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
47
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.
Which of the following has the direct power over the approval of new prescription drugs?
选项
A、President.
B、Congress.
C、Senate.
D、The Food and Drug Administration.
答案
D
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/SHhO777K
0
考博英语
相关试题推荐
From1965to1978Americanconsumerpricesincreasedatanaverageannualrateof5.7percent.Thisominousshiftwasfollowedb
Thelawofprivateinternationaltribunalswithrespecttoconflictsofinterestofarbitratorsisquiteextensive,albeitbyno
Themarveloustelephoneandtelevisionnetworkthathasnowenmeshedthewholeworld,makingallmenneighbors,cannotbeextend
TheBritishgovernmenthasdecidedtowipeouttheobesityepidemicthroughanovelstrategy-byofferingfatpeoplecashincenti
Theincreaseinglobaltrademeansthatinternationalcompaniescannotaffordtomakecostlyadvertisingmistakesiftheywantt
Justiceinsocietymustincludebothafairtrialtotheaccusedandtheselectionofanappropriatepunishmentforthoseproven
Justiceinsocietymustincludebothafairtrialtotheaccusedandtheselectionofanappropriatepunishmentforthoseproven
Inaperfectlyfreeandopenmarketeconomy,thetypeofemployer--governmentorprivate-shouldhavelittleornoimpactonthe
InTheDisunitingofAmerica:ReflectionsonaMulticulturalSociety,RevisedandEnlargedEdition(W.W.Norton)Schlesingerpr
InTheDisunitingofAmerica:ReflectionsonaMulticulturalSociety,RevisedandEnlargedEdition(W.W.Norton)Schlesingerpr
随机试题
与硅肺发病关系最密切的细胞是
男性,60岁。头晕、活动后心悸、气促1年。脾肋下1指。血象:白细胞2.7×109/L,Hb55g/L,血小板72×109/L,分类未见有幼稚细胞,经叶酸、维生素B12治疗3周无效。骨髓象:增生明显活跃,红系比例66%,巨幼变,见有小巨核细胞,原始细胞2%,
对急性虹膜睫状体炎病人滴阿托品主要目的不是
男性,35岁,因慢性再生障碍性贫血2年,头晕、乏力、心悸2天入院。入院时检查:贫血外貌,Hb50g/L,患者既往有多次输血史,1个月前在输血过程中曾出现发热反应,体温达39.5℃,经对症处理缓解。此次给予输血治疗,首选的血液制品是
专业报关企业必须是具有境内法人地位的经济实体,通常称为独立法人。()
①它发轫于明清之际,贯穿清朝一代,其发展历程颇具启示意义②因而,盛京文化兼有清文化源头及清留都文化的双重内容③最初它仅指沈阳城一地,随历史演进,而成盛京(奉天)地区、陪都地方,范围所及已囊括东北全境④“盛京文化”,指清代盛京地
A、 B、 C、 D、 D
Thefollowingparagraphsaregiveninawrongorder.ForQuestions41-45,youarerequiredtoreorganizetheseparagraphsintoa
线性表的顺序存储结构和线性表的链式存储结构分别是()。
Fewpeopleexpectluxurywhileflying,butthesedays,eventhebasicsseemtobeinbadshape.It’snotuncommontofindyourt
最新回复
(
0
)