The FDA creates expert panels distinct from official advisory committees, which raises legal and credibility questions for the agency's decisions. These panels are set up ad hoc without transparency and safeguards, unlike the advisory committees regulated by the 1972 law. The advisory committees include experts as diverse as doctors, statisticians and patient representatives, debate publicly and vote formally. Expert panels allow the selection of members according to a preferred outcome, for example in the case of a panel on talc with a member involved in litigation without disclosure of the conflict, or a panel on antidepressants in pregnancy with an overrepresentation of skeptics. The Trump-led FDA is reducing the number of advisory committees from 22 to 7, compared to the same period last year. Center for Medicines Evaluation chief George Tidmarsh sees them as unnecessary and time-consuming for individual drug applications. Critics say the shift reduces transparency and public scrutiny. They published an opinion on these problems in JAMA.[1][3][4][7]