Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:20:24.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating Oversight of Human Drugs and Medical Devices: A Case Study of the FDA and Implications for Nanobiotechnology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Jordan Paradise ,
Alison W. Tisdale ,
Ralph F. Hall  and
Efrosini Kokkoli
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article evaluates the oversight of drugs and medical devices by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) using an integration of public policy, law, and bioethics approaches and employing multiple assessment criteria, including economic, social, safety, and technological. Throughout, assessments employing both the multiple criteria and a method of expert elicitation are combined with the existing literature, case law, and regulations providing an integrative historical case study approach. The goal is to provide useful information from multiple disciplines and perspectives to guide discussions regarding appropriate oversight frameworks for nanobiotechnology applications under the FDA’s purview.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , Winter 2009 , pp. 598 - 624
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Authors utilized legal, policy, and ethics resources, both online and in print.Google Scholar
Kuzma, J. et al., “An Integrated Approach to Oversight Assessment for Emerging Technologies,” Risk Analysis 28, no. 5 (2008): 1197–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Generic Expert Elicitation Survey Instrument,” Appendix A in Paradise, J. et al., “Developing U.S. Oversight Strategies for Nanobiotechnology: Learning from Past Oversight Experiences,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37, no. 4 (2009): 688–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Hyman, P., “U.S. Food and Drug Law and FDA: A Historical Background,” in Piña, K.R. and Pines, W. L., eds., A Practical Guide to Food and Drug Law and Regulation: Second Edition (Washington, D.C.: Food and Drug Law Institute, 2002): at 17.Google Scholar
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Office of the Commissioner oversees the actions of all the individual product-specific FDA Centers. See Organization Chart of FDA, available at <http://www.fda.gov/oc/orgcharts/fda.pdf> (last visited August 20, 2008).+(last+visited+August+20,+2008).>Google Scholar
The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) is codified both in 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. and as FDCA §1 et seq. Throughout this article, we will use the U.S. Code (U.S.C.) sections.Google Scholar
See Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Organization Chart, available at <http://www.hhs.gov/about/orgchart.html> (last visited September 15, 2009).+(last+visited+September+15,+2009).>Google Scholar
FDA, FDA News: The Food and Drug Administration Celebrates 100 Years of Service to the Nation, January 4, 2006, available at <http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01292.html> (last visited September 15, 2009).+(last+visited+September+15,+2009).>Google Scholar
FDA Sees Nanotech Challenges in Every Product Category It Regulates, July 28, 2007, available at <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070725174446.htm> (last visited September 15, 2009).+(last+visited+September+15,+2009).>Google Scholar
FDA Mission Statement, “What We Do,” available at <http://www.fda.gov/opacom/morechoices/mission.html> (last visited September 15, 2009).+(last+visited+September+15,+2009).>Google Scholar
Schechtman, L. M., “The Safety Assessment Process - Setting the Scene: An FDA Perspective,” Institute for Laboratory Animal Research Journal 43, Supplement (2002): S5–S10, at S6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 U.S.C. § 371(a)(2009).Google Scholar
The scope of this article does not include foods, cosmetics, biologics, and animal drugs.Google Scholar
This pertains to products except that those “for which a license has been approved under subsection (a) shall not be required to have an approved application under section 505 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 355).” 42 U.S.C. § 262(j) (2009).Google Scholar
See FDCA, supra note 7.Google Scholar
21 U.S.C. §§ 351–360 (2009).Google Scholar
The FDA describes a generic drug product as “one that is comparable to an innovator drug product in dosage form, strength, route of administration, quality, performance characteristics and intended use.” See FDA ANDA Process for Generic Drugs, available at <http://www.fda.gov/cder/Regulatory/applications/ANDA.htm> (last visited August 20, 2008).+(last+visited+August+20,+2008).>Google Scholar
See Piña, and Pines, , supra note 5.Google Scholar
21 C.F.R § 58 (2009).Google Scholar
21 U.S.C. § 355(i) (2009).Google Scholar
21 C.F.R. § 50 (2009).Google Scholar
21 C.F.R. § 56 (2009).Google Scholar
