Browsed by
Category: Guest Articles

A Summary of Daniel P. Carpenter’s “Reputation and Power” – A Titanic Book on the History of the FDA

A Summary of Daniel P. Carpenter’s “Reputation and Power” – A Titanic Book on the History of the FDA

Willy Chertman
Edited by Dan Elton


Note from the Editor: In a conversation on Clubhouse that I hosted, entitled “Is the FDA moving too slowly with vaccine approvals?”, Willy Chertman articulated a number of nuanced points about the FDA. He had recently finished reading Reputation and Power, an 856-page book on the history of the FDA. I asked Willy to organize his notes on the book so that the USTP membership could learn his key takeaways from the book and learn more about the history and role of the FDA. Willy graciously accepted my request. I have edited his notes somewhat for length and made some minor copyedits. A few key takeaways are bolded.

– Daniel C. Elton, Director of Scholarship, United States Transhumanist Party, April 2, 2021


Reputation and Power book cover


Reputation and Power

Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA
by Daniel P. Carpenter
856 pgs. Princeton University Press, 2010

 

Reputation and Power is a very deep dive into the history of the FDA and the reputational universe that it inhabits and creates. The gist of the book is that reputation management is the best lens to understand the FDA, not “public interest” versus “regulatory capture”. The political and regulatory power of the FDA is bound up inextricably with how Congress, the pharmaceutical industry, academic medicine, and consumer-protection groups view it. By virtue of the size of the market it regulates and its pre-market approval power, the FDA is likely the most powerful regulatory agency in the world. 

Because of the length of the book and the variety of topics it covers, I’ve split this book summary into two parts. The first half covers the history of the FDA and the second half covers the themes and lessons I learned from the book. Though Carpenter covers up to about 2010, time constraints meant that this summary only covers up to 1992. Hopefully future posts will cover the remaining material.

Origins

The origin story of the FDA in popular political mythology begins with thalidomide, but Carpenter does an excellent job showing how the FDA started as an obscure branch of the USDA, originating with the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. In the early 1900’s the FDA had nothing but the ability to confiscate dangerous drugs or compounds from the market.  Later, in a pattern that will repeat itself, forces within and without the FDA made good use of the dictum “Never let a crisis go to waste.” 

The context is that the early 1900s were a stupendous time to be a patent medicine salesman– a synonym for charlatan. Apart from aspirin, it’s not clear that any patent medicine of that time ever turned out to be effective. Medicines to lull your baby to sleep relied on opium or alcohol, and sulfonamide antibiotics were not invented until the 1930s, and even then their manufacturing process was initially unreliable . Yet the patent medicine trade was booming. In an interesting historical irony, John D Rockefeller, through his foundation’s funding of the Flexner Report, which birthed medical education as we know it, ended the traveling medicine salesman/huckster-doctor profession – which his own father had been in. 

The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1908 required accurate labeling of products and also gave the FDA the power to seize and destroy products that violated the law. Importantly, this did not give the FDA the power of pre-market approval, which is its most important power today. Though the FDA was prohibited from directly lobbying for more authority, many in the agency and their Progressive congressional allies believed the FDA was weak and underfunded relative to the growing pharmaceutical industry it was supposed to regulate. In 1935, New York Senator Copeland had tried to pass legislation that would strengthen the FDA, aided by women’s political organizations and the Consumers Research group, but his attempt had failed in the House. 

There had been previous small-scale pharmaceutical disasters, but the Sulfonamide Elixir stood out for scale and the media attention that it garnered. The leading role that the FDA eventually took in handling the disaster, as well as the relationship with the media that it cultivated, also made this disaster special.  This is the beginning of the sidelining of the American Medical Association (AMA), which had previously been one of the centers of organized medical power. 

People became seriously ill from its consumption, and by late October 1937, at least seventy-three of these had died. The FDA, assisted by state and local health officials and the American Medical Association, commenced an effort to secure as much of the compound as possible before any more was consumed.

The media ran stories of heroic FDA officials working late into the night trying to confiscate a dangerous drug, and the story re-surfaced whenever another death was reported. The cherry on top of this story was a report released by the Secretary of Agriculture, the Campbell-Wallace Report:

‘A few simple and inexpensive tests,’ the sort that would be performed by the company before marketing and analyzed in a pre-market review process by the FDA, would quickly have evinced the elixir’s “toxic properties.” Translation: with a pre-market review process, none of this would have happened.

In February 1938, Copeland’s S.3073 was again considered in the Senate. Women’s groups and public-health leagues now lobbied intensively for its passage, and their rhetoric made clear the centrality of the Wallace report in the new deliberations. 

Contrary to the theory of regulatory capture, large pharmaceutical firms, who might have expected to benefit from a regulatory moat, did not advocate for the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Instead, it was Progressive politicians pressured by consumer protection groups, women’s groups, and forces within the FDA that advocated for it. 

The 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act gave birth to modern pharmaceutical regulation: The four enumerated powers—(1) pre-market review and notification, (2) prohibition (or withdrawal authority), (3) labeling regulation, and (4) compulsory disclosure of all drug contents (active and inactive)—have become assumed and core legal features of pharmaceutical markets 

While the 1938 act did not contain an efficacy provision, Carpenter shows how this was effectively smuggled into drug regulation anyways, with officials saying: 

It has been emphasized that there is no arbitrary standard of safety; it is a relative matter in which the toxicity of the drug must be weighed against the therapeutic benefits which its use will bring about.

In the 1940’s and 1950’s the FDA gradually raised the standards for drug approval, and its Division of Pharmacology drew many talented pharmacologists from academia. Throughout the FDA-cultivated “reputational ambiguity”.

The simultaneous ambiguity and fear-provoking stance of investigational regulation was, in part, FDA officials’ manner of expressing and maintaining the agency’s gatekeeping role, even as they did not fully comprehend… 

Though a Randomized Controlled Trial was not yet an explicit requirement for drug approval, the FDA gradually raised the bar on the required toxicity, stability, and drug metabolism studies. As pharmacology refined its methodology, the FDA required more and more from drug companies, viewed amateur physician-directed trials with more suspicion, and by being the central gatekeeper of pharma, made the whole field more rigorous and scientific. 

The FDA used a variety of carrots in addition to the “stick” of gatekeeper:

From the beginnings of the Eisenhower administration and probably earlier, FDA officials acted intentionally, strategically, and with foresight to establish numerous committees of liaison to the professions. Agency officials established not just medically specialized “advisory committees” of the sort that became institutionalized in the late twentieth and twenty-first centuries, but also more temporary committees that helped the FDA recruit and retain allies and consultants. 

The Administration cultivated relationships with academic luminaries in pharmacology, and many of their promising students became part of it. Dr. Frances Kelsey, a Professor of Pharmacology at South Dakota State University who had done important research on the teratogenic effects of drugs on animal fetuses, was an archetypical example. She had come highly recommended to the agency, and though she developed a reputation as being a more exacting drug reviewer than most, the agency as a whole had become more cautious over the decades. 

Thalidomide

Thalidomide, marketed as Contergan in Europe, was being widely used there as a sedative, and the company (Merrell) submitted a drug application to the FDA. Kelsey held up the application due to safety concerns, even in the face of vigorous company complaint, and was vindicated when it was later tied to an outbreak of birth defects in Europe. 

This might have remained the stuff of obscure industry history if the antitrust subcommittee led by Senator Estes Kefauver had not leaked the details of the story to the reporter Morton Mintz. Kefauver, who had been leading high-profile hearings on the “drug industry” and had been trying to shorten their drug patent periods as well as incentivize generic drug prescription, gave Morton Mintz key data about the Thalidomide saga as well as Frances Kelsey’s role in it. 

1962 Amendments and After…

The Drug Amendments of 1962 were opposed by the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, but the FDA’s star was ascendant with the Thalidomide crisis having shown its worth. 

