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
68
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
InmostSouthAmericancountriesrailtransportisplaguedbyoperationalproblemsaswellasbyobsoleteequipment.
Justiceinsocietymustincludebothafairtrialtotheaccusedandtheselectionofanappropriatepunishmentforthoseproven
TheearlyretirementofexperiencedworkersisseriouslyharmingtheUSeconomy,accordingtoanewreportfromtheHudsonInsti
Youheartherefrainallthetime:theU.S.economylooksgoodstatistically,butitdoesn’tfedgood.Whydoesn’tever-greater
Youheartherefrainallthetime:theU.S.economylooksgoodstatistically,butitdoesn’tfedgood.Whydoesn’tever-greater
Theincreaseinglobaltrademeansthatinternationalcompaniescannotaffordtomakecostlyadvertisingmistakesiftheywantt
Inaperfectlyfreeandopenmarketeconomy,thetypeofemployer--governmentorprivate-shouldhavelittleornoimpactonthe
TheInternetisaglobalnetworkthatconnectsothercomputernetworks,togetherwithsoftwareandprotocolsforcontrollingthe
随机试题
在法律规定的情况下使用已经发表的作品,可以不经著作权人许可,不向其支付报酬的情形有()。
Whenyouimaginethedesert,youprobablythinkofaveryhotplacecoveredwithsand.Althoughthisisagooddescriptionform
骨肉瘤的主要诊断依据是
作为甲公司的法律顾问,你认为甲公司与李某签订的租赁合同欠缺的条款有()。李某与粮油公司成立有限责任公司后,甲公司有权解除与李某签订的租赁合同,理由是()。
(2006年)对明渠恒定均匀流,在已知通过流量Q、渠道底坡i、边坡系数m及粗糙系数n的条件下,计算梯形断面渠道尺寸的补充条件及设问不能是()。
(2014年)2007年11月,A公司向B银行借款2000万元,期限2年;A公司将其所属一栋房屋作为抵押并办理了抵押权登记。2008年1月,A公司与C公司签订书面合同,将该房屋出租给C公司,租期5年,月租金5万元,每年1月底前一次付清全年租金。2
下列各项做法中,可以应对舞弊导致的重大错报风险的有()。
在计算机网络中,一方面连接局域网中的计算机,另一方面连接局域网中的传输介质的部件是
ReadingforpleasureistheeasiestwaytobecomeabetterreaderinEnglish.Itisalsothemostimportantway.Somestuden
Beforethe20thcenturythehorseprovideddaytodaytransportationintheUnitedStates.Trainswereusedonlyforlong-distan
最新回复
(
0
)