When the Food and Drug Administration creates an advisory committee to help it decide whether to approve drugs, it often asks academic physicians to serve on the committee as external experts. This is supposed to help the committee render judgments that are unbiased and scientific. A study published today brings that assumption into question. [It] reviewed the voting behavior and financial interests of almost 1,400 F.D.A. advisory committee members. On average, 13 percent of participants on each committee had some reported financial interest in a drug company whose product was up for a review. About half of all meetings had at least one participant with such a financial interest. One quarter included an ownership interest. Over all, committee members had a 52 percent chance of voting in favor of a sponsor of a drug. But members who had financial interests [had an approval] probability of 63 percent. If members served on advisory boards for only the company whose product was up for review, then the chance they would vote in favor of it shot up to 84 percent. Data show[s] that top Medicare prescribers of the expensive drug Acthar had financial ties to its maker. Financial relationships between doctors and industry are not uncommon. In 2007, research showed that 94 percent of physicians in the United States had such relationships. More than 80 percent of doctors had accepted gifts, and 28 percent had received payments for consulting or research. [One study] followed doctors who went to two all-expenses-paid symposia on new drugs. Their prescriptions for those drugs nearly tripled after the meetings. Conflicts of interest are real, and they are still influencing decisions from the level of the patient all the way up to national health policy.