Should FDA restructure its drug review process

Flickr user Auntie P/Creative Commons

Pills.

Article Highlights

  • #FDA efforts to resolve scientific differences are causing it to miss review goals that it commits to as part of the #PDUFA @ScottGottliebMD

    Tweet This

  • Managers leave it to FDA’s external advisors to resolve disputes, rather than work to reach an internal consensus through the agency’s scientific process @ScottGottliebMD

    Tweet This

  • Complex scientific views are the product of agreement formed among experts with diverse training, who hail from different disciplines and backgrounds @ScottGottliebMD

    Tweet This

In recent years, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has struggled with an increasing number of disagreements among its scientific staff. Many of these disputes have spilled out into public view. There seems to be less unity around hard decisions and more instances where FDA staff labor to collaborate and work toward a consensus opinion. A growing number of these disagreements are being brought before FDA’s public advisory committees for mediation. The agency’s efforts to resolve scientific differences and to take final actions are causing it to miss review goals that it commits to as part of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA).

"When experts from these different silos disagree, there is a waning expectation that they should sort through their differing interpretations of data to reach a scientific accord." -- Scott Gottlie

To some degree, these events are a product of the broader political environment in which FDA must operate. Congressional and media scrutiny celebrates the notion of a lone “whistle-blower” tilting against the prevailing orthodoxy. This can feed an internal culture that encourages individuals to cling to dissenting opinions, even when those views are rejected by more senior FDA scientists. The political culture spooks managers away from challenging scientists who cling to outlying conclusions, even in cases where those opinions are based on flawed analysis.

The increasing preference has been to sidestep these internal disputes by bringing them before the agency’s public advisory committee meetings. The resulting transparency insulates managers from charges that they “suppressed” dissenting views or intervened to guide the decision to a particular outcome. Managers leave it to FDA’s external advisors to sort out these disputes, rather than work to reach a definitive, internal consensus through the agency’s scientific process.

While this practice may be politically expedient it is an inefficient way to run a scientific enterprise. It also reduces FDA’s ability to leverage the collective wisdom of its scientific personnel. Complex scientific views are the product of agreement formed among experts with diverse training, who hail from different disciplines and backgrounds. But at FDA, experts from different scientific disciplines work in silos. When experts from these different silos disagree, there is a waning expectation that they should sort through their differing interpretations of data to reach a scientific accord. The disagreements are too easily “turfed” to advisory committees to be resolved. While the political culture is pressuring the agency toward these ends, the agency’s organizational structure may also be contributing to a lack of collaboration by discouraging opportunities for collaboration inside the drug review process.

Scott Gottlieb, M.D., is a resident fellow at AEI.

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author

 

Scott
Gottlieb

What's new on AEI

To secure southern border, US must lead international effort to stabilize Central America
image The Ryan pro-work, anti-poverty plan: Thomas Aquinas 1, Ayn Rand 0
image Does SNAP support work? Yes and no
image Obama Democrats lose their big bet on health exchanges
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 28
    MON
  • 29
    TUE
  • 30
    WED
  • 31
    THU
  • 01
    FRI
Tuesday, July 29, 2014 | 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Is Medicare’s future secure? The 2014 Trustees Report

Please join AEI as the chief actuary for Medicare summarizes the report’s results, followed by a panel discussion of what those spending trends are likely to mean for seniors, taxpayers, the health industry, and federal policy.

Friday, August 01, 2014 | 10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Watergate revisited: The reforms and the reality, 40 years later

Please join us as four of Washington’s most distinguished political observers will revisit the Watergate hearings and discuss reforms that followed.

No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled today.
No events scheduled this day.