At their core, the Amendments contained three provisions governing pharmaceutical regulation (table 4.1). They first required affirmative evidence of “effectiveness” and “safety,” evidence in the form of “adequate and well-controlled investigations,” before any “new drug” could enter into interstate commerce. Second, they required designation of a medicine as an Investigational New Drug during its period of experimentation (and submission of the IND to the agency), and empowered the Administration to nullify this status (and hence development of the drug) if research protections for patients were not being observed, if the clinical trial protocol was not sufficiently rigorous, if pregnant women were being exposed to teratogens, or if any evidence of research as commercialization emerged. Third, they required the Administration to lay out and enforce new procedures to protect the interests and rights of patients in medical research. 

The impact of the law was significant: Before 1960, there are no references to phased trials in the American and European medical literature, and there is no reference to a “Phase 3” study in Western medical literature before 1964. In the early 1960s, reports of “Phase 1” and “Phase 2” experiments appear haltingly, then rapidly near the end of the decade (table 4.2). What is more, American researchers and doctors began to reflect systematically on the relationship between earlier phases and later phases. 

In the 1960’s, as the FDA continued to gain in power, it met with some moderate resistance from organized medicine. These incidents illustrate the reputational politics that the FDA is sensitive to: when comments by Frances Kelsey at a medical conference were taken to indicate that patients always had to be informed that they might receive a placebo, a leading clinical trialist at Harvard, Henry Beecher, wrote to the FDA Commissioner. In another incident, the FDA’s General Counsel William Goodrich implied that medical journals might be liable for misleading advertisements, which prompted a prominent Cornell pharmacologist Walter Modell, who had previously been an ally of the FDA, to publicly rebuke them. 

In both cases, to varying degrees, those statements were publicly walked back by the FDA.

Sometimes public dissent against the FDA could damage one’s career, even for the most credentialed academic, as Louis Lasagna’s advocacy for combination antibiotics demonstrated: 

Lasagna’s advocacy for Panalba was risky and vocal, and it marked the beginning of a steady decline in his status among medical academicians. Lasagna’s name was golden in the 1950s, when he had authored pathbreaking papers on the placebo response and clinical trial design, when he had founded the nation’s first clinical pharmacology department at Johns Hopkins, and when he had testified in support of efficacy standards at the Kefauver hearings in 1960. 

…The diverging paths of Louis Goodman and Louis Lasagna marked the splintering audiences of the Food and Drug Administration as well as the agency’s enduring scientific legitimacy. In the status-conscious world of academic medicine, Louis Lasagna never fully recovered from the Panalba battle. 

An important feature of FDA history in the 60’s and 70’s was the congressional hearing. Because of changes in how congressional committee chairs were chosen, congressional hearings became more important in this period. The obligation of FDA officials to appear before Congress when requested and to testify was an important check on its power and a venue where its public reputation was maintained. 

Criticism from an industry-friendly senator could strengthen the FDA’s image as pharma policeman while an FDA whistleblower like John Nestor testifying to its regulatory inadequacy could force less accommodation with the drug industry by effectively shaming the FDA into more stringency. 

Congressional hearings seemed, at least in the 1970s, to be the strongest check on FDA behavior. When Senator Gaylord Nelson read The Doctor’s Case Against the Pill, and started hearings into the FDA’s approval of it, and its widespread use, the end result was, after much criticism from prestigious physicians, scientists, and consumer safety advocates, the creation of the patient-package-insert. (see chapter 9)

An illustration of how the FDA sought to collaborate with other scientific institutions can be seen in how it dealt with medications that had been approved before 1962 and the formal recognition of an efficacy standard. Thousands of drugs had been approved in the 1940s and 1950s on the basis of evidence that were wholly inadequate by 1962 FDA standards. These drugs had now been incorporated into clinical practice for many years, and so any FDA action on them would be seen as doubly intrusive by physicians. To strengthen their position and reduce their workload, the FDA collaborated with the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate these old drugs.

1970s

The 1970s probably marks the peak of the FDA’s power, as a series of court decisions endowed the Administration with the authority to issue rules with “the force of law” and creating “a presumption in favor of agencies that claimed legislative rulemaking authority”. When the FDA does not want to create formal rules, which require an elaborate process, it also uses “nonbinding” guidance documents which are, in reality, quite binding: 

Because the Administration has the ultimate say over whether and when a new drug will be marketed, its mere suggestions and intimations induce compliance even where they are not backed by legal authority. The agency’s use of Federal Register policy statements and “guidance documents” (nonbinding statements of policy that are not customarily published in the Federal Register but are published under the auspices of the FDA itself) permits its officials to avoid the more costly and elaborate process of formal rulemaking, while still gaining acquiescence with its regulatory wishes. 

With its arsenal of new authorities and the powers that flowed from them, the Administration began in the 1960s and 1970s to exercise vast sway over the medical marketplace. Familiar over-the-counter remedies and doctor-prescribed pills vanished. The place of the general practitioner in drug development waned to the point of disappearance, as companies could no longer rely upon doctors’ casual observations or observations of patient histories to buttress claims of safety and effectiveness. 

Though there were occasional media critiques of the FDA in the late 1960s, the 1970s and 1980s were really the beginning of a sustained critique of the FDA from the right. This came from many quarters: business-friendly publications like the Wall Street Journal, prominent economists like Sam Peltzman who were quantitatively assessing regulatory impact on innovation in various industries, and industry organizations. In 1974, the American Enterprise Institute played a key role by launching the AEI Center for Health Policy Research, which brought together pharmacologists, industry officials, and economists. The “drug lag”, coined in 1972, was the time between a drug being introduced in Europe vs the US, and along with the cost-benefit analysis of regulation, was a key critique of the administration. A sign of the success of these critiques was that while top FDA officials publicly rejected the premise of the drug lag, inside the administration, increased attention was paid to the drugs that had already been approved in peer countries. 

Even as libertarian-aligned think tanks, academics, and newspapers criticized the FDA for being too cautious, the opposite critique was sustained by consumer-protection groups throughout this period.

No voice more cogently or passionately articulated the case for rigorous drug safety standards than that of physician-activist Sidney Wolfe, and no arrangement better amplified the concerns of Wolfe and his allies than the committee systems of the U.S. House and Senate. Wolfe helped to found the Health Research Group, a subsidiary of Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen, in 1971. 

Wolfe had no formal role in the Administration, but by careful use of administrative procedures like FOIA requests and citizen petitions, combined with journalist connections, he could push the FDA into action when it was reluctant. The whole section on him is worth excerpting:

Wolfe’s principal weapon was his threat to the Administration’s consumer protection image. The credibility of this threat depended on a set of strategies by which Wolfe and his organization could embarrass the agency, extract data from it, influence the FDA’s decision agenda, or (less commonly) induce courts to force the agency to take a given action.

First, he was adept at using administrative procedures refined in the 1970s, including Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and citizens’ petitions, to pry important drug safety and procedural information out of the agency, or to place contentious and uncomfortable items on the Administration’s agenda. Second, Wolfe exploited the public comment period of the FDA’s advisory committee meetings on drugs, an opportunity that offered a public venue albeit with brief appearances. Third, Wolfe appeared regularly at congressional committee hearings as an invited guest, and his ties to committee chairs and their staff gave him indirect access to committee powers (replete with tools for discovery). In the 1970s and 1980s, Wolfe worked partially in tandem with subcommittee chairmen ranging from Lawrence Fountain, Henry Waxman, and Ted Weiss in the House to Senators Edward Kennedy and Abraham Ribicoff. 

Fourth, Wolfe maintained ties to journalists over a period of several decades (Morton Mintz, Christine Russell, Philip Hilts, and others). He used these journalists to publicize actions (such as the taking of surveys of FDA medical officers) that would otherwise not have received much public attention. Finally, Wolfe and his organization shrewdly used lawsuits and the threat of legal action to induce rulemaking and jar the agency into action. The strategies of administrative maneuvering, advisory committee testimony, appearances at congressional hearings, and media access became much more pivotal to Wolfe’s leverage over the FDA after 1979, when a federal judge limited the right of Nader’s group to sue agencies on behalf of the general public. 

