Friday, December 17, 2004
Watching the watchmen
[Associated Press, "Survey: Scientists not confident in FDA," The Topeka Capital-Journal, 17 December 2004.]
Though it is not usually wise to treat the scare tactics of groups such as The Union of Concerned Scientists with much regard, the release of a 2001 survey of FDA scientists, some of whom question the review process for prescription drugs, does raise some important questions about the role of the agency.
About two-thirds of Food and Drug Administration scientists are less than fully confident in the agency's monitoring of the safety of prescription drugs now being sold, according to an FDA internal survey.
Also, more than one-third of those scientists have some doubts about the process for approving new drugs, the survey found.
The survey was conducted by the Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General. Complete results were released to the public only after an advocacy group filed a Freedom of Information Act request.
The news is of course being met with calls for stiffer regulation. This is the traditional response when a public program is found to be ineffective - rather than looking for structural flaws, the assumption is that more resources, more oversight, and more rules will naturally solve any problem that should arise. The question left unaddressed is whether the current investment in federal drug approval is yielding enough of a return to justify its continued funding.
Consider the behavior of public agencies when compared to private firms. Due to competition, businesses must constantly strive to perform the same or better functions more efficiently - in less time for less money. In the public sector, taxpayers are more often than not asked (or told) to spend more to fund functions that are performed at an increasingly less efficient level.
[Associated Press, "Survey: Scientists not confident in FDA," The Topeka Capital-Journal, 17 December 2004.]
Though it is not usually wise to treat the scare tactics of groups such as The Union of Concerned Scientists with much regard, the release of a 2001 survey of FDA scientists, some of whom question the review process for prescription drugs, does raise some important questions about the role of the agency.
About two-thirds of Food and Drug Administration scientists are less than fully confident in the agency's monitoring of the safety of prescription drugs now being sold, according to an FDA internal survey.
Also, more than one-third of those scientists have some doubts about the process for approving new drugs, the survey found.
The survey was conducted by the Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General. Complete results were released to the public only after an advocacy group filed a Freedom of Information Act request.
The news is of course being met with calls for stiffer regulation. This is the traditional response when a public program is found to be ineffective - rather than looking for structural flaws, the assumption is that more resources, more oversight, and more rules will naturally solve any problem that should arise. The question left unaddressed is whether the current investment in federal drug approval is yielding enough of a return to justify its continued funding.
Consider the behavior of public agencies when compared to private firms. Due to competition, businesses must constantly strive to perform the same or better functions more efficiently - in less time for less money. In the public sector, taxpayers are more often than not asked (or told) to spend more to fund functions that are performed at an increasingly less efficient level.
Comments:
Post a Comment
