首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
Without fanfare or legislation, the government is orchestrating a quiet revolution in how it regulates new medicines. The revolu
Without fanfare or legislation, the government is orchestrating a quiet revolution in how it regulates new medicines. The revolu
admin
2013-11-29
46
问题
Without fanfare or legislation, the government is orchestrating a quiet revolution in how it regulates new medicines. The revolution is based on the idea that the sicker people are, the more freedom they should have to try drugs that are not yet fully tested. For fifty years government policy has been driven by another idea: the fear that insufficiently tested medicines could cause deaths and injuries. The urgent needs of people infected with HIV, the AIDS virus, and the possibility of meeting them with new drugs have created a compelling countervailing force to the continuing concern with safety. As a result, government rules and practices have begun to change. Each step is controversial. But the shift has already gone far beyond AIDS. New ways are emerging for very sick people to try some experimental drugs before they are marketed. People with the most serious forms of heart disease, cancer, emphysema, Alzheimer’ s or Parkinson’ s disease, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, diabetes, or other grave illnesses can request such drugs through their doctors and are likelier to get them than they would have been four years ago. "We’ve been too rigid in not making lifesaving drugs available to people who otherwise face certain death," says Representative Henry Waxman, of California, who heads the subcommittee that considers changes in drug-approval policies. "It’s true of AIDS, but it’s also true of cancer and other life- threatening diseases."
For the first time, desperate patients have become a potent political force for making new medicines available quickly. People with AIDS and their advocates, younger and angrier than most heart-disease or cancer patients, are drawing on two decades of gay activists’ success in organizing to get what they want from politicians. At times they found themselves allied with Reagan Administration deregulators, scientists, industry representatives, FDA staff members, and sympathetic members of Congress. They organized their own clinical trials and searched out promising drugs here and abroad. The result is a familiar Washington story: a crisis—AIDS—helped crystallize an informal coalition for reform.
AIDS gave new power to old complaints. As early as the 1970s the drug industry and some independent authorities worried that the Food and Do, g Administration’ s testing requirements were so demanding that new drugs were being unreasonably delayed. Beginning in 1972, several studies indicated that the United States had lost its lead in marketing new medicines and that breakthrough drugs—those that show new promise in treating serious or life-threatening diseases— had come to be available much sooner in other countries. Two high-level commissions urged the early release of breakthrough drugs. So did the Carter Administration, but the legislation it pro- posed died in Congress. Complaints were compounded by growing concern that "if we didn’t streamline policies, red tape wot, Id be an obstacle to the development of the biotechnology revolution," as Frank E. Young, who was the head of the FDA from 1984 to 1989, put it in an interview with me.
Young was a key figure in the overhaul of the FDA’s policies. A pioneer in biotechnology and a former dean of the University of Rochester’s medical school, he came to Washington with an agenda and headed the agency for five and a half years—longer than anyone else has since the 1960s. Young took the FDA job to help introduce new medicines created by biotechnology-- whose promise he had seen in his own gene-cloning lab--and to get experimental medicines to desperately iii people more quickly. He had seen people die waiting for new medicines because "they were in the wrong place at the wrong time," he said. That is now changing.
During his tenure of office as head of the FDA, Frank E. Young______.
选项
A、had a bitter argument with his colleagues over the overhaul of drug-approval policies
B、played a leading role in reconstructing the FDA’s policies
C、made some efforts to overhaul drug-approval policies, but failed
D、met many difficulties in releasing breakthrough drugs to the desperately iii patients
答案
B
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/cHhO777K
0
考博英语
相关试题推荐
"Governmentsthatwanttheirpeopletoprosperintheburgeoningworldeconomyshouldguaranteetwobasicrights:therighttopr
"Governmentsthatwanttheirpeopletoprosperintheburgeoningworldeconomyshouldguaranteetwobasicrights:therighttopr
From1965to1978Americanconsumerpricesincreasedatanaverageannualrateof5.7percent.Thisominousshiftwasfollowedb
ThedomesticeconomyintheUnitedStatesexpandedinaremarkablyvigorousandsteadyfashion.Therevivalinconsumerconfiden
Thelawofprivateinternationaltribunalswithrespecttoconflictsofinterestofarbitratorsisquiteextensive,albeitbyno
Islanguage,likefood,abasichumanneedwithoutwhichachildatacriticalperiodoflifecanbestarvedanddamaged?Judgin
Themarveloustelephoneandtelevisionnetworkthathasnowenmeshedthewholeworld,makingallmenneighbors,cannotbeextend
Inrecentyears,railroadshavebeencombiningwitheachother,mergingintosupersystems,causingheightenedconcernsaboutmo
Writeanessayofnolessthan250wordsongiventopicOnWorkingTogether.Youshouldwriteneatly’ontheANSWERSHEET.1.我们在
随机试题
足干性坏疽的特点有
哌替啶不同于吗啡的临床用途为
甲开发公司(以下简称甲公司)2003年3月拟在某地投资建设一处用地规模999000m2的综合小区,该地块原有133200m2工业生产用地、399600m2仓储用地、266400m2居住用地,均为国有划拨性质,其余为郊区某村办养牛场只宜种植牧草的盐碱地。甲公
招标方式中,邀请招标与公开招标比较,其缺点主要有()。
继承人的()可以作为遗嘱见证人。
通过对()的管理、控制,结算中心就把市场风险较为有效地控制在了可接受的范围内。
()是表明总体内部各个组成部分在总体中所占比重的相对指标,用来分析现象总体的内部构成情况。
氏族公社形成的条件和基本标志是()。
甲向乙借款,与乙订立抵押协议,将自己的动产抵押给乙。抵押期间,甲未通知乙而将抵押物出卖并交付给丙。乙的债权到期未获清偿,遂向丙主张就丙所买之物行使抵押权。乙的主张能否成立?试运用有关原理和法律规定加以分析。
4
最新回复
(
0
)