IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v35y2018i1p89-119.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competing Policy Windows in Biotechnology: The FDA, the 21st Century Cures Act, and Laboratory†Developed Tests

Author

Listed:
  • Nathan Myers
  • Catherine E. Steding
  • Peter Mikolaj

Abstract

In 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed taking a more active role in the regulation of laboratory†developed tests (LDTs). Meanwhile, the U.S. House of Representatives embarked upon the 21st Century Cures initiative to develop legislation to expedite the development of new biotechnology innovations. During that initiative and in the public comments responding to the draft guidance, there was significant disagreement as to whether the increased FDA regulation of LDTs was beneficial or detrimental to biotechnology. Both the FDA guidance document and the 21st Century Cures Act came about due to the opening of a window of opportunity created by the convergence of circumstances. The question is whether the windows of opportunity are competing and how to resolve this competition. This study will investigate these questions through a qualitative case study. It will also provide recommendations for resolving policy disputes involving wicked problems like biotechnology policy.ç”Ÿç‰©æŠ€æœ¯ä¸­æ”¿ç­–çª—å £çš„ç›¸äº’ç«žäº‰ï¼šFDA〠21世纪治愈法案和实验室自建检测方法 2014å¹´, ç¾Žå›½é£Ÿå“ è ¯å“ ç›‘ç £ç®¡ç †å±€ï¼ˆFood and Drug Administration, FDA)æ 议在实验室自建检测方法(laboratory†developed tests, LDTsï¼‰çš„ç›¸å…³æ³•è§„ä¸Šæ‰®æ¼”æ›´ç§¯æž çš„è§’è‰²ã€‚ä¸Žæ­¤å Œæ—¶, ç¾Žå›½ä¼—è®®é™¢å¼€å§‹ç €æ‰‹å ¯ç”¨21世纪治愈法案(21st Century Cures initiative), åˆ¶å®šæ³•å¾‹ä»¥åŠ é€Ÿæ–°ç”Ÿç‰©æŠ€æœ¯åˆ›æ–°è¿›ç¨‹ã€‚è¯¥æ³•æ¡ˆå’Œå…¬ä¼—å¯¹FDAæŒ‡å —è ‰æ¡ˆçš„å›žåº”, éƒ½è¡¨è¾¾äº†å „è‡ªå¯¹FDA扩大监管LDT法规一事的强烈争论, 探讨其对生物技术是有益还是有害。FDAæŒ‡å —æ–‡ä»¶å’Œ21ä¸–çºªæ²»æ„ˆæ³•æ¡ˆäº§ç”Ÿçš„åŽŸå› éƒ½åœ¨äºŽæ‰“å¼€äº†æ”¿ç­–ä¹‹çª—, å Žè€…åˆ™ç”±ä¸ å Œæƒ…å†µè¶‹äºŽä¸€è‡´è€Œäº§ç”Ÿã€‚é—®é¢˜åœ¨äºŽ, æœºä¼šä¹‹çª—æ˜¯å ¦æ­£å­˜åœ¨ç›¸äº’ç«žäº‰çš„æƒ…å†µ, ä»¥å Šå¦‚ä½•è§£å†³è¿™ç§ ç«žäº‰ã€‚æœ¬æ–‡å°†é€šè¿‡å®šæ€§æ¡ˆä¾‹ç ”ç©¶å¯¹è¿™äº›é—®é¢˜è¿›è¡Œè°ƒæŸ¥ã€‚æœ¬æ–‡å Œæ—¶ä¹Ÿä¼šæ ä¾›è§£å†³æ”¿ç­–çº çº·çš„æŽ¨è 方法, æ”¿ç­–çº çº·æ¶‰å Šä¾‹å¦‚ç”Ÿç‰©æŠ€æœ¯æ”¿ç­–ç­‰æ£˜æ‰‹é—®é¢˜ã€‚Ventanas de oportunidad política rivales en la biotecnología: la FDA, el 21st Century Cures Act y las pruebas desarrolladas en laboratorio En 2014, la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos de los EE. UU. o FDA propuso tomar un rol más activo en la regulación de pruebas desarrolladas en laboratorio (LDTs). Mientras tanto, la Cámara de Representantes de EE. UU. emprendió la iniciativa 21st Century Cures para desarrollar legislación para agilizar el desarrollo de nuevas innovaciones de biotecnología. Durante esa iniciativa y en los comentarios públicos que responden al proyecto de orientaciones, hubo desacuerdos significativos para responder la siguiente interrogativa: ¿Fue la regulación incrementada de la FDA para las LDTs beneficiosa o dañina para la biotecnología? Tanto el documento de orientación de la FDA como el 21st Century Cures Act apareció por la apertura de una ventana de oportunidad creada por la convergencia de circunstancias. La pregunta es si las ventanas de oportunidad están compitiendo y cómo resolver esta competencia. Este estudio investigará estas preguntas a través de un estudio de caso cualitativo. También proporcionará recomendaciones para resolver disputas políticas acerca de problemas extremos como la política biotecnológica.

Suggested Citation

  • Nathan Myers & Catherine E. Steding & Peter Mikolaj, 2018. "Competing Policy Windows in Biotechnology: The FDA, the 21st Century Cures Act, and Laboratory†Developed Tests," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 35(1), pages 89-119, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:35:y:2018:i:1:p:89-119
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12262
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12262
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12262?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:35:y:2018:i:1:p:89-119. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.