Alicia Jackson endorsed a key FDA policy change on hormone replacement therapies while holding at least $115,000 in stock in a company providing access to menopause treatments. Ethics experts called her endorsement an “obvious conflict of interest.”

all 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Jackson is the founder and former chief executive of Evernow, an online platform that connects women with medical experts who treat the symptoms of menopause. Although she left for federal service last year, she kept at least $115,000 in Evernow stock and an unknown amount of stock options, records show. Those are just part of a multimillion-dollar portfolio Jackson holds with her husband, a venture capitalist, that poses potential conflicts of interest with her work overseeing the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, known as ARPA-H. It’s unclear what role, if any, Jackson played in dropping the black box warning, the most serious type of federal safety warning that is reserved for drugs with severe side effects or life-threatening risks. A different agency, the Food and Drug Administration, regulates drugs, and its panel of experts had recommended an end to the warning requirement months before Jackson arrived in government.

Literally a nothing burger. She had no control over the decision making process and only had a small amount of money in a company she herself founded. While I do feel government employees shouldn't hold any stock in any company, that's a wider issue.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    But ethics experts called Jackson’s official endorsement of the warning removal “alarming” and an “obvious conflict of interest,” noting federal law prohibits government employees from participating “personally and substantially” in matters that could influence their personal finances — even making statements at a press conference or in a news release, as she also did.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    “personally and substantially”

    Very skeptical she did, considering the decision was reached before she was even in government.

    Ethics experts tend to be pretty worthless, because they just throw out buzzwords without actually analyzing the legal implications.

    Placing her on leave was the right call, but I doubt she'll get charged or punished in any substantial way (regardless of who is in office).

  • source
  • parent
  • 1 comment in c/usa@midwest.social view that post
    [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    So, just another Thursday in the US.

  • source