A clear demonstration of the conservative sentiment of the times was the backlash against the FDA when it attempted to regulate supplements more stringently:

In August 1973, the Administration published fourteen final regulations and five proposed rules that governed the labeling of foods and food supplements. 

Led by Wisconsin Senator William Proxmire, Congress in 1976 passed an amendment to the 1938 Act which extended the “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) exemption for vitamins and minerals to dietary supplements. The “Proxmire Amendment” prevents the Administration from restricting the potency of a vitamin or mineral supplement based on either of two criteria: (1) food misbranding charges or (2) on the premise that the supplement would qualify as a drug if it surpassed the agency’s desired level of potency. For almost two decades, FDA officials largely backed off from rule-making on supplements.

In the late 1990s, the FDA again attempted to regulate supplements and faced a similar legislative rebuke. 

Overall, though the FDA faced some setbacks when it attempted to regulate supplements, it survived the conservative turn in the 1980s with its power and reputation mostly intact, an impressive achievement for such a powerful regulatory agency. In some ways, the criticism from the libertarian perspective may have strengthened the FDA’s reputational position:

[I]t would be wrong to conclude that the persistence of criticism and scrutiny has undermined the agency’s reputation and power. It is certainly plausible that criticism has depleted morale, and on occasion publicity and hearings have weakened its leadership. 

For those who have paid attention to the increasing polarization of US politics over the last 20 years, this may sound familiar – criticism from your enemies can be a reliable signal to your allies that you’re on their side. In a similar way, pharma and libertarian criticism of the FDA may strengthen its reputational position in the views of consumer-protection groups and allied groups.

AIDS and Cancer

The “drug lag” criticism was a long-lasting and effective critique of the FDA, but Carpenter seems to argue that the most significant reforms of the FDA were really brought about by inter-agency squabbles over cancer drugs and the moral outcry of the HIV epidemic. The interactions of AIDS activists and the FDA are probably more well-known than the turf battle between the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the FDA, but it appears that the latter may have been more influential.

NCI-supported investigators were developing combination chemotherapies that were very promising, modeled after the lucky discovery of platinum’s anticancer potential by physicist Barnett Rosenberg. From 1975 to 1977 Robert S. K. Young, an FDA medical reviewer, repeatedly took issue with the study protocols of combination chemotherapy trials and halted several trials. A prominent MD Anderson oncologist, Emil Freireich, retaliated by reading out a list of complaints about FDA interference into NCI-funded trials at an important meeting of President Ford’s Cancer panel. Benno Schmidt, the chairman of the panel and a prominent official in Ford’s Administration, agreed with him. Young’s supervisor William Gyarfas stuck by his subordinate. 

Young overreached when in a 1977 Advisory Committee he attempted to more aggressively regulate the clinical trials of combination chemotherapy and effectively eliminate dosage variation in chemotherapy without preclinical studies. The Committee voted against his proposal, and this caught the attention of Richard Crout, then-head of the Bureau of Drugs. Crout met with the head of NCI and basically admitted his subordinate had overreached, and they worked on a series of protocols to relax FDA restrictions for terminally ill patients. 

While this might have been the end of the bureaucratic conflict, the NCI had decided to escalate: 

House Health Subcommittee chairman Paul Grant Rogers (D-FL) released a December 3, 1976 letter from the American Cancer Society calling for full “NCI control over the testing of new anticancer drugs, instead of FDA control” for nonprofit research sponsors. This transfer of power would be accomplished, as ACS representative Nathaniel Polster hoped, by amendments to the National Cancer Act. While NCI officials were largely silent about the ACS proposal, M. D. Anderson’s Freireich was not. He openly called for deep “structural changes” so that the “FDA can never again shut [down cancer research].” 

This would be a huge escalation. If the NCI succeeded in wresting control over regulation of a specific disease, it would set a precedent for continued piecemeal diminishment of FDA authority: 

And to Administration officials concerned about the maintenance of their authority over clinical trials, the ACS-NCI proposal raised the specter of debilitation by precedent. Once an exception for one category of illness was carved out of the FDA’s power over clinical research, it was feared, demands from representatives of other diseases would soon follow. As if to confirm the FDA’s premonitions, Solomon Garb of the Citizens’ Committee for the Conquest of Cancer seized upon the NCI-FDA dispute and called for ending FDA power over any clinical trial in which patients have “poor prognoses.” Garb’s remarks introduced a different and more formidable voice to the growing chorus of criticism, in part because the Citizens’ Committee was an amalgam of union, scientific, corporate, scientific, and civic leaders… 

This proposal didn’t come from a fringe libertarian or anti-government organization but from respected sources. The NCI and the FDA eventually came to agreement: 

DeVita and Crout settled on a new procedure whereby “stop orders” for NCI-sponsored trials for terminally ill patients could be issued only by the Bureau of Drugs chief (Crout himself at the time) or the deputy chief (Marion Finkel, at the time). The two groups later agreed to use the nation’s forty comprehensive cancer centers to mediate the surveillance of research protocols. The new arrangement embedded meaningful victories for both sides. For the Institute, the new procedures effectively bypassed Robert Young and, more notably, William Gyarfas, Director of the Oncology Drugs Division. NCI officials and their grantees would now deal more directly with Crout and Finkel, who were more trusted within oncology networks. And the Institute’s détente with the FDA helped it to buttress claims that it was being “dominated”… 

The Administration would retain full control over cancer trials. The NCI would now officially acknowledge and defer to the IND regulations, and in so doing it would develop a “Master Plan” of drug development… 

By January 1979, the dispute had issued in a document with odd legal status but firm organizational commitments (figure 6.1). An informal procedure for resolving FDA-NCI disputes appears to have been worked out in April 1979. The procedure entailed four steps: (1) first devolving disputes to the lowest managerial level deemed suitable for negotiation—the Associate Director of the Bureau of Drugs (at that time, Finkel) and the Director of the NCI’s Cancer Treatment Division (DeVita), then (2) to negotiations between the Bureau of Drugs head (Crout) and the NCI Director, then (3) to negotiations between the FDA Commissioner and NIH head, and (4) finally, determination by FDA Commissioner himself if none of these previous options produced a resolution. The memorandum bound neither agency legally. It was rather an informal institution founded in a political equilibrium, a mutual wish to avoid the spectacle of open, public conflict among two agencies whose reputations generally benefited from being out of the public eye. 

While the NCI and FDA struggle would lead to a durable compromise between the two agencies, the Laetrile saga would come closest to threatening FDA power, and yet ultimately affirm it. From a libertarian perspective it is darkly amusing that the drug that came closest to breaking the FDA’s stranglehold was the charismatic but ultimately useless drug Laetrile. 

Laetrile had been developed by an Ernst Krebs (of no relation to the Krebs cycle) who had failed out of medical school and whose father, incidentally, was also a conman physician. At various times its supporters described it as vitamin B17, as a relative of cyanide, and as amygdalin. NCI scientist Dean Burk had developed a molecular model that was supposed to demonstrate Laetrile’s anti-tumor activity and a San Francisco foundation applied to the FDA for an IND for experimentation. 

Their IND was ultimately rejected by the FDA, which cited problems with the sponsors and monitors of the trial and its design. The key difference between the FDA’s rejection of Laetrile and its previous policing of quack medicines was the FDA exerting its power on the IND stage. This was a rhetorically powerful difference. 

What most bothered many Laetrile supporters and their distant sympathizers was not the absence of Laetrile from the drug marketplace, but the absence of a permit for testing. Appropriating the juridical metaphor of a “fair trial,” they linked a populist ethic of self-medication to issues of justice and to more progressive norms of academic and intellectual freedom, the liberty of research and exploration of ideas. … By pressing the case for a total ban, by publicizing its seizures, and by assisting with state and federal prosecutions of Laetrile distributors, the Administration had resurrected a face that had been nearly invisible since the 1950s: the FDA as police. 

