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
119
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.
From the second paragraph, we learn that ______.
选项
A、AIDS people tend to get angrier than all cancer patients
B、AIDS people have learned some experience from homosexual people in dealing with politicians
C、AIDS people have got some representatives in government organizations
D、AIDS people often work together with gay activists
答案
B
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/vHhO777K
0
考博英语
相关试题推荐
America’sFederalReservecutinterestratesbyanotherquarter-point,to3.75%.WallStreet,whichhadbeen【C1】______forasixth
Themarveloustelephoneandtelevisionnetworkthathasnowenmeshedthewholeworld,makingallmenneighbors,cannotbeextend
Themarveloustelephoneandtelevisionnetworkthathasnowenmeshedthewholeworld,makingallmenneighbors,cannotbeextend
Whenitcomestotheslowingeconomy,EllenSpiroisn’tbitinghernailsjustyet.Butthe47-year-oldmanicuristisn’tcutting,
Although"namingrights"haveproliferatedinAmericanhighereducationforthepastseveraldecades,thephenomenonhasrecentl
Governmenthastraditionallybeenevaluatedintermsoftheireffectsinpromotingseveralprinciples.Wehaveseenthatoneof
Itis3A.M.everythingontheuniversitycampusseemsghostlikeinthequiet,mistydarkness-everythingexceptthecomputerce
Itis3A.M.everythingontheuniversitycampusseemsghostlikeinthequiet,mistydarkness-everythingexceptthecomputerce
随机试题
试述平均利润的形成与本质。
A、阿司匹林、双嘧达莫等B、肝素、低分子量肝素(速避凝)C、巴曲酶D、降纤酶E、丹参短暂性脑缺血发作常用的抗凝药物是()
流行性出血热临床五期经过顺序正确的是
女性,28岁。腹痛、低热消瘦、腹泻3年,近1个月加重。右下腹痛较明显,有时可出现上腹及脐周痛,自觉进餐后可诱发腹痛及便意。查体:右下腹5cm×5cm肿块,质中等,较固定,轻压痛。进餐可诱发腹痛及便意,主要是由于进餐引起
A.嵌顿性股疝B.肠蛔虫团堵塞C.急性乙状结肠扭转D.急性肠套叠E.肠系膜上动脉栓塞常以单纯机械性不完全性肠梗阻为表现的是
制定城乡规划应遵循的原则是()。
某施工单位承包一机电工程施工项目,工程内容包括工艺热力管道安装和一座钢结构框架安装。合同规定,钢材等主材由建设单位供货。施工单位安排由该单位的甲、乙两个施工队分别承担施工任务。施工中发生如下事件: 事件一:在工程进度中期质量大检查中,发现承担钢
解决国际重复征税的方法有()。
纳税单位无租使用免税单位的房产,应该()。
HowAdvertisementIsDone?A)Whenwechooseawordwedomorethangiveinformation;wealsoexpressourfeelingsaboutwha
最新回复
(
0
)