21 C.F.R. § 314 (2009). The FDA provides guidance for the NDA process. See FDA, Good Review Management Principles for PDUFA Products, April 2005, available at <http://www.fda.gov/CDER/GUIDANCE/5812fnl.pdf> (last visited August 20, 2008).+(last+visited+August+20,+2008).>Google Scholar
For guidance on the meaning of “adequate and well-controlled” studies, see FDA, Guidance for Industry Providing Clinical Evidence of Effectiveness for Human Drug and Biological Products, May 1998, available at <http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/clineff.pdf> (last visited August 20, 2008).+(last+visited+August+20,+2008).>Google Scholar
21 U.S.C. § 355(b)(1) (2009).Google Scholar
21 C.F.R. § 314.510, Subpart H (2009). A list of NDAs approved under Subpart H can be found on the FDA's website, available at <http://www.fda.gov/Cder/rdmt/accappr.htm> (last visited September 15, 2009). (last visited September 15, 2009).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=21+C.F.R.+§+314.510,+Subpart+H+(2009).+A+list+of+NDAs+approved+under+Subpart+H+can+be+found+on+the+FDA's+website,+available+at++(last+visited+September+15,+2009).>Google Scholar
Bioequivalence is defined as “the absence of a significant difference in the rate and extent to which the active ingredient or active moiety in pharmaceutical equivalents or pharmaceutical alternatives becomes available at the site of drug action when administered at the same molar dose under similar conditions in an appropriately designed study.” 21 C.F.R. § 320.1(e) (2009). The bioavailability standard is defined as the “the rate and extent to which the active ingredient or active moiety is absorbed from a drug product and becomes available at the site of action.” 21 C.F.R. § 320.1(a) (2009).Google Scholar
21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(i)-(viii) (2009). See also 21 C.F.R. § 314.94 (2009).Google Scholar
21 U.S.C. §§ 351–360 (2009).Google Scholar
Hutt, P. B., Merrill, R. A. and Grossman, L. A., Food and Drug Law: Cases and Materials, 3rd ed. (New York: Foundation Press, 2007): at 986.Google Scholar
21 U.S.C. § 360(c) (2009).Google Scholar
Wilson, E. C. and Clarke, L. A., “The Medical Device Approval Process,” in Piña, and Pines, , supra note 5, at 128.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
21 C.F.R. §§ 862–892 (2009).Google Scholar
21 U.S.C. § 360(c)(i)(1)(A) (2009).Google Scholar
Mansfield, E., O'Leary, T. J. and Gutman, S. I., “Food and Drug Administration Regulation of IVDs,” Journal of Molecular Devices 7, no. 1 (2005): 2–7, at 4.Google Scholar
21 C.F.R. §§ 862–880 (2009).Google Scholar
21 U.S.C. § 360(e) (2009).Google Scholar
See Wilson, and Clarke, , supra note 33, at 129.Google Scholar
The medical device provisions allow manufacturers to file an Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) to clinically test experimental devices in order to acquire safety and performance data. This is similar to the IND process, except that approval by a local IRB is typically sufficient unless the process of review by the committee is found to be inadequate. 21 U.S.C. § 360(j)(g) (3)(A)(ii)(II) (2009). The FDA divides investigational devices into two categories: Those posing “significant risk” with requirements similar to new drugs and those that do not pose significant risk where IRB approval and satisfaction of a number of other requirements achieves the IDE status without the rigorous application process. 21 C.F.R. § 812.2(b) (2009).Google Scholar
21 U.S.C. § 360e(c) (2009).Google Scholar
Ramsey, S. D. et al., “The Limited State of Technology Assessment for Medical Devices: Facing the Issues,” American Journal of Managed Care 4, Supplement (1998): SP188–SP199, at SP189.Google Scholar
See Mansfield, , O'Leary, and Gutman, , supra note 38, at 3.Google Scholar
Feigal, D. W., Gardner, S. N. and McClellan, M., “Ensuring Safe & Effective Medical Devices,” New England Journal of Medicine 348, no. 3 (2003): 191–192, at 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Ramsey, et al., supra note 44.Google Scholar
Baluch, A. S., “Angstrom Medica: Securing FDA Approval and Commercializing a Nanomedical Device,” Nanotechnology Law & Business 2, no. 2 (2005): 168–173, at 172.Google Scholar
Pub. L. No. 107–250 (Oct. 26, 2002). See also FDA, “Overview of the Office of Combination Products,” available at <http://www.fda.gov/oc/combination/overview.html> (last visited September 15, 2009). The Safe Medical Device Act of 1990 originally gave primary jurisdiction to the most relevant center to regulate combination products. Pub. L. No. 101–629 (November 28, 1990), codified at 21 U.S.C. § 353(g) (2009).+(last+visited+September+15,+2009).+The+Safe+Medical+Device+Act+of+1990+originally+gave+primary+jurisdiction+to+the+most+relevant+center+to+regulate+combination+products.+Pub.+L.+No.+101–629+(November+28,+1990),+codified+at+21+U.S.C.+§+353(g)+(2009).>Google Scholar