Newspapers ran headlines criticizing the FDA for overreach. Organizations for therapeutic freedom sprung up across the country and a bill sponsored by Representative Steve Symms that would repeal the efficacy provisions of the 1962 amendments attracted over 100 sponsors. Several states passed laws legalizing Laetrile. The anti-FDA sentiment was nearly mainstream: Time Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times all ran editorials with some support for Laetrile proponents, or at least criticized the FDA’s overreach. 

From the FDA’s perspective, several court cases were going in an unwelcome direction. Lower courts had issued an injunction against seizure of Laetrile, had decided that the FDA had the duty of showing lack of safety, not the sponsor affirmative proof of safety, and that the FDA had not exercised due process in its Laetrile ban. Since the regulatory power of the FDA was inextricably bound up with its flexible ability to issue rules and the affirmative requirement of drug sponsors to show safety and efficacy, these rulings were a threat to the FDA. In recognition of this enormous pressure, the FDA Commissioner did two contradictory things: one, he affirmed his agency’s judgement that Laetrile was ineffective and dangerous; two, he granted an IND to the NCI for Laetrile. In a PR coup for the Laetrile camp, they also testified before Congress to the Health and Scientific Research Subcommittee. The ability of the agency to offer different faces to different audiences is a recurring theme of Carpenter’s, who views it as key to the FDA’s long-term success. 

In June 1979, in Rutherford vs United States, The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit, which had previously ruled that the FDA could not regulate drugs given to terminally ill patients. It was a powerful affirmation of the FDA’s regulatory authority. Though at this point the FDA could have likely dropped the Laetrile IND for any number of reasons, the FDA issued a conditional approval for Laetrile’s IND, which was set to be tested at rigorous NCI-affiliated institutions that the FDA trusted. 

The Supreme Court decision, followed by the very public death of actor Steve McQueen, who had pursued a number of alternative medicine therapies including Laetrile after a mesothelioma diagnosis, led to the gradual decline of Laetrile’s political power. The FDA post-Laetrile had its legal power affirmed over every part of medicine: terminally ill patients, cancer patients, whether a given drug was even a legitimate experimental drug, etc.

AIDS

Part of the 1988 ACT-UP protest for greater access to HIV-AIDS drugs that was held outside the FDA. Source: FDA/ Creative Commons.

Like the NCI and FDA power struggle, the AIDS crisis resulted in substantial concessions by the FDA. Unlike the former, the AIDS crisis played out much more publicly, and instead of bureaucratic warfare, the battle was a reputational one. The primary strategy of AIDS activists was to attack the FDA’s good name– instead of a public health agency and “protector of the American consumer” they sought to cast it as a villain who was killing AIDS patients through its slow and inflexible procedures. Until the 1990s AIDS was a slow death sentence, and in the early 1980s it was still poorly understood, with an official announcement by HHS Secretary Margaret Heckler that AIDS was caused by HIV occurring only in 1984. Retroviruses had only been discovered in 1970, and there were no targeted therapies for them until the HIV antiretrovirals. 

An important advantage that AIDS activists had was that decades of organizing had left the gay community with many highly effective and experienced community activists. Many of them went on to form important groups: the most prominent of them were Gay Men’s Health Crisis, AIDS Foundation, Project Inform, and ACT-UP. Gay men were also highly concentrated in urban centers and in some places, like San Francisco, had achieved some degree of political power. Nancy Pelosi, a rising star in the Democratic Party, was sympathetic to many gay activist groups and a Congresswoman. All of these resources would eventually be mobilized against the FDA.

A key event was the story of HPA-23 and Rock Hudson. Rock Hudson, a movie star who had been diagnosed with AIDS in 1984, died of AIDS in 1985. Newsweek reported that before his death he had traveled to Paris to receive an experimental HIV treatment, HPA-23, which was being given there, though under poorly controlled conditions and with little good evidence. The FDA had banned even its experimental use in the US because of severe liver toxicity concerns; it then reversed course and allowed testing in 1985, likely due to the Newsweek story. Well-done trials in 1986 in the US later demonstrated severe toxicity and no efficacy, vindicating the FDA’s earlier caution. 

The first effective treatment for HIV was azidothymidine (AZT), which was being developed by Wellcome, a reputable drug company that had substantial experience with the FDA. To the FDA’s credit, the AZT path to approval was remarkably quick: the company first started investigating AZT in June 1984 for possible HIV activity in-vitro; notified the FDA in April 1985, submitted an IND in June 1985, the FDA approved it in a week, and the first clinical trial (Phase 1) began in July 1985. 

Phase 2 trials which had begun in February 1986 were halted early in September 1986 due to clear signs of treatment success, and AZT was officially submitted to the FDA for approval in December 1986. Eileen Cooper, a rising young star at the FDA, was in charge of reviewing it, and had been reviewing the AZT data for months before the official submission date. Even before the most militant AIDS activists had begun pressuring the FDA, she had been discussing with others on ways to speed and streamline the approval process. 

She took two important steps. First, in September 1986 she had released AZT for compassionate use to 4000+ AIDS patients, which likely saved many lives. Second, she sought the support of the FDA’s Advisory Committee on Ineffective Drug Products in a January 1987 meeting, which would symbolically back up the FDA’s decision to approve AZT on the basis of a single prematurely ended clinical trial. This would achieve two contradictory goals: the rapid release of a likely effective drug to suffering patients; and satisfy the consumer-protection and public-health voices that generally urged caution.

Thus, even before much of the publicized anti-FDA activism, the FDA had demonstrated flexibility and speed in approving AZT. However Larry Kramer, a prominent playwright and activist in the gay community, viewed this as grossly inadequate, and penned a 1987 essay in the NYTimes attacking the FDA. Carpenter is skeptical of Kramer’s specific claims: 

Kramer’s essay is shot through with inaccuracy and hyperbole. Of the therapies he mentions, only ddC (zalcitabine) emerged as a recognizably and broadly effective treatment for HIV/AIDS in the ensuing two decades—and its development had been accelerated by the Administration at the very time that AIDS activists were expressing strong doubts about it. Furthermore, many who perceived organizational problems at the agency—including journalists at the New York Times but also the George H. W. Bush administration—saw less a malady of bureaucracy and more a deficiency of resources. Like other AIDS activists, moreover, Kramer was equating the FDA with the Reagan administration when in fact much of Reagan’s and his administration’s ignorance of or indifference to AIDS was unrelated to FDA policy or regulations… Yet for all of its shortcomings and simplifications, and indeed because of them, Kramer’s essay was politically effective because it projected a simple, accessible, and forceful threat to the FDA’s reputation. Like much of the portraiture emerging from AIDS activists, it recast the Administration in terms and symbols diametrically opposed to those fashioned by Young, Cooper, and Tabor in the review and approval of AZT. In some ways, the FDA was being cast as a generalized but faceless bureaucracy, as an inefficient, an “intransigent,” “callous,” and inaccessible organization. In other ways, it was the Administration’s very gatekeeping power—over drugs themselves (the NDA process) and over clinical trials (IND approvals)—that was under attack. By serving as a “bottleneck,” a public health agency dedicated to consumer protection was lengthening the “roll-call of death.” Instead of raising genuine and substantive issues regarding clinical trial design with AIDS drugs, the Administration was in Kramer’s depiction imposing classic “red-tape” constraints upon medical research, nitpicking research protocols, shuffling words and sentences.  

Beyond criticizing the FDA, local activists and physicians also directly subverted the traditional placebo-controlled trials: 

Doctors would lie about their patients’ previous disease status to secure patient enrollment in a trial. Activist physicians and health-care workers would examine a pill to expose its placebo content. Once a placebo was identified, activists and patients would substitute the genuine treatment for the research subject, using supplies procured underground. 

