A former Stanford professor resigned from a top FDA position in November due to allegations of personal misconduct.
George Tidmarsh ’82 Ph.D. ’87 M.D. ’88 was appointed Director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) in late July 2025. He received a B.S. in microbiology and completed an M.D./Ph.D. in cancer biology at Stanford. Following graduation, Tidmarsh served as the founder and CEO of multiple biopharmaceutical companies. He was an adjunct professor of pediatrics and neonatology at the Stanford School of Medicine from 2018 to 2025.
On Oct. 31, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) placed Tidmarsh on leave due to concerns surrounding his personal conduct. The HHS did not specify the conduct in question. Two days later, Tidmarsh resigned.
Tidmarsh’s resignation came amidst a lawsuit by Aurinia Pharmaceuticals accusing him of defamation over a now-deleted social media post. In the post, Tidmarsh allegedly criticized one of Aurinia’s drugs, causing the company’s stock to fall by nearly 21%.
Tidmarsh found the FDA’s work environment toxic, according to a New York Times report. He alluded that his discontent partly stemmed from Vinay Prasad, the Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, for supporting this culture.
Tidmarsh had also raised legal concerns over a new program, the Commissioner’s National Priority Vouchers (CNPVs), that focuses on qualifying biologic applications in a period of one to two months. Tidmarsh believes that these legal concerns, alongside other factors, led to a push to remove him from the HHS, according to the Times report.
A prospective bioengineering major in the class of 2028, who requested anonymity due to concerns of retaliation, argued that both sides should be considered before rushing to judgment.
“If you choose to believe Tidmarsh, then his resignation comes from a place of disagreement with the FDA’s policies and can be seen as a sort of protest,” they wrote in a message to The Daily. “On the other hand, if you choose to believe that Tidmarsh resigned due to the lawsuit presented against him, then it looks much more like a damage control move.”
The student emphasized that Tidmarsh’s actions have not gone unnoticed.
“I don’t necessarily doubt the validity of either perspective — it might just be that both are somewhat true at once,” they wrote. “However, I think that Tidmarsh’s argument does have some pretty glaring issues here.”