Biotechnology in the USA: responsive regulation in the life science industry

International Journal of Biotechnology

Volumn 2, Issue 1-3, 2000, Pages 16-26

  Malinowski, Michael J ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; commercial biotechnology; domestic policy; federal policy; infrastructure; international regulatory; life science regulation; pharmaceutical; policy challenges; policy explanation; regulatory; US accomplishments

Indexed keywords

DRUG PRODUCTS; ENGINEERING RESEARCH; INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; PUBLIC POLICY; REGULATORY COMPLIANCE; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT;

COMMERCIAL BIOTECHNOLOGY; FEDERAL POLICY; GLOBAL ECONOMY; GLOBALIZATION; US ACCOMPLISHMENT;

BIOTECHNOLOGY;

EID: 0033684858     PISSN: 09636048     EISSN: 17415020     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/ijbt.2000.000132     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Ernst & Young. (1998) Biotech 1999: Bridging the Gap.
2. [No individual author identified] (1999) ‘Annual report: The world’s biotech companies, deep freeze’, Med Ad News, July, pp.1,2, & 10–19 (an industry profile that includes growth factors and projections and a financial profile of approximately 300 leading biotech companies).
3. [No individual author identified] (1999) ‘Biotechnology; emerging pharma; pharma, genomics, tissue engineering, tools, gene therapy, vaccines, and agriculture – an overview of the seven major sectors in biotechnology and the companies that drive them.’ Forbes [page numbers not available], WL 19911831, 31 May.
4. Engel, Styli (1999) ‘The pipeline is full, in supplement: what’s in the pipeline’, MedAd News, July, pp.96–108.
5. [No individual author identified] (1999) ‘On the market: biotech product approvals continue to increase, even as the industry as a whole takes a downward trend’, Med Ad News, July pp.20–23.
6. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). (1998) 1998 Industry Profile, July.
7. [No individual author identified] (1999) ‘Supplement: what’s in the pipeline’, MedAd News, July, pp.3–13.
8. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. (1999) ‘Clinical development times for new drugs drop 18%, reversing 12-yr trend’, Impact Report: Analysis and Insight into Critical Drug Development Issues, July.
9. Kaitin, K.I. and Healy, E.M. (1999) ‘The new drug approvals of 1996, 1997, and 1998: drug development trends in the user fee era’, Abstract paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, San Antonio, March 19.
10. Malinowski, M.J and Littlefield, N. (1999) ‘Transformation of a research platform into commercial products: the impact of United States Federal Policy on biotechnology’, in The Commercialization of Genetic Research: Ethical, Legal and Policy Issues, Caulfield, T. and. William’s-Jones, B (Eds.), Plenum Publications. [Submission draft].
11. Malinowski, M.J. (1999) Biotechnology: Law, Business and Regulation, Aspen Law & Business/Little Brown.
12. Malinowski, M.J. (2000) ‘FDA regulation of biotechnology products for human use’, in Encyclopedia of Ethical, Legal & Policy Issues in Biotechnology, Murray, T.H. and Mehlman M.J. (Eds.) Wiley [Submission draft dated Nov. 15, 1999].
13. US Food and Drug Administration. (1999) ‘FDA announces public meetings on bioengineered foods’, at , October 18.
14. US Food and Drug Administration. (1998) ‘FDA’s policy for foods developed by biotechnology, FDA/CFSAN’, at http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/biopolicy.html, January.
15. US Food and Drug Administration. (1998) ‘Inside FDA: center for food safety and applied nutrition’, at , Updated January 1998.
16. [No individual author identified] (1999) ‘Who’s afraid?’, Economist, June 19, p.15.
17. Pollack, A. (1999) ‘Biological products raise ownership issues’, N.Y. Times, 26 November, pp.A1, C4.
18. The Boston Consulting Group. (1999) The Pharmaceutical Industry into its Second Century: From Serendipity to Strategy, January.
19. Nardone, J.M. and Poste, G. (1999) ‘Afterword, healthcare in the next century: new frontiers in molecular medicine’, in Malinowski, M.J. Biotechnology: Law, Business and Regulation, Aspen/Little Brown.
20. For full identification and discussion of the related pieces of legislation and university application, see General Accounting Office. (May 7, 1998). Report to Congressional Committees: Technology Transfer – Administration of the Bayh-Dole Act by Research Universities GAO/RCED 98-126, 1998 WL 403207.
21. Deegan, R.C. (1995). The Gene Wars: Science, Politics and the Human Genome.
22. Malinowski, M.J. and O’Rourke, M.A. (1996) ‘A false start? the impact of federal policy on the genotechnology industry’, Yale J. on Reg., 13: pp.163–249.
23. US Food and Drug Administration. (1999) visited Oct. 8, ‘The orphan drug regulations’, at .
24. Littlefield, N. and Webb, M.S. (1998) ‘FDA Modernization and Accountability Act of 1997: a blueprint for reform’, Intellectual Property Rights News, Summer.
25. Henney, J.E. (1999) ‘Remarks of the Commissioner of food and drugs’, Food & Drug L.J. 54: p.L.
26. US Food and Drug Administration. (1999) visited 7 July, ‘FDAMA Homepage’, at < www.fda.gov/opacom >.
27. US Food and Drug Administration. (1999) visited 1 July, ‘PDUFA II five-year plan’, at .
28. (1999) visited 12 November, CenterWatch, at (international listing of clinical research trials).
29. [25]Grady, D. (1999) ‘In quest to cure rare diseases, some get left out’, N.Y. Times, Nov. 16, pp. 1, D4.
30. Bazell, R. (1998) Her2: The Making of Herceptin, a Revolutionary Treatment for Breast Cancer, Random House.
31. Rosenblum, D. (1999) ‘Pill box: the gathering storm over prescription drugs’, NY Times, Sect. 4, Nov. 14, pp.1, 16.
32. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996).
33. US Department of Health and Human Services. (1999) visited 29 October, ‘Proposed standards for privacy of individually identifiable health information’, at .
34. Malinowski, M.J. (1996) ‘Capitation, advances in medical technology, and the advent of a new era in medical ethics’, American. J. Law. & Med., Vol.22, pp.331–360.
35. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. (1998) Institutional Review Boards: The Emergence of Independent Boards (Draft), March.
36. Kolata, G. and Eichenwald, K. (1999) ‘Business thrives on unproven care, leaving science behind’, N.Y. Times, Oct. 3, pp.A1, 30.
37. Humphreys, A. (1999) ‘Virtual science is taking hold in the pharmaceutical industry, as companies develop simulated clinical trials and organs to avoid human exposure’, MedAd News, July, pp.1, 64.
38. US Food and Drug Administration. (1999) visited 28 October, ‘Adverse event reporting system’, at .
39. Pollack, A. (1999) ‘Biological products raise ownership issues’, N.Y. Times, pp.A1, C4. Until the regions holding this natural resource are able to reap economic value from its preservation, the resource will continue to be depleted to harvest timber, make room for field crops and grazing livestock, and to build homes.
40. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. (1998) Institutional Review Boards: Promising Approaches (Draft), March.
41. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. (1998) Institutional Review Boards: A System in Jeopardy, Overview and Recommendations (Draft), March.
42. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. (1998) Institutional Review Boards: Their Role in Overseeing Approved Research (Draft), March.