In California activist Martin Delaney ran an unofficial trial with “Compound Q”, distributing it to patients that had failed to respond to other drugs and bypassing the FDA entirely. Part of the project’s explicit aim was to push the FDA harder against its traditional approach to drug development. 

Activists like Delaney and Kramer also personalized their criticism of the FDA by singling out Ellen Cooper, the medical reviewer for AZT (and the FDA’s unofficial point-person for HIV drugs), attacking her in the New York Times and in ACT-UP manuals. The peak of activist militancy was probably the October 1988 Rockville demonstration against the FDA. More than 1000 activists gathered in front of the FDA and displayed a banner that read, “Federal Death Administration”. Of note, these protests occurred after the AZT approval. Media coverage followed the protest, and the FDA responded by hosting a press release which effectively restated the new procedures that Ellen Cooper had developed for AZT. This announcement made newspaper headlines, though activists viewed it as a publicity stunt, not as a substantive change. 

The most substantive change was probably the “Subpart E” regulation, which would allow for the possibility of a single expanded Phase 2 Trial sufficing to prove safety and efficacy for certain debilitating diseases. Again, this formalized the process that AZT had undergone, and this and other changes had actually been foreshadowed by the FDA’s behavior with cancer therapeutics. This is a recurring observation by Carpenter – phase shifts in FDA behavior are usually preceded by more subtle but similar behavior years or decades before. AZT had sped through the FDA approval process faster than any drug before – but it followed the template of cancer drugs before it. Continuity, not revolution, is the running theme of the FDA’s history. 

ACT-UP was very strategic: some elements of conservative politics had long wished for a repeal of the 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendments, but ACT-UP made sure to maintain “organizational and rhetorical distance” from those groups, which likely preserved their credibility with other forces. ACT-UP overplayed their hand in 1991. With the looming threat of another protest, ACT-UP demanded a 30-day review of DDI, which was undergoing the reformed approval process that incorporated surrogate endpoints (CD4 counts) and a historical controls of the patient’s previous history. Though they received a letter from the FDA Commissioner in response, the approval took more than 30 days, and so ACT-UP staged another protest. It was a dud in comparison to the 1988 protest, with many fewer protesters and little media attention. 

This was likely because the FDA had neutralized much of the group’s criticisms by moving quite quickly with approvals and liberally allowing treatment INDs (which allow “compassionate use” of drugs outside of trial settings). The FDA had also begun reaching out to less militant AIDS groups and invited activists into Advisory Committee meetings. In a move reminiscent of how the FDA recruited prestigious academics in the 1950s and 1960s, the FDA waved the “carrot” of being a (partial) insider to neutralize opposition. Another factor may have been a changing media narrative that argued (apparently without evidence) that Reagan-era cuts were the reason for FDA slowness, which exonerated the FDA of blame.

The unofficial buyer’s clubs popularized in film were treated deferentially by the FDA in comparison to Laetrile sellers decades before. It tread lightly, likely in fear of invoking the “FDA as policeman” image. 

Something inconvenient for the libertarian and AIDS activist critique of the FDA was the “medical reversal” on the DDC/DDI/AZT combination therapy. After DDC and DDI were approved in 1992 on the basis of surrogate endpoints showing boosted T-cell counts, follow-up studies failed to show benefit relative to AZT alone, and the combination was more toxic than AZT alone. This led to an internal debate in the AIDS-treatment-activist sphere. Here is one account, from Treatment Action Group, an organization that successfully pushed for stricter AIDS drug standards instead of continued loosening of regulatory standards. For a book-length treatment on the loosening of regulatory standards in the cancer world, and the consequences that followed, read “Malignant” by Vinay Prasad. 

1992

A less visible but likely more important event in FDA history was the Lasagna Committee, which was announced in 1988, and gathered many of the FDA’s critics. 

Rhetorically, Administration personnel claimed from the late 1980s onward (with great plausibility) that drug review delays were primarily a matter of staffing. Internally, FDA leaders looked at the oncology drug division as an exemplar of what quick NDA review could look like, as many of its reviews were completed in less than a year. Oncology drug reviewers were quietly transferred to the anti-viral division, and new medical reviewers were hired. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, drug review times for new molecular entities – perhaps the single most important quantitative measure on which the Administration was judged in pharmaceutical politics – began to decline appreciably

In 1992 FDA Commissioner David Kessler, patient advocates, pharma industry representatives, congressional committee chairs, and President Bush’s staff agreed to the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which informally bound the FDA to review time goals and effectively taxed drug companies per drug application. To the degree that FDA staffing was the rate-limiting step on drug approval, this would speed approval, but critics said it eroded the FDA’s willingness to push back against shoddy drugs. I am not sure how to evaluate that claim, but I don’t understand the mechanistic claim – the user fees tied the FDA to a review timeline, but it didn’t mandate approval or penalize rejection. Carpenter writes that it might have eroded FDA culture by tying it financially to pharma, but this seems somewhat implausible, because it did not tie funding to any drug in particular, or any particular target of “X% of drugs must be approved”. 

FDA in the 2000s

Briefly, the FDA in the 2000s has been described as becoming increasingly lax on drug approval, particularly in cancer. This is covered in-depth in Malignant by Vinay Prasad. The Vioxx scandal, in which Merck was viewed as having concealed the fact that patients taking Vioxx were experiencing higher rates of cardiovascular complications, and in which the FDA seemed to take quite a long time to remove Vioxx from the market, also damaged the FDA’s reputation. In 2004 the FDA was widely viewed as having ignored science for political reasons when it kept Plan B (emergency contraception) prescription-only instead of making it OTC. Here is one perspective on that.

Scott Gottlieb, who had been a high-level FDA official before being Commissioner but also worked for the AEI (the leading think tank criticizing the FDA), had been anticipated to be a highly de-regulatory FDA Commissioner. I can’t find sources for this claim, but my impression is that Gottlieb has generally acquired a good bipartisan reputation and did not oversee a radical shift in FDA direction. He also won praise for moving somewhat aggressively against flavored vapes, which are widely viewed (rightly or wrongly) as a growing public health threat. 

Lessons Learned

Approval is Final

Because approval of a drug is so symbolically powerful, and effectively stakes the FDA’s reputation to a given drug, the FDA only does so very deliberately. It is a social technology that reduces the immense complexity of an IND application (consisting of clinical trials, endless manufacturing and absorption data, etc.) into a binary YES/NO that physicians and nurses can rely upon. Reversing a decision is reputationally damaging, and the FDA has occasionally faced criticism from consumer-protection groups and even internal FDA employees that it is too unwilling to withdraw unsafe drugs from the market. This is problematic when drugs are approved based on surrogate endpoints instead of clinical endpoints, or when safety problems emerge after approval, as with Vioxx. 

Carpenter comments on this: 

It is interesting in light of these conflicts that, in the wake of the Vioxx tragedy of October 2004, higher FDA officials (including many long-term careerists) engaged in an organizationally motivated embrace of the status quo by defending randomized controlled trials and by disparaging pharmacoepidemiology. For different reasons, Deputy Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, CDER officials Sandra Kweder, Robert Temple, and others did not want to cede more control of the pharmaceutical market to David Graham and his colleagues at ODS. Yet it was also an extension of the familiar, an area where the agency had already developed capacity. Clinical trials have advantages when they are randomized and placebo-controlled. They also have drawbacks. Often tests are done on homogeneous patient populations, among patients who differ in many ways from the patients who will utilize the drugs in clinical situations. Clinical trials usually have an endpoint, and can often be too brief to allow analysts to detect whether the drug is inducing adverse events, particularly for toxicity, hepatotoxicity (or liver damage), and cardiovascular outcomes. 

