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
53
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
AmericaLosesaGreatPublicThinkerArthurMiller’sdeathlastweekmeantmorethanthelossofanoutstandingplaywright.
ThedomesticeconomyintheUnitedStatesexpandedinaremarkablyvigorousandsteadyfashion.Therevivalinconsumerconfiden
Thelawofprivateinternationaltribunalswithrespecttoconflictsofinterestofarbitratorsisquiteextensive,albeitbyno
Thelawofprivateinternationaltribunalswithrespecttoconflictsofinterestofarbitratorsisquiteextensive,albeitbyno
InmostSouthAmericancountriesrailtransportisplaguedbyoperationalproblemsaswellasbyobsoleteequipment.
Although"namingrights"haveproliferatedinAmericanhighereducationforthepastseveraldecades,thephenomenonhasrecentl
Theincreaseinglobaltrademeansthatinternationalcompaniescannotaffordtomakecostlyadvertisingmistakesiftheywantt
Thedramacritic,ontheotherhand,hasnosuchadvantage.Hecannotbeselective;hemustcovereverythingthatisofferedfor
随机试题
磷酸和偏磷酸的酸酐都是P2O5。
某10岁女孩,学校常规体查时发现胸骨左缘第2肋间可闻及Ⅲ级收缩期杂音,经心脏彩超诊断为房间隔缺损,这一鉴定结果与动脉导管未闭的区别是()
肺动脉高压早期的X线表现是
行业的发展与国民经济总体的周期变动之问有一定的联系,按照两者联系的密切程度划分,可以将行业分为()。
中国金融期货交易所是由()共同发起设立的。
下列关于商业银行市场风险管理组织框架的表述中,正确的是()。
()对下属机构的控制能力最强。
Whatroledoestheteacherplayatthefeedbackstage?
()评价的相同缺陷是将人简单化、客体化,忽视人的主体性、创造性和不确定性。
在当今中国林林总总的考试中,公务员考试的意义最接近于古代的科考,两者皆为通过能力测试擢拔公职人才的方式。公务员考试,因事关个人、国家前途命运和社会阶层的有序流动,公平竞争当为第一要义,一旦游戏规则不被遵守,其带来的巨大危害,不仅仅是对那些刻苦上进而无望跃过
最新回复
(
0
)