Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorHutt, Peter Bartonen_US
dc.contributor.authorCampbell, Carrieen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-06-15T20:56:13Z
dc.date.issued2004en_US
dc.identifier.citationNo Humans Have Been Injured in the Testing of this Drug: The New Animal Efficacy Rule (2004 Third Year Paper)en
dc.identifier.urihttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:8889487
dc.description.abstractThis paper examines the “Animal Efficacy Rule,†a regulation that provides for the approval of products by the FDA when efficacy testing on humans is ethically impossible. It gives a summary of the history of the enactment of this regulation and outlines its structure and major features. Next, the regulation is analyzed in light of statutory authority, ethics, and practicality. Finally the approval of pyridostigmine bromide under the Animal Efficacy Rule is evaluated in light of these concerns to determine whether the rule is acting as intended, illustrating remaining problems in implementation. The article concludes that while the Animal Efficacy Rule meets ethical requirements and is capable of being implemented given careful supervision, the FDA does not have statutory authority to make such regulation and thus a legislative solution is preferable.en
dc.language.isoen_USen
dash.licenseLAAen_US
dc.subjectFood and Drug Lawen
dc.subjectethicsen
dc.subjectdrug testingen
dc.subjectanimal efficacy ruleen
dc.titleNo Humans Have Been Injured in the Testing of this Drug: The New Animal Efficacy Ruleen
dc.typePaper (for course/seminar/workshop)en_US
dc.date.available2012-06-15T20:56:13Z
dash.authorsorderedfalse


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record