On Pressuring the FDA through Reputation

The FDA is responsive to both reputational and political pressure. The former is best thought of as arguing with the FDA on its own ground, which can be done from multiple perspectives. Patient advocacy groups can push the FDA to approve cancer drugs on less evidence; “thought-leader” physicians can sing the praises of an innovative drug and call the FDA slow; FDA whistleblowers can testify before Congress that the FDA is too deferential to pharma; consumer-protection groups can call the FDA’s approval based on a surrogate endpoint “reckless”. All these approaches seek to push the FDA in one direction or another, but fundamentally accept the legitimacy of the FDA and especially in the case of those pushing for more regulatory caution, hearken back to some idealized version of the FDA as a rhetorical device. In the early 2000’s, as the FDA was perceived to have relaxed its regulatory standards, especially on cancer, this occurs more often, with long-time FDA critics like Sydney Wolfe unfavorably compared the current FDA to the old FDA.

A recent example of reputational pressure was Eric Topol’s open letter to the FDA in October 2020 that criticized the emergency approvals of convalescent plasma, hydroxychloroquine, and remdemisvir, and pressured the FDA Commissioner to delay approval of a Covid-19 vaccine. Though many have criticized his actions, its method is illustrative: Topol, who has immense reputational power in academic medicine through decades of leading large clinical trials, publicly attacking Merck during the Vioxx scandal, and having critiqued the FDA in the past for its lack of action on Vioxx, was well-positioned to push the FDA to be more cautious. In addition, the emergency approvals Topol criticized (with the possible exception of Remdemisvir, and maybe Convalescent Plasma if you play with subgroup analysis….) seemed to have been regulatory bets that did not pan out, which left the FDA in a weak position. The politicization of hydroxychloroquine in particular made Topol’s arguments extremely appealing among the reputational audience (large medical journals, elite media, etc.) that the FDA caters to, which all dislike Trump. The combination of a weakened FDA and a strong attacker were the likely reasons for Topol’s success (and in the view of Alex Tabarrok and many others, the rest of the US’s disaster, since any delay in vaccine approvals likely cost many lives). Here an in-depth read on this. 

The pro-regulatory counter to the previous paragraph is that vaccine approval was only an obviously good idea in retrospect and that vaccine hesitancy would rise with a rushed process. I think both of those claims are wrong, and I think Ezra Klein argues this well in a recent piece. 

Political Pressure

Political pressure takes the form of more direct action: Congressional committees can ask FDA officials to justify their actions and have public hearings that embarrass an agency that prefers less public attention. They can threaten FDA funding and if they’re playing hardball, threaten legislative action that directly alters FDA authority.  

The challenges to FDA practice which resulted in sustained reform are those that combine both approaches, along with policy solutions that can be proposed at the right political moment. Conservative think tanks had long wished to tie some FDA funding to drug approvals and hold the FDA to a deadline and when conservatives made sustained and substantial gains in the 1980s and 1990s, the FDA, first informally and then through legislative change, moved in that direction. 

Sustained media attention also seems to be important for pushing the FDA, but is not essential. The NCI-FDA disputes were not as high-profile as the 1980s AIDS activism but effected reform that was just as important.

An important but vague “audience” that the FDA defers to is the medical community as a whole. This might be thought of as the “elite consensus” in medicine. By directly incorporating respected medical scientists and doctors onto Advisory Committees, the FDA accedes to this audience but also partially neutralizes it. Pharmaceutical companies seek to use this in their favor as well by recruiting big-name academic stars to head clinical trials or research divisions and thereby “borrow” some of their reputation. A sustained critique of the FDA from these directions would also likely be a powerful pressure. For instance, if Advisory Committees repeatedly disagreed with the FDA in one direction, they could likely shame it into changing course.

Theoretically this might be strengthened if a sitting Congressman/woman then called a hearing to directly ask FDA officials about controversial decisions or if sympathetic media ran pieces highlighting this discrepancy. This would be a direct reputational attack on the FDA and a veiled political threat because it would raise the specter of legislative reform of the FDA with enough political attention.

Regulatory Caution is Often Proven Right

As disappointing and non-contrarian as it is to agree with a large, slow-moving government bureaucracy, my impressionistic summary of Reputation and Power along with background knowledge from Ending Medical Reversal and Malignant is that the FDA has usually been proven right in its caution. Approvals based on surrogate endpoints sometimes work, but in Malignant Vinay Prasad makes a strong argument that this often doesn’t speed approvals and that a substantial number of drugs approved on surrogate endpoints are never properly followed up on. Low regulatory standards in cancer drugs have led to a proliferation of low-value treatments approved on the basis of surrogate endpoints that don’t predict clinical (a.k.a. useful) endpoints and that may not actually provide any benefit outside of carefully selected clinical-trial participants. (Editorial Note: For a counterargument, see this post and linked SSRN article on “Type II” errors at the FDA). 

A full argument that strict regulation is required for medical innovation is too long for this paper, but Ending Medical Reversal is an excellent argument along these lines. Here is a summary of it. I fully agree with Cowen and Tabarrok that the FDA was far too slow during COVID-19, but I think the libertarian critique of the FDA (usually) goes too far. 

The FDA is More Powerful Than You Think

– Apart from holding pre-market approval power over a drug, the FDA also intensely regulates drug experimentation in the first place. It also regulates drug labeling. By virtue of regulating a drug’s intended use (which has substantial effects on insurance coverage) it also informally regulates medical practice in general. And in a decentralized fashion, by being able to disqualify Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), it also regulates clinical research on a fine-grained level.

This IRB-mediated power means the FDA can effectively ban individual physicians or entire institutions from research. 

To the degree that overly-cautious IRB’s (who are in turn fearful of FDA attention) constrained Human Challenge Trials, this seems like an under-appreciated cost of the FDA and one that has not previously faced any sustained challenge. The lack of a constituency that is visibly harmed by overly cautious IRBs makes developing political pressure on this more challenging, but this seems valuable. 

The FDA and COVID-19 Vaccines

As a thought exercise, it is worth considering what a successful attack against Topol on the vaccine delay question might have entailed. Academic stars in medicine that argued for faster vaccine approval, in contradiction to Topol, would have been rhetorically effective. A less politically polarized COVID-19 response in general would have neutralized the specific anti-Trump claims that Topol made. 

Not being in an election year and so proximal to November 2 would have removed the incentive for anti-Trump individuals and institutions to view an early vaccine approval as a Trump victory and likely alleviated some concerns that the vaccines were being “rushed through.” Elite media that favored faster approval and that continually raised vaccine approval salience would not have so favorably amplified Topol’s open letter. 

There were some prestigious names contra Topol on vaccines like Walid Gellad but few or none with Topol’s star-power and connections. The prominent economists who pushed for faster approval were all, fairly or not, associated with a deregulatory perspective, which likely made their arguments less credible to the FDA. If the FDA had not burned their credibility on hydroxychloroquine early on, they would have been less vulnerable to Topol’s reputational attack. The somewhat Rationalist-aligned academics and institutions that consistently pushed for vaccine approval and human challenge trials have no cachet in the medical community, and so cannot effectively engage in this reputational battle as insiders. 

Willy Chertman is a 4th-year medical student at University of Miami who studied biology and political science as an undergraduate at the University of Miami. When not in school, he reads and tweets about medical research and health policy at @willyintheworld and on substack at https://willyreads.substack.com.

Dan Elton, Ph. D., is Director of Scholarship for the U.S. Transhumanist Party.  You can find him on Twitter at @moreisdifferent, where he accepts direct messages. If you like his content, check out his website and subscribe to his newsletter on Substack.

To Maryland Governor Larry Hogan: Liberate Vaccine Doses from the FDA! – Article by Dan Elton and Edward Hudgins

To Maryland Governor Larry Hogan: Liberate Vaccine Doses from the FDA! – Article by Dan Elton and Edward Hudgins

Daniel C. Elton, Ph.D.
Edward Hudgins, Ph.D.


