In Vivo is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By


Industry and regulators keen to collaborate, but FDA expert warns about perception

This article was originally published in Scrip

Executive Summary

"Collaboration" and "partnership" between the pharma industry and regulators were key buzzwords on the last day of 7th annual TOPRA meeting in London this week, but one FDA expert warned about their possible negative connotations.

"In the past we always saw them [regulators] as saying 'no', but, in fact, nowadays they want to collaborate," declared Professor Trevor Jones, director of Allergan and former director general of the UK industry association ABPI, in his opening speech before the regulator's perspective in the session on "Improving access: how can all stakeholders make a contribution".

Murray Lumpkin, deputy commissioner for international programs at the Office of the Commissioner at the US FDA (in picture below), told the 650 or so industry/regulatory affairs delegates that: "'Partner' is an appropriate [term] in this room together as we know what that means, but that is a word that is loaded that makes other stakeholders uneasy."

He questioned what regulators do with their stakeholders, where for the FDA, at least, there is an "overflowing cornucopia" of them including industry, healthcare professionals, patients, NGOs, advocacy groups, the investment community, government, payers and buyers. "Do we collaborate or engage with them?"

He says that when other stakeholders hear "we want to collaborate with industry", this has "negative connotations".

"We need to watch the verbs [we use], they need to be more neutral...because addressing perception is more important than addressing the reality. I would like to use the word 'engage' as it does not have the same connotations of other verbs."

As the FDA has a very diverse group of stakeholders, this creates challenges because they can have opposing views and sometimes there is no "common ground". Some want to comment on every issue, while others do not.

He pointed out that some stakeholders were better organised, funded or sophisticated than others on how they "navigated" Washington. "Where do you draw the line between engagement and lobbying as it has legal obligations if that line is being crossed?"

Other challenges in relation to stakeholders he noted were: "how to assure a level playing pitch when it comes to access to FDA and influence on any given process" and "how to assure transparency with regard to process and decision-making and how to incorporate various viewpoints of stakeholders with equities – without compromising responsibilities regarding legally mandated confidentiality of certain data and activities?" Overall, he says, there is a difference between "stakeholder" and "customer"; for the FDA, it has one customer, which is protecting and promoting public health in the US.

US ... and them? FDA's Murray Lumpkin talking to 'collaborators' .

You may also be interested in...

US FDA head Hamburg declares no one can inspect world on its own

The US Food and Drug Administration recently signalled its desire to work more closely with other drug regulators in assessing the quality of pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities around the world.

FDA's Hamburg declares no one can "inspect world on its own" for poor quality medicines

It seems as if the US FDA is softening its stance on assessing the quality of pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities around the world in future, with an apparent desire to work more closely with other drug regulators. However, incorporating the regulators from countries such as India, China and Japan into a global inspectorate still looks problematical.

Pharma and MSF agree on competition for cheap vaccines, but differ on pricing

Large pharmaceutical companies and Médecins sans Frontières may not often see eye-to-eye over access to medicines in poor countries. But it seems as if industry and the humanitarian body, a prominent critic, do agree that competition works in improving access to vaccines, even though they don't agree about the mechanisms of price setting.

Related Companies




Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts