SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Abraham, J. (1994) Bias in science and medical knowledge, Sociology, 28, 71736.
  • Abraham, J. (1995) Science, Politics and the Pharmaceutical Industry. London/New York: UCL/St. Martins Press.
  • Abraham, J. (2008) Sociology of pharmaceuticals development and regulation: a realist empirical research programme, Sociology of Health and Illness, 30, 86985.
  • Abraham, J. (2009) Partial progress: governing the pharmaceutical industry and NHS, 1948–2008, Journal of Health, Politics, Policy and Law, 34, 93177.
  • Abraham, J. (2010) Pharmaceuticalization of society in context, Sociology, 44, 60322.
  • Abraham, J. and Davis, C. (2005a) Risking public safety, Health, Risk and Society, 7, 37995.
  • Abraham, J. and Davis, C. (2005b) Comparative analysis of drug safety withdrawals in UK and US, 1971–1992, Social Science and Medicine, 61, 88192.
  • Abraham, J. and Davis, C. (2006) Testing times: the emergence of the Practolol disaster and its challenge to British drug regulation, Social History of Medicine, 19, 12747.
  • Abraham, J. and Davis, C. (2007) Deficits, expectations and paradigms in British and American drug safety assessments, Science, Technology & Human Values, 32, 399431.
  • Abraham, J. and Davis, C. (2009) Drug evaluation and the permissive principle: continuities and contradictions in antidepressant regulation, Social Studies of Science, 39, 56998.
  • Abraham, J. and Lewis, G. (1999) Harmonising and competing for medicines regulation: how healthy are the EU’s systems of drug approval? Social Science and Medicine, 48, 165567.
  • Abraham, J. and Lewis, G. (2000) Regulating Medicines in Europe. London: Routledge.
  • Abraham, J. and Lewis, G. (2002) Citizenship, medical expertise, and the capitalist regulatory state in Europe, Sociology, 36, 6788.
  • Abraham, J. and Sheppard, J. (1999) The Therapeutic Nightmare: The Battle over the World’s most Controversial Sleeping Pill. London: Earthscan.
  • Anglin M.K. (1997) Working from the inside out: implications of breast cancer activism for biomedical policies and practices, Social Science and Medicine, 44, 14031415.
  • Anon. (1981a) Change of attitude at FDA called ‘essential’ by Reagan advisor, Scrip, 558, 12.
  • Anon. (1981b) US ‘drug lag’ Commission starts work, Scrip, 611, 10.
  • Anon. (1981c) Pressure affects BuDrugs morale, Scrip, 642, 7.
  • Anon. (1982a) US NDA rewrite published, Scrip, 739, 8.
  • Anon. (1982b) Deregulation hurts FDA morale, Scrip, 685, 10.
  • Anon. (1985) FDA’s willingness to help, Scrip, 993, 17.
  • Anon. (1986a) Dr Young outlines Action Plan progress, Scrip, 1074, 16.
  • Anon. (1986b) PMA/FDA co-operation, Scrip, 1096, 19.
  • Anon. (1987) ‘US PMA meeting’s hidden concerns’, Scrip, 1213, 19.
  • Anon. (1988a) FDA discussing new proposals, Scrip, 1336, 16.
  • Anon. (1988b) Bush calls for speedier US approvals, Scrip, 1335, 16.
  • Anon. (1988c) FDA’s expedited drug plan unveiled, Scrip, 1356, 18.
  • Anon. (1988d) US PMA comments on expedited drug plan, Scrip, 1346, 17.
  • Anon. (1989a) FDA battles NIAID on AIDS, Scrip, 1450, 19.
  • Anon. (1989b) FDA and drug approval, Scrip, 1378, 17.
  • Anon. (1989c) NCI/FDA clash on cancer approvals, Scrip, 1382, 16.
  • Anon. (1990a) Mixed review for AIDS/cancer panel report, Scrip, 1546, 18.
  • Anon. (1990b) AIDS activists urge ddI/ddC approval, Scrip, 1557, 30.
  • Anon. (1991a) FDA discusses conditional approvals, Scrip, 1598, 17.
  • Anon. (1991b) PMA on conditional approvals, Scrip, 1624, 18.
  • Anon. (1994) Change afoot for FDA, Scrip, 1983, 18.
  • Anon. (1995a) BIO’s proposals for FDA reform, Scrip, 2006, 17.
  • Anon. (1995b) PhRMA’s FDA reform plan, Scrip, 2040, 16.
  • Anon. (1995c) FDA bill reflects industry views, Scrip, 2043, 14.
  • Anon. (1997) Senate approves FDA reform bill, Scrip, 2272, 15.
  • Anon. (2002) More Iressa ADRs in Japan, Scrip, 2794, 23.
  • Anon. (2009) Iressa set to make it as second asking, Cancer Drug News, 30 April, 12.
  • Apolone, G., Joppi, R., Bertele, V. and Garattini, S. (2005) Ten years of marketing approvals of anticancer drugs in Europe, British Journal of Cancer, 93, 5049.
  • Baldwin, J. (2002) Demand grows for early access to promising cancer drugs, Journal of National Cancer Institute, 94, 166870.
  • Brown, N. and Webster, A. (2004) New Medical Technologies and Society. Cambridge: Polity.
  • Busfield, J. (2004) Mental health problems, psychotropic drug technologies and risk, Health, Risk and Society, 6, 36175.
  • Carpenter, D.P. (2004) Political economy of FDA, Health Affairs, 23, 5263.
  • Clinton, B. and Gore, A. (1996) Reinventing the Regulation of Cancer Drugs. Washington DC: National Performance Review.
  • Cohen, M.H. (2002) ‘Briefing document,NDA-21399’ FDA Oncology Division Medical Review. Rockville, Maryland: FDA. US FOIA request.
  • Conrad, P. (2007) Medicalization of society. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Daemmrich, A. (2004) Pharmacopolitics. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
  • Daemmrich, A. and Krucken, G. (2000) Risk versus risk, Science as Culture, 9, 50534.
  • Edgar, H. and Rothman, D.J. (1990) The challenge of AIDS to the regulatory process, Milbank Quarterly, 68, 11142.
  • Epstein, S. (1996) Impure Science: AIDS Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  • Epstein, S. (1997) Activism, drug regulation and the politics of therapeutic evaluation in the AIDS era, Social Studies of Science, 27, 691726.
  • European Commission (EC) (1993) Article 13(2), Regulation 2309/93. Brussels: EC.
  • FDA (1998a) Guidance for Industry: Fast-track Drug Development Programs. Rockville, MD: HHS.
  • FDA (1998b) Guidance for Industry: Approval of New Cancer Treatment Uses. Rockville, MD: HHS.
  • FDA (2002) Transcript, Oncological Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) Meeting, 24 September. Silver Spring, MD.
  • FDA (2003) Approval Package, Iressa, 1 April. Rockville: HHS.
  • FDA (2005) Transcript, ODAC Meeting, 4 March. Gaithersburg, MD.
  • Federal Register (FR) (1985) New drug and antibiotic regulations, 50, FR, 7452. Washington DC: GPO.
  • Federal Register (FR) (1987) New drug, antibiotic and biologic drug product regulations, 52, FR, 8798. Washington DC: GPO.
  • Federal Register (FR) (1988) Procedures for drugs intended to treat life-threatening and severely debilitating illnesses, 53, FR, 41516. Washington DC: GPO.
  • Federal Register (FR) (1992) Accelerated approval, 57, FR, 58958. Washington DC: GPO.
  • Francis, J. (1998) Resurgent regulation in the US. In Doern, G.B. and Wilks, S. (eds) Changing Regulatory Institutions in Britain and North America. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  • Fleming, T.R. (2005) Surrogate endpoints and FDA’s accelerated approval process, Health Affairs, 24, 6778.
  • Frasier, S., Valentine, K. and Roberts, C. (2009) Living drugs, Science as Culture, 18, 12331.
  • Gabe, J. and Bury, M. (1988) Tranquillisers as a social problem, Sociological Review, 36, 32052.
  • Gabe, J. and Bury, M. (1996) Halcyon nights: a sociological account of medical controversy, Sociology, 30, 44769.
  • Garattini, S. and Bertele, V. (2001) Adjusting Europe’s drug regulation to public health needs, Lancet, 358, 66.
  • Goldberg, P. (2005) An ‘insurgency’ targets randomized trials, The Cancer Letter, 31, 1015.
  • Hilts, P.J. (2003) Protecting America’s Health. New York: Knopf.
  • Johnson, J.R. and Temple, R. (1985) FDA requirements for approval of anti-cancer drugs, Cancer Treatment Reports, 69, 115559.
  • Johnson, J.R., Williams, G. and Pazdur, R. (2003) Endpoints and FDA approval of oncology drugs, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 21, 140411.
  • Kawachi, I. and Conrad, P. (1996) Medicalization and pharmacological treatment of blood pressure. In Davis, P. (ed) Contested Ground. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (1983) Competitive Status of the US Pharmaceutical Industry. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
  • Navarro, V. (1994) The Politics of US Health Policy. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) (1993) Costs, Risks and Rewards, Washington DC: GPO.
  • Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) (2004) OJL13630.4.2004 of European Parliament and Council, Community procedures for authorisation and supervision of medicinal products, paragraph 33. Brussels: EU.
  • Patients’ Coalition (1996) Issues of Concern to Patients in Debate over FDA Reform, 20 March. Washington, DC: Patients Coalition.
  • Patients’ Coalition (1997) Testimony, Jeff Bloom, Patients Coalition, Commerce Committee and Health and Environment SubCommittee, House of Representatives, 12 April. Washington, DC: Patients Coalition.
  • Pearce, N. (1996) Adverse reactions, social responses: two asthma mortality epidemics. In Davis, P. (ed) Contested Ground. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Rafalovich, A. (2005) Exploring clinician uncertainty in diagnosis and treatment of ADHD, Sociology of Health and Illness, 27, 30523.
  • Roberts, T.G. and Chabner, B.A. (2004) Beyond fast-track for drug approvals, New England Journal of Medicine, 351, 502.
  • Salter, B. and Jones, M. (2006) Change in the policy community of human genetics, Policy and Politics, 34, 34766.
  • Sklair, L. (2001) The Transnational Capitalist Class. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Stahel, R., Rossi, A., Petruzelka, L., et al. (2003) Lessons from ‘Iressa’: expanded access programme, British Journal of Cancer, 89, 1923.
  • US Government Accountability Office (US GAO) (2009) New Drug Approval: Report to Committee on Finance, US Senate. GAO-09-866: GPO. Washington, DC: GAO.
  • Williams, G. (2002) Team Leader Comments (Iressa), FDA Oncology Drugs Division, 24 September. Rockville, Maryland: FDA. US FOIA request.
  • Williams, S.J., Gabe, J. and Davis, P. (eds) (2009) Pharmaceuticals and Society. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Williams, S.J., Seale, C., Boden, S., Lowe, P. and Steinberg, D.L. (2008) Modafinil, the media and pharmaceuticalisation of everyday/night life, Sociology of Health and Illness, 30, 83955.
  • Willman, D. (2000) How a new policy led to seven deadly drugs, Los Angeles Times, 20 December, 6.