4.7 Article

Neoliberal technocracy: Explaining how and why the US Food and Drug Administration has championed pharmacogenomics

期刊

SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
卷 131, 期 -, 页码 255-262

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.01.023

关键词

USA; Pharmacogenomics; Personalised medicine; FDA; Pharmaceutical regulation; Neoliberalism; Technocracy; Bioeconomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By 2004 the FDA had emerged as a champion of pharmacogenomics as an exemplar for novel approaches to drug development. This was made clear in 2004 when the agency released a wide-ranging report which positioned pharmacogenomics at the heart of a broader regulatory reform agenda. The Critical Path initiative addressed declining productivity of drug development by suggesting that the problem was a mismatch between the rapid pace of discovery in post-genomic biomedicine and the antiquated development process for new drugs. Framing their work in this context, FDA officials reconceptualised their role in the innovation process, in what was the first programmatic statement of a shift from a strictly gate-keeping role to a more collaborative or facilitative role as enablers of innovation. This paper situates the FDA's emergence as a champion of pharmacogenomics in the broader politics of pharmaceutical regulation in the USA. In making a contribution to the pharmaceuticalisation literature this paper will draw on the work of John Abraham who has argued that one of the primary drivers of pharmaceuticalisation has been deregulatory state policies and on Williams and colleagues who have argued that the changing relationship between regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry is an important dimension of pharmaceuticalisation. This paper links this to the promotion of pharmaceutical futures such as pharmacogenomics and explores how this shift is also closely related to the trend towards a risk management approach to pharmaceutical regulation. The role of Bush appointees in the development and promotion of the Critical Path agenda is also examined. (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据