The agency had been under pressure from Congress after critics denounced the apparent financial ties between industry and doctors and health experts in FDA's advisory panel.
FDA on Monday announced the plans for devising several new guidelines that should clarify its actions when an expert might have a conflict of interest.
Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the FDA's deputy commissioner for Medical and Scientific Affairs, said, "We want to be more transparent, and specific, about these reasons, to the maximum extent possible so people can better understand the relationships that we accommodate and our reasons for doing so."
In prepared remarks for a discussion on government advisory panels later on Monday, Gottlieb said that simply eliminating all outside reviewers with potential conflicts would deny the agency access to advisers with the expertise and experience it seeks.
Outside advisers, although independent, often have ties to the drug, vaccine, medical device and other industries regulated by the agency.
The FDA turns to its advisory committees for outside advice. The agency is not required to follow the recommendations of its outside advisers but typically does.
Critics, including editors of leading medical journals, argue that any sort of ties, which range from stock-holdings and research grants to speaker and consultant fees, give an appearance of a conflict. They contend that doctors should be required to disclose any such links when publishing articles.
However, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) says no ties are acceptable.
On the other side, supporters of the practice assert that it is common practice for researchers to receive funding from industry, and many doctors have argued that it does not affect their judgments or practice of medicine.
"It is simply the case that top experts are going to sometimes have these kinds of relationships. In some cases ... we want these experts on our committees precisely because they have this experience," Gottlieb said in his remarks.
The agency released the remarks ahead of the event, sponsored by the advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).
