Federal advisory committees, policy expertise, and the approval of drugs and medical devices at the FDA

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 211-237

  Lavertu, Stéphane ^a   Weimer, David L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79953679877     PISSN: 10531858     EISSN: 14779803     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jopart/muq046     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Balla, Steven J., and John R. Wright. 2001. Interest groups, advisory committees, and congressional control of the bureaucracy. American Journal of Political Science 45:799-812.
2. -. 2003. Consensual rule making and the time it takes to develop rules. In Politics, policy, and organizations: Frontiers in the scientific study of bureaucracy, ed. George A. Krause and Kenneth J. Meier, 187-206. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. of Michigan Press.
3. Carpenter, Daniel P. 2002. Groups, the media, agency waiting costs, and FDA drug approval. American Journal of Political Science 46:490-505.
4. -. 2004a. Protection without capture: Product approval by a politically responsive, learning regulator. American Political Science Review 98:613-31. (Pubitemid 40046042)
5. -. 2004b. The political economy of FDA drug review: Processing, politics, and lessons for policy. Health Affairs 23:52-63. (Pubitemid 39107148)
6. -. 2004c. Staff resources speed FDA drug review: A critical analysis of the returns to resources in approval regulation. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 29:431-42.
7. -. 2010. Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
8. Committee on the Assessment of the US Drug Safety System. 2007. The future of drug safety: Promoting and protecting the health of the public. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
9. Coglianese, Cary. 1997. Assessing consensus: The promise and performance of negotiated rulemaking. Duke Law Journal 46:1255-349.
10. Guston, David H. 2000. Between politics and science: Assuring the integrity and productivity of research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
11. General Accounting Office. 1995. FDA review time for drugs has decreased in recent years. Washington, DC: GAO.
12. Harter, Philip J. 1982. Negotiating regulations: Cure for malaise. Georgetown Law Journal 71:1-118.
13. Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
14. Karty, Kevin D. 2002. Closure and capture in federal advisory committees. Business and Politics 4:213-38. (Pubitemid 36021212)
15. Keller, Ann C. 2010. Credibility and relevance in environmental policy: Measuring strategies and performance among science assessment organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20:357-86.
16. Kerwin, Cornelius M., and Scott R. Furlong. 1992. Time and rulemaking: An empirical test of theory. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2:113-38.
17. Krause, George A., and Kenneth J. Meier. 2003. Politics, policy, and organizations: Frontiers in the scientific study of bureaucracy. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. of Michigan Press.
18. Lewis, Carol. 2000. Advisory committees: FDA's primary stakeholders have a say. FDA Consumer Magazine, September-October.
19. Langbein, Laura I., and Cornelius M. Kerwin. 2000. Regulatory negotiation versus conventional rulemaking: Claims and counter-claims. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10:599-632.
20. Lurie, Peter, Cristina M. Almeida, Nicholas Stine, Alexander R. Stine, and Sidney M. Wolfe. 2006. Financial conflict of interest disclosure and voting patterns at Food and Drug Administration Drug Advisory Committee Meetings. The Journal of the American Medical Association 295:1921-8.
21. McCubbins, Mathew D., Roger G. Noll, and Barry R. Weingast. 1987. Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 3:243-77.
22. -. 1989. Structure and process, politics and policy: Administrative arrangements and the political control of agencies. Virginia Law Review 75:431-82.
23. Moffitt, Susan. 2002. Inviting outsiders in Reputation and Agency Strategy for Advisory Committee Consultation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston Marriott Copley Place, Sheraton Boston and Hynes Convention Center, Boston, MA, August 28.
24. Petracca, Mark. 1986. Federal advisory committees, interest groups, and the administrative State. Congress & the Presidency 13:83-114.
25. Pika, Joseph A. 1983. Interest groups and the executive: Presidential intervention. In Interest group politics, ed. Allan J. Ciglar and Burdett A. Loomis, 298-323. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
26. Priest, T. B., Richard T. Sylves, and David F. Scudder. 1984. Corporate advice: Large corporations and federal advisory committees. Social Science Quarterly 65:100-111.
27. Quirk, Paul J. 1980. Food and drug administration. In The Politics of regulation, ed. James Q. Wilson. New York: Basic Books.
28. Schulman, Sara, Mary K. Olson, and Rober W. Makuch. 2002. Which factors shape and limit the role of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research's Advisory Committees? Drug Information Journal 36:281-89.
29. Smith, Bruce L. R. 1992. The advisers: Scientists in the policy process. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
30. Steinbrook, Robert. 2004. Science, politics, and federal advisory committees. The New England Journal of Medicine 350:1454-60. (Pubitemid 38420002)
31. Susskind, Lawrence, and Gerard McMahon. 1985. The theory and practice of negotiated rulemaking. Yale Journal on Regulation 3:133-66.
32. Weimer, David L. 2006. The puzzle of private rulemaking: Expertise, flexibility, and blame avoidance in U.S. regulation. Public Administration Review 66:569.