door phenomenon. Dr. Steinbrook suggested that “The FDA should prioritize the recruitment of high-ranking officials who have no industry ties and who make a commitment not to leave the agency for industry jobs.”

The appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the new Secretary of Health and Human Services has brought renewed attention to this issue. During his Senate confirmation, Kennedy committed to not accepting compensation from related industries for four years after leaving his position, responding to concerns raised by Senator Elizabeth Warren.

“Will you commit that when you leave this job, you will not accept compensation from a drug company, a medical device company, a hospital system, or a health insurer for at least four years—including as a lobbyist or board member?” asked Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Kennedy responded, “I’m happy to commit to that.”

Balancing Expertise and Ethics

While the revolving door phenomenon raises valid concerns, proponents argue that industry experience can be valuable in regulatory roles, providing insights into the complexities of drug development and manufacturing. The challenge lies in striking a balance between leveraging this expertise and maintaining the independence and integrity of regulatory bodies.

As the debate continues, it’s clear that maintaining public trust in regulatory agencies is paramount. Government regulators must work to establish clearer boundaries and more robust ethical guidelines to ensure that the regulatory process remains objective, transparent, and focused on public health outcomes.