Subscribe to Updates in Legal, Economic & Regulatory Affairs

RSS By Email

RSS By RSS

Add to Google Reader or Homepage

Subscribe in Bloglines


The Expertise Imperative and Compliance Technology
Access to a diverse array of specialized expert inputs drives superior decisions in every organizational context: within corporations, by investors and consultancies, and within nonprofits. When decision makers are confident of their decision inputs, they can respond more quickly and creatively to challenges and opportunities.Learn more about GLG's Compliance Framework


This page may include content provided by Council Members, your access to which is subject to the Terms of Use.
Find Out More

January 30, 2008

FDA… Today, Not Enough Regulation. Tomorrow, Too Much.

This analysis is solely the work of the author. It has not been edited or endorsed by GLG.
Analysis By:
Jeff Stier, Associate DirectorJeff Stier
Associate Director, American Council on Science and Health
Implications: Expect a window of opportunity in a wild west of genetic testing before abuse and a federal over-reaction.

Analysis:  It's a case-book example.   The world of genetic testing is a fast-moving technology, unfettered by a regulatory structure. Some tests will be life-saving. Some may lead to a market for preventive medications that don't exist today. And others will simply be junk-science, playing off people's fears. Those hawking the worst of these tests may actually endanger consumers by prompting them to take inappropriate interventions.   So what will happen?  As technology continues to develop, we will see a mix of useful and less than useful tests. Rarely have regulators been able to finesse a scheme to appropriately handle the intricate differences between valuable tests and junk science.   Testing the outer limits of this technology, perhaps a smaller insurance company will attempt to take genetic tests into account when setting rates. No, they won't be so bold as to charge a higher rate to those at risk of a disease but rather they may offer lower rates to those who can show they do not have a genetic predisposition to various (expensive) diseases. Why not?  It's okay to ask if prospective clients smoke. Medical check-ups are permitted. How is a genetic test any different, they'll ask. Medical privacy groups will have a field day.   Or maybe we'll see a high profile case where someone took drastic (and tragic) steps in response to a meaningless test result.   One way or another, regulators and legislators will eventually be in a race to outdo each other in an effort protect consumers," and if history is any guide, instead of a gentle tap, the regulators will rush in with sledge-hammers.   Right now, we are in the wild-west phase. Everything goes. The sooner some push the limits, the sooner all will have to deal with over-burdensome regulations.   Larger, more established firms (or those bought by them), will be best equipped to thrive in a highly regulated environment. The cowboys who are riding high now won't survive the eventual regulatory onslaught.

Other Analyses of the Same Source Article:
Science ahead of its time
February 5, 2008, Author: GLG Expert Contributor
Controversy Bred By Under-Regulation: Are Genes Too Casual?
February 4, 2008, Author: James O'Reilly, Volunteer Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati - CC
Tests that do not lead to proven therpies are worthless and may cause more harm than good
January 29, 2008, Author: GLG Expert Contributor
Justified concerns for growing genetic tests without FDA approval
January 29, 2008, Author: GLG Expert Contributor

Report a Concern

More GLG News in
Legal, Economic & Regulatory Affairs

Most Popular:
Source Article | Expert Analyses
 

GLG News: What Experts Think Is Important





Analytics


Generated at 2008-09-06T21:45:17.077