Conflict of Interest is a touchy matter. Just crack open the pages of Nature Medicine and you’ll see that scientists who publish topnotch research regularly declare financial conflicts. It’s a fact that drug companies seek out the best physician-scientists—and so do agencies in need independent scientific advice, such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

So what to think of the new FDA proposal limiting conflict of interest on its advisory panels? The proposal would prevent researchers from serving on panels if they receive more than $50,000 from a company or competitor whose product is being discussed. Those who receive less than that amount can participate in the committee but cannot vote.

The agency is in a tough position: it’s been slammed repeatedly over lax conflict of interest rules. Yet agency officials are right when they say that the best advisors may often have financial conflicts.

The Institute of Medicine recognized this dilemma in its recommendations for FDA reform last fall. They recommended capping the percentage of individuals with a ‘significant’ financial conflict of interest at 60 percent.

The proposed guidelines seem to follow the spirit, if not the letter, of this recommendation. It’s possible the guidelines go too far—considering that it seems that no one with any conflict whatsoever can vote—or that the guidelines will lose their teeth after the 60 day comment period. For a breakdown of the pros and cons, see Derek Lowe’s blog “In the pipeline.”

Either way, it’s good to see the FDA is responding to legitimate criticism of its current system, as well as threats from Congress to impose more draconian conflict of interest rules through legislation.