You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. As an example, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) appears to increase a woman's risk for breast cancer. A scientist should not release a report to the public advocating HRT for women in menopause. The agency's review board should check any scientist's findings that advocate HRT, unless that scientist has some new evidence that HRT isn't to blame and those claims should be further investigated.
Now, if the scientist's report was released without review, the MSM would be calling the public affairs office and wanting to know why the agency is putting out suspect information. That alone will damage the reputation of the agency and anything else it publishes.
The FDA is already responsible for that.
Published data through scientific study is not the same as advocacy.
This article is about the govt screening scientific studies for the US Geological Survey, prepublication.
Its usually a marketing dept that advocates the use of a drug. This usually occurs between phase 3 and 4 of clinical trials.
In vitro testing
Animal testing
------Clinical Trials-------
phase1: is it safe?
phase2:.Does it work?
phase3: does it work double blind?
phase4: Post market surveillance