Note from the Authors: This was an op-ed we wrote in the first week of February 2021. Unfortunately, no newspaper wanted to publish it. We first submitted it to the Baltimore Sun, which promptly turned it down. We then submitted it to the Capitol Gazette, The Washington Times, and The Washington Examiner but never heard back from any of them. Sadly, this op-ed is just as relevant today as when we first wrote it almost two months ago. Since it was written, the evidence for the safety and efficacy of the AstraZeneca vaccine has only gotten stronger. An observational study of millions of people in Scotland published in early March found that a single dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine offers ~94% protection against hospitalization, outperforming Pfizer’s vaccine, which offered ~85% protection. Last week AstraZeneca reached an endpoint in the Phase III trial in the United States that the FDA requested, finding an efficacy of 76%, very similar to the previous Phase III trial result (70%). Despite all this, there has been no action from the FDA,and millions of AstraZeneca doses remain languishing in factories in Baltimore, Maryland and West Chester, Ohio as thousands of American taxpayers that are desperate for them die every day.

~ Daniel C. Elton and Edward Hudgins, March 31, 2021


If Maryland Governor Larry Hogan acts immediately and decisively, he can save thousands of Marylanders from suffering and death from COVID-19. A facility in Baltimore produces the very effective AstraZeneca vaccine and has stockpiled millions of doses. But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, headquartered in suburban Maryland, which must certify all vaccines and medical treatments before patients can reap their benefits, is holding those doses hostage to its antiquated, bureaucratic red tape. Hogan should act now to liberate the vaccine to save the lives of Marylanders.

Over a year into the pandemic, over 8,200 Marylanders have died, and some 410,000 have suffered from COVID-19. Marylanders have suffered from a chronic shortage of the FDA-approved Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. AstraZeneca is approved in the E.U. and 19 other countries. So as our morgues fill up, what’s the FDA’s excuse for delay?

The AstraZeneca vaccine has passed Phase I and Phase II efficacy trials, which were published in the medical journal The Lancet in July and November 2020. A Phase III peer-reviewed study that was conducted in three other countries indicates the vaccine has an efficacy of 70 percent, ranging from 62 percent to 90 percent with different dosages. Most importantly, the vaccine showed a 100-percent efficacy at preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths. The AstraZeneca vaccine was also the first shown in a scientific study to reduce transmission. And unlike the two already-approved vaccines, it requires only regular rather than ultra-cold refrigeration. It has been given to over one million people in the U.K. without safety issues detected, yet FDA has requested that AstraZeneca redo most of their Phase III trials using patients from the U.S.

Some media outlets have reported that AstraZeneca’s vaccine “may not work” in the elderly. Unfortunately, AstraZeneca’s Phase III data published so far does not allow for efficacy to be determined for those older than 65. However, Phase I & II trials showed a similar immune response after the second dose across all age groups, including those over 65, so there are good reasons to believe the efficacy should be similar for the elderly. Even if the efficacy is much lower, because the elderly are at such high risk it still makes sense to give them the vaccine in order to save lives. This was shown clearly by Oxford bioethicists Jonathan Pugh and Julian Savulescu, who ran some numbers to show the grave consequences of denying the vaccine to the elderly. It is also true that recent results show the AstraZeneca vaccine is not very effective against the South African variant at preventing mild forms of COVID-19. However, the current study only addressed mild illness and AstraZeneca’s vaccine gives a similar immune response to Pfizer’s vaccine, which has been shown to protect strongly against hospitalization from the South African variant. The World Health Organization recently released guidance recommending the rollout of the vaccine not be halted due to this finding and that the vaccine be given to all age groups. 

The U.S. government has already contracted for 300 million doses of the vaccine, costing taxpayers over $1 billion. Yet with thousands dying daily and many more suffering from COVID-19 across the county, the FDA projects they won’t approve the vaccine until late April.  

Since FDA won’t certify the AstraZeneca vaccine immediately, Governor Hogan should act. He might invoke emergency authority to simply take possession of enough of the AstraZeneca vaccine supply in the Baltimore factory producing it to meet Maryland’s needs. But this would likely be unnecessary. He should request that the facility release the vaccine and inform them that the state will likely be able to guarantee no adverse repercussions from the FDA. After all, during the past decade over 40 states passed “Right To Try” laws that allowed terminally ill patients to access safe treatments not certified by FDA for efficacy. The only “repercussion”: in 2018 Congress passed bipartisan legislation, signed by President Trump, recognizing the state’s authority to do so. 

But in parallel, Hogan should call on President Biden to issue an executive order suspending the need for final FDA certification in this exceptional case.

Or Biden, backed strongly by the Maryland Congressional delegation, could request Congress pass emergency legislation creating a Free To Choose Medicine track parallel to FDA’s normal, slow certification process, on which COVID vaccines, tested safe and promising in Phase II or III trials, could be accessed by individuals, with informed consent. Such a track was created in 1992 for AIDS treatments, saving the lives of thousands of sufferers.

Or Biden could request Congress pass a reciprocity law certifying for the use of Americans any COVID treatment approved  in other advanced countries. Rep. Chip Roy (TX-21) and Sen. Ted Cruz, (R-TX) have introduced legislation allowing for reciprocal approval of drugs approved in other trusted countries. This proposal could be focused to allow access to COVID vaccines.

Since AstraZeneca is produced in Maryland and the FDA headquarters is also in Maryland, Hogan is in an ideal position to be the hero, shake things up, and break the bureaucratic walls separating citizens from a lifesaving medication.

If you agree that Hogan should act now, please sign this petition on Change.org:
Larry Hogan : Liberate the AstraZeneca vaccine from the FDA!

Ed Hudgins is founder of the Human Achievement Alliance and a science policy researcher.  He can be reached at ehudgins@humanachievementalliance.org. Dan Elton is  Director of Scholarship at the US Transhumanist Party.  You can reach him via direct message on Twitter (@moreisdifferent).

Forecasting Whole-Brain Connectomics – A Kurzweilian Approach – Article by Dan Elton

Forecasting Whole-Brain Connectomics – A Kurzweilian Approach – Article by Dan Elton

Daniel C. Elton, Ph.D.


Editor’s Note: In this article, U.S. Transhumanist Party Director of Scholarship Dr. Daniel C. Elton describes the recent advances in mapping the connectomes of various organisms, as well as the technological advances that would be needed to achieve effective human whole-brain emulation. Given extensive discussion of these subjects among U.S. Transhumanist Party members, including at the Virtual Enlightenment Salon of September 27, 2020, with Kenneth Hayworth and Robert McIntyre, it is fitting for the U.S. Transhumanist Party to feature this systematic exploration by Dr. Elton into what has been achieved in the field of connectomics already and what it would practically take for human whole-brain emulation to become a reality. As Dr. Elton convincingly illustrates, this possibility is still several decades away, but some steady progress has been made in recent years as well.

~ Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party, March 7, 2021


The connectome of an organism is a map of all neurons and their connections. This may be thought of as a graph with the neurons as nodes and synaptic connections as edges. Here we take the term ‘connectome’ to refer to the graph and the underlying electron microscopy images of the neurons, which contain much more information. However, to successfully simulate an organism’s brain using a connectome, more information will be needed.  Retrieving a detailed scan of an entire brain and mapping all the neurons is a prerequisite for whole-brain emulation. In their landmark 2008 paper, “Whole Brain Emulation: A Roadmap“, transhumanists Anders Sandberg and Nick Bostrom construct a detailed “technology tree” showing the prerequisite technologies for realizing whole brain emulation:

Tech tree from Sandberg & Bostrom, 2008

In this article, we focus on the “scanning” component along with part of the “translation” component, namely neuronal tracing. By plotting technological progress on a logarithmic plot, similar to how Kurzweil does, we attempt to forecast how many decades away we are from being able to scan an entire human brain (and trace/segment all neurons to determine the connectome).  Of course, while Kurzweilian projections have been known to hold (most famously for Moore’s law), we caution that the start of a logistic function can look like an exponential function. In other words, exponential trends can and often do plateau. As any investment advisor would say, “past returns are no guarantee of future results”.

The complete connectome of the nematode worm (Caenorhabditis Elegans) was published in 1986. A complete set of images of the fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster) was published in 2018. However, all of the neurons and their connections have not yet been segmented or traced. In January 2020 researchers published the connectome of the central brain of the fruit fly, containing 25,000 neurons, which to my knowledge is the largest connectomics dataset published to date.

I thought it would be fun/interesting to plot the progress of connectomics over time and try to extrapolate out any trend observed. So, I did a literature search for all studies to date which either traced or segmented neurons and marked out synapses in electron microscopy data:

[1] D. D. Bock, et al. “Network anatomy and in vivo physiology of visual cortical neurons”, Nature 471 (7337) (2011) 177–182. doi:10.1038/nature09802. [link]
[2] K. L. Briggman, M. Helmstaedter, W. Denk, Wiring specificity in the direction-selectivity circuit of the retina, Nature 471 (7337) (2011) 183–188. [link]
[3] D. J. Bumbarger, M. Riebesell, C. Rodelsperger, R. J. Sommer, System-wide rewiring underlies behavioral differences in predatory and bacterial-feeding nematodes, Cell 152 (1-2) (2013) 109–119. [link]
[4] C.-Y. Lin, et al., A comprehensive wiring diagram of the protocerebral bridge for visual information processing in the drosophila brain, Cell Reports 3 (5) (2013) 1739–1753. [link]
[5] S. ya Takemura, et al., A visual motion detection circuit suggested by drosophila connectomics, Nature 500 (7461) (2013) 175–181. [link]
[6] M. Helmstaedter, K. L. Briggman, S. C. Turaga, V. Jain, H. S. Seung, W. Denk, Connectomic reconstruction of the inner plexiform layer in the mouse retina, Nature 500 (7461) (2013) 168–174. [link]
[7] N. Kasthuri, et al., Saturated reconstruction of a volume of neocortex, Cell 162 (3) (2015) 648–661. [link]
[8] A. A. Wanner et al., 3-dimensional electron microscopic imaging of the zebrafish olfactory bulb and dense reconstruction of neurons, Scientific Data 3 (1). [link]
[9] K. Ryan, Z. Lu, I. A. Meinertzhagen, The CNS connectome of a tadpole larva of Ciona intestinalis (l.) highlights sidedness in the brain of a chordate sibling, eLife 5 (2016) [link]
[10] S.-y. Takemura, et al., A connectome of a learning and memory center in the adult Drosophila brain, eLife 6 (2017). [link]
[11] K. Eichler, et al., The complete connectome of a learning and memory centre in an insect brain, Nature 548 (7666) (2017) 175–182. [link]
[12] C. S. Xu, et al., A connectome of the adult drosophila central brain (preprint) [link]
[13] L. K. Scheffer, et al., A connectome and analysis of the adult drosophila central brain, eLife 9 (2020). [link]
[14] J. S. Phelps, et al., Reconstruction of motor control circuits in adult drosophila using automated transmission electron microscopy, Cell 184 (3) (2021) 759–774.e18. [link]

Next I plotted most of the data for the number of neurons versus the date of publication:

Next I did linear regression on the (year, log(# neurons)) data which is equivalent to fitting an exponential function to the data. (The reason for fitting the data in this way was to avoid the bias that occurs when fitting an exponential function with least-squares regression that leads to the larger values on the y axis being fit more accurately than smaller ones.) After doing the linear regression I extrapolated it forward in time.

The projection for the fruit-fly connectome (2024) seems about right. If anything, we may see it slightly sooner. It will be interesting to see how much longer it will take before we have physically realistic models of the fruit fly and fruit-fly behavior.  U.S. Transhumanist Party member Logan T. Collins has advocated for  building biophysically and behaviorally realistic models of insects to better understand nervous systems. For one thing, interesting neuroscience experiments may be performed on a simulated “virtual fly” much faster and easier than on a real fly (for instance, certain neurons may be removed or manipulated, and the effects on the virtual fly’s behavior observed).  A project to produce the mouse brain connectome is underway, and again, the date extrapolated to — 2033 — seems plausible if the funding for the project continues. Beyond that though, I have very little idea how plausible the projections are!

Here are some numbers that show the challenges just with scanning the entire brain (not to mention segmenting/tracing all the neurons accurately!).

Assuming an isotropic voxel size of 20 nm, it is estimated that storing the images of an entire human brain would require 175 exabytes of storage. It seems we are approaching hard drives which cost about 1.5 cents per gigabyte. Even at those exorbitantly low prices, it would still cost $2.6 billion to store all those images!

The volume of the human brain is about 1.2 x 10^6 cubic millimeters. The Zeiss MultiSEM contains either 61 or even 91 electron beams which scan a sample in parallel. According to a Zeiss video presentation from April 8th, 2020, it can scan a 1×1 mm area at 4 nm resolution in 6.5 minutes. Assuming a slice thickness of 20 nm, a single such machine would require 742,009 years to scan the entire brain!

X-ray holographic nano-tomography might be the path forward …


Dan Elton, Ph. D., is Director of Scholarship for the U.S. Transhumanist Party.  You can find him on Twitter at @moreisdifferent, where he accepts direct messages. If you like his content, check out his website and subscribe to his newsletter on Substack.

USTP Director of Scholarship Dan Elton’s Letter to the FDA’s Vaccine Committee Meeting on the Emergency Use Authorization of the Johnson & Johnson Vaccine

USTP Director of Scholarship Dan Elton’s Letter to the FDA’s Vaccine Committee Meeting on the Emergency Use Authorization of the Johnson & Johnson Vaccine

 

Daniel C. Elton, Ph.D.


The public can comment on the FDA’s committee meeting tomorrow (February 26th) to discuss the Emergency Use Authorization for the Johnson & Johnson / Janssen vaccine candidate. Members of the public can submit comments via an online system here or via the mail. Attached is my letter. The main theme is transparency.  

 

To the VRBP Advisory Committee:

I am writing to request the FDA exhibit full transparency and show their cost-benefit calculations which justified such a long delay in approving the J&J/Janssen vaccine. Taxpayers deserve decisions that are made on the basis of rational cost-benefit analysis informed by the best science and data available. There is an incredible fog around key decisions that have greatly affected Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic – such as the FDA’s decisions that made it hard for at-home tests to be approved, HHS & FDA decisions not to pursue or support human challenge trials, and the FDA’s deadly decision to delay approvals of life-saving vaccines, most shockingly the AstraZeneca vaccine. With 2,000 – 3,000 Americans dying every day and millions of Americans desperate for life-saving vaccines (as evidenced by long lines across the country) it is only fair that taxpayers know the reasons for the FDA’s delays.

In a relentless pursuit of safety the FDA has ironically ignored the greatest safety concern to the American people – the SARS-CoV2 virus, and many have died needlessly as a result. Beyond normal expected utility based utilitarian calculations, the proactionary principle(s), developed by philosopher Max More and extended by Steve Fuller and others provide a good blueprint for conducting rational cost benefit analysis. It is my belief that the procedures the FDA have used to decide if and when to approve this vaccine have not utilized even the most rudimentary cost-benefit analyses, and lives have been lost as a result. I am open to changing my mind, however, if the FDA can produce a cost-benefit calculation that informed their decision making.

The interim Phase III collection period for the Janssen vaccine ended January 22 and they submitted their EUA application on February 4th. The American people have had to wait 22+ days for the EUA to be granted. Between February 4th – 26th, around 52,500 Americans will have lost their lives to COVID-19 (extrapolating the death rate forward 2 days from February 24th). In that time, countless others will have suffered under the ravages of the disease and the numerous sequela of “long COVID”. Even among those who have been lucky enough not to have their bodies invaded by the virus, most have suffered brutal economic and psychological effects from the pandemic.

As economist Tyler Cowen points out, it is a fallacy to think that manufacturing is the main bottleneck to getting life-saving vaccines to American people. Millions of doses of both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were available when the FDA finally approved them, showing that FDA approval was a larger constraint than manufacturing. While J&J may not have as many vaccines produced by February 26th as Moderna & Pfizer did at their EