6 ms·

> Another way to look at it was in working with Purdue, he was able to demonstrate his ability to define and walk around FDA approvals by understanding and guid

by saulrh 10y ago

> Another way to look at it was in working with Purdue, he was able to demonstrate his ability to define and walk around FDA approvals by understanding and guiding product language to get approval. Isn't subverting the system like that almost as improper as doing it from the other side? Not as obviously, possibly not as strongly, but from having been in research myself, knowing the little details like that is often good enough to get things through all by itself, completely without regard for whether your research works.

ThePaco 10y ago
I don't think so because the government created a regulatory environment that requires drug companies to find people like this that know how to get their drugs approved.
- digler999 10y ago
  > a regulatory environment that requires the regulatory environment only "requires" this if your drug doesn't work as advertised. The other way to get your drug approved is to, you know, not make phony claims about its efficacy.
  - paul_f 10y ago
    If you don't know how and when and where and exactly what format to file your documents, you don't get approval. Simply working isn't sufficient. It's a complex process and having well connected experts is of extreme value.
VonGuard 10y ago
Happens ALLLLLLLL the time, though. Improper or not, look around at corporate America and you'll find a lot of people who were regulating a company as a government agent, then soon there after, work for the firm they were regulating.
- refurb 10y ago
  Of course it does. If you've got two organizations competing for the experts, you'll get a lot of back and forth. I don't disagree that it creates the appearance of impropriety, but I'm not quite sure how'd you'd avoid it. Force people at the beginning of their career to chose one or another?
vasilipupkin 10y ago
another way of looking at it is, working at the FDA means he is capable and qualified individual. Why would a pharmaceutical company not hire him? Let's not put 100% confidence level into guilt by insinuation. Did he do something specifically improper?

by saulrh 10y ago

ThePaco 10y ago

I don't think so because the government created a regulatory environment that requires drug companies to find people like this that know how to get their drugs approved.

digler999 10y ago
> a regulatory environment that requires the regulatory environment only "requires" this if your drug doesn't work as advertised. The other way to get your drug approved is to, you know, not make phony claims about its efficacy.
- paul_f 10y ago
  If you don't know how and when and where and exactly what format to file your documents, you don't get approval. Simply working isn't sufficient. It's a complex process and having well connected experts is of extreme value.

VonGuard 10y ago

Happens ALLLLLLLL the time, though. Improper or not, look around at corporate America and you'll find a lot of people who were regulating a company as a government agent, then soon there after, work for the firm they were regulating.

refurb 10y ago
Of course it does. If you've got two organizations competing for the experts, you'll get a lot of back and forth. I don't disagree that it creates the appearance of impropriety, but I'm not quite sure how'd you'd avoid it. Force people at the beginning of their career to chose one or another?

vasilipupkin 10y ago

another way of looking at it is, working at the FDA means he is capable and qualified individual. Why would a pharmaceutical company not hire him? Let's not put 100% confidence level into guilt by insinuation. Did he do something specifically improper?