“Slow and burdensome” is how President Donald Trump has described the Food and Drug Administration’s drug approval process. His promise to speed it up by slashing regulations raised major safety concerns among scientists, regulators, and patient groups. But speed and safety do not have to be at odds. Modern tests that are physiologically relevant to humans because they are based on human biology — not on the biology of other animals — offer scientists more predictive information more quickly. FDA should focus on evaluating these technologies and work with industry to ensure they are implemented.

Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the new FDA commissioner, addressed the false dichotomy of speed versus safety in his congressional confirmation hearing. Through advances in regulatory science, he said that “we can have our cake and eat it too.” Gottlieb also said that the FDA should consider anything that can make the drug development process more predictive, such as better tools to evaluate safety and effectiveness and to bring down cost.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT Plus and enjoy your first 30 days free!

GET STARTED

What is it?

STAT Plus is STAT's premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond.

What's included?

  • Daily reporting and analysis
  • The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters
  • Subscriber-only newsletters
  • Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day
  • Online intelligence briefings
  • Frequent opportunities to engage with veteran beat reporters and industry experts
  • Exclusive industry events
  • Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country
  • The best reporters in the industry
  • The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry
  • And much more
  • Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr.

Leave a Comment

Please enter your name.
Please enter a comment.

  • Just when I thought STAT newsletters might be a good source of information, I see you get suckered by an animal rights group like PCRM. Are you just another source of “alternative facts”? You should do this story again with a credible science writer policy specialist whose agenda is to advance science, not stop animal-based research. I was almost ready to buy STAT Plus, but not until you check your sources of material to make sure they have scientific credibility.

    • “Scientific credibility” is a matter of making solid arguments based on good sources—not a codeword for tribal loyalty. Baker’s analysis is sound, and you can check the links if you doubt her facts.

A roundup of STAT’s top stories of the day in science and medicine

Privacy Policy