70 Federal Register 164, at 49848–49862 (August 25, 2005).Google Scholar
FDA, “Final Rule: Definition of a Primary Mode of Action for a Combination Product,” available at <http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/05–16527.htm> (last visited August 20, 2008).+(last+visited+August+20,+2008).>Google Scholar
See Ramsey, et al., supra note 44, citing Kessler, D. A. et al., “The Federal Regulation of Medical Devices,” New England Journal of Medicine 317, no. 6 (1987): 357–366.Google Scholar
Roco, M. C., “Nanotechnology: Convergence with Modern Biology and Medicine,” Current Opinion in Biotechnology 14, no. 3 (2002): 337–346, at 337.Google Scholar
Editorial, “Regulating Nanomedicine,” Nature Materials 6, no. 4 (2007): 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garber, C., “The Potential and the Pitfalls of Nanomedicine,” NanoWerk Spotlight, May 7, 2007, available at <http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=1891.php> (last visited September 16, 2009). See also Schmidt, K. F., “Nanofrontiers: Visions for the Future of Nanotechnology,” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington, D.C., March 2007, available at <http://www.nano2life.org/download/nanofrontiers_2007.pdf> (last visited August 20, 2008).Google Scholar
See Editorial, supra note 54.Google Scholar
Wagner, V. et al., “The Emerging Nanomedicine Landscape,” Nature Biotechnology 24, no. 10 (2006): 1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 U.S.C. §§ 301–99 (2009).Google Scholar
Paradise, J. et al., “Exploring Emerging Nanobiotechnology Drugs and Medical Devices,” Food & Drug Law Journal 63, no. 2 (2008): 407–420.Google Scholar
See Abraxis Biosciences, available at <http://abraxane.com/index.aspx> (last visited September 16, 2009).+(last+visited+September+16,+2009).>Google Scholar
See Ortho Biotech Products, LP, available at <http://www.doxil.com/index.jsp> (last visited August 20, 2008).+(last+visited+August+20,+2008).>Google Scholar
See Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, available at <http://wwwwyeth.com/products?product=/wyeth_html/home/products/prescription/Rapamune%c2%ae%20(sirolimus)/prescribinginfo.html> (last visited September 16, 2009).+(last+visited+September+16,+2009).>Google Scholar
See Crucell-Berna Biotech, available at <http://www.crucell.com/Products-Epaxal> (last visited September 16, 2009).+(last+visited+September+16,+2009).>Google Scholar
See Espirit-Pharma, available at <http://www.estrasorb.com> (last visited September 16, 2009).+(last+visited+September+16,+2009).>Google Scholar
See Ortho Vita, Inc., available at <http://orthovitaportal.com/Vitoss%20Technical%20Information/default.aspx> (last visited September 16, 2009).+(last+visited+September+16,+2009).>Google Scholar
See GfE Medizintechnik, available at <http://www.gfe.com/opencms2/opencms/en_gfe-online.de/GfE_Unternehmen-sprofil.html> (last visited September 16, 2009).+(last+visited+September+16,+2009).>Google Scholar
See SurgRX, available at <http://www.surgrx.com/index.php> (last visited September 16, 2009).+(last+visited+September+16,+2009).>Google Scholar
See Veridex, LLC, available at <http://www.immunicon.com/CellSearch/CSProducts/CellTracksAnalyzer.aspx> (last visited September 16, 2009).+(last+visited+September+16,+2009).>Google Scholar
FDA, Nanotechnology: A Report of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Nanotechnology Task Force (2007), available at <http://www.fda.gov/nanotechnology/taskforce/report2007.pdf> (last visited September 16, 2009).+(last+visited+September+16,+2009).>Google Scholar
Id., at 20–21.Google Scholar
Fielder, F. A. and Reynolds, G. H., “Legal Problems of Nanotechnology: An Overview,” Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 3, no. 2 (1994): 593–629.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Morgan, G. and Henrion, M., “Performing Probability Assessment,” in Morgan, G. and Henrion, M., eds., Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing With Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990): at 141–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See United States v. Bacto-Unidisk, 394 U.S. 784 (1969) and AMP, Inc. v. Gardner, 389 F.2d 825 (2d Cir. 1968).Google Scholar
Regens, J. L., Dietx, T. M. and Rycroft, R. W., “Risk Assessment in Policy-Making Process: Environmental Health and Safety Protection,” Public Administration Review 43, no. 2 (1983): 137–145, at 142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deyo, R. A., “Gaps, Tensions and Conflicts in the FDA Approval Process: Implications for Clinical Practice,” Journal of the American Board of Family Practice 17, no. 2 (2004): 142–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Katz, R., “FDA: Evidentiary Standards for Drug Development and Approval,” NeuroRx 1, no. 3 (2004): 307–316, at 309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banta, H. D., Corcoran, S. and Sanes, J. R., “Weighing the Benefits and Costs of Medical Technologies,” Proceedings of the IEEE 67, no. 9 (1979): 1190–1196, at 1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Deyo, , supra note 75, at 147.Google Scholar
Frantz, S., “How to Avoid Another ‘Vioxx’,” Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 4, no. 1 (2005): 5–7, at 5.Google Scholar
Lawler, A., “Vioxx Verdict: Too Little or Too Much Science?” Science 309, no. 5740 (2005): 1481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, R. G. and Maron, B. J., “Lessons From the Failure and Recall of an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator,” Circulation 112, no. 13 (2005): 2040–2042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorsett, A., “Urgent Medical Device Safety Information & Corrective Action: VENTAK PRIZM 2 DR, model 1981,” Letter from Vice President Reliability & Quality Assurance, Guidant Cardiac Rhythm Management, June 17, 2005, available at <http://www.guidant.com/physician_communications/PRIZM2_DR.pdf> (last visited September 16, 2009).Google Scholar
Steinbrook, R., “The Controversy over Guidant's Implantable Defibrillators,” New England Journal of Medicine 353, no. 3 (2005): 221–224. This article specifically raises issues with the Heart Rhythm Society's corporate funding from Guidant, Medtronic, etc., implicating conflicts of interest. See also Maisel, W. H., “Safety Issues Involving Medical Devices: Implications of Recent Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Malfunctions,” JAMA 292, no. 8 (2005): 955-958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See FDA, “Adverse Event Reporting System,” available at <http://www.fda.gov/cder/aers/default.htm> (last visited September 16, 2009).+(last+visited+September+16,+2009).>Google Scholar
FDA, “MedWatch,” available at <http://www.fda.gov/med-watch/> (last visited September 16, 2009).+(last+visited+September+16,+2009).>Google Scholar
21 C.F.R. § 314.80(c)(1)(i)(2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 U.S.C. § 383.1 (2009).Google Scholar
FDA, “Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE),” available at <http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/search.cfm> (last visited September 16, 2009).+(last+visited+September+16,+2009).>Google Scholar
31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. (2009).Google Scholar
18 U.S.C. § 1341 (2009).Google Scholar
18 U.S.C. § 1001 (2009).Google Scholar
See Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vioxx and related COX-2 inhibitors, implantable defibrillators and orthopedic products have all been subject to intense scrutiny because of some combination of perceived safety issues and industry misconduct.Google Scholar
Olson, M., “Substitution in Regulatory Agencies: FDA Enforcement Alternatives,” Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 12, no. 2 (1996): 376–407, at 404; Shipan, C. E., “Regulatory Regimes, Agency Actions, and the Conditional Nature of Congressional Influence,” American Political Science Review 98, no. 3 (2004): 467-480, at 478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, M., “Substitution in Regulatory Agencies: FDA Enforcement Alternatives,” Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 12, no. 2 (1996): 376–407, at 389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, S., The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990): at 153.Google Scholar
Friedman, R. S., “Representation in Regulatory Decision Making: Scientific, Industrial & Consumer Inputs to the FDA,” Public Administration Review 38, no. 3 (1978): 205–214, at 206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See FDA, “FDA Advisory Committees Information,” available at <http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/panel/overview.html> (last visited August 20, 2008).+(last+visited+August+20,+2008).>Google Scholar
See Friedman, , supra note 98, at 213.Google Scholar
Union of Concerned Scientists, “Voices of Scientists at the FDA: Protecting Public Health Depends on Independent Science,” July 2006, available at <http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/fda-scientists-pressured.html> (last visited August 20, 2008) (peer survey of 5,918 scientists at FDA).+(last+visited+August+20,+2008)+(peer+survey+of+5,918+scientists+at+FDA).>Google Scholar
103. 21 C.F.R. §10.115 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 U.S.C. § 552 (2009).Google Scholar
21 C.F.R. § 10.30 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pub. L. No. 109–41, 60 Stat. 237, codified as amended in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C.Google Scholar
Lurie, P. and Zieve, A., “Sometimes the Silence Can be Like the Thunder: Access to Pharmaceutical Data at the FDA,” Law & Contemporary Problems 69 (2006): 85–97, at 85.Google Scholar
Id., at 95.Google Scholar
Adulteration included anything insanitary or unsafe and misbranded included anything with false or misleading claims.Google Scholar
Pub. L. No. 75–717, 52 Stat. 1040 (1938), as amended 21 U.S.C. §§ 301–392 (1994).Google Scholar
Hutt, P. B., “A History of Government Regulation of Adulteration and Misbranding of Medical Devices,” Food Drug and Cosmetic Law Journal 99 (1989): 104–105.Google Scholar
Munsey, R. R., “Trends and Events in FDA Regulation of Medical Devices over the Last Fifty Years,” Food & Drug Law Journal 50, Special Issue (1995): 163–177.Google Scholar
Merrill, R. A., “Symposium on Regulating Medical Innovation: The Architecture of Government Regulation of Medical Products,” Virginia Law Review 82, no. 8 (1996): 1753–1866, at 1804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United States v. An Article of Drug…Bacto-Unidisk, 394 U.S. 784 (1969).Google Scholar
AMP, Inc. v. Gardner, 389 F.2d 825 (2d Cir. 1968).Google Scholar
Temple, R., “Policy Developments in Regulatory Approval,” Statistics in Medicine 21, no. 19 (2002): 2939–2948, at 2939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 U.S.C. § 355(d) (2009). Characteristics of “adequate and well controlled study” are enumerated in 21 C.F.R. § 314.126 (2009).Google Scholar
FDA, “Providing Clinical Evidence of Effectiveness for Human Drug and Biological Products,” May 1998, available at <http://www.fda.gov/CDER/GUIDANCE/1397fnl.pdf> (last visited August 20, 2008).+(last+visited+August+20,+2008).>Google Scholar
21 C.F.R. § 314.500, Subpart H (2009).Google Scholar
Pub. L. No. 102–300 (June 16, 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pub. L. No. 105–115 (November 21, 1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pub. L. No. 110–85 (September 27, 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maisel, W. H., “Medical Device Regulation: An Introduction for the Practicing Physician,” Annals of Internal Medicine 140, no. 4 (2002): 296–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., Zarin, D. A. and Tse, T., “Moving Toward Transparency of Clinical Trials,” Science 319, no. 5868 (2008): 1340–1342, at 1341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id., at 1342.Google Scholar
Interactive, Harris, “The FDA's Reputation with the General Public Is Under Assault,” May 26, 2006, available at <http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1060> (last visited September 16, 2009) (online survey from May 12–16, 2006 of 2,371 U.S. adults). (last visited September 16, 2009) (online survey from May 12–16, 2006 of 2,371 U.S. adults).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Interactive,+Harris,+“The+FDA's+Reputation+with+the+General+Public+Is+Under+Assault,”+May+26,+2006,+available+at++(last+visited+September+16,+2009)+(online+survey+from+May+12–16,+2006+of+2,371+U.S.+adults).>Google Scholar
American University Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, “A Dialogue on Prescription Drug Safety: Seeking Common Ground,” available at <http://www.dialogueon-drugsafety.org/> (last visited September 16, 2009). See also Reinberg, S., “Americans Confused About FDA and Drug Safety,” U.S. News & World Report, September 20, 2007, available at <http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/070920/americans-confused-about-fda-and-drug-safety.htm> (last visited September 16, 2009) (phone survey of 800 adults between September 4–6, 2007).+(last+visited+September+16,+2009).+See+also+Reinberg,+S.,+“Americans+Confused+About+FDA+and+Drug+Safety,”+U.S.+News+&+World+Report,+September+20,+2007,+available+at++(last+visited+September+16,+2009)+(phone+survey+of+800+adults+between+September+4–6,+2007).>Google Scholar
See Union of Concerned Scientists, supra note 102.Google Scholar
Harris Interactive, “Confidence in FDA Hits New Low, According to WSJ.com/Harris Interactive Study,” April 22, 2008, available at <http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1301> (last visited September 16, 2009) (online survey of 2,476 U.S. adults from April 1–4, 2008).+(last+visited+September+16,+2009)+(online+survey+of+2,476+U.S.+adults+from+April+1–4,+2008).>Google Scholar
See Deyo, , supra note 75.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, J. B., “FDA Revamps Committee Conflict-of-Interest Rules,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 98, no. 19 (2006): 1354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FDA, Draft Guidance for the Public, FDA Advisory Committee Members, and FDA Staff on Procedures for Determining Conflict of Interest and Eligibility for Participation on FDA Advisory Committees, March 2007, available at <http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/07d-0101-gdl0001.pdf> (last visited September 16, 2009).+(last+visited+September+16,+2009).>Google Scholar
Fox, J. L., “User-Fee Bill Passes U.S. Senate, But Legislative Hurdles Remain,” Nature Biotechnology 25, no. 6 (2007): 611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See FDA, supra note 69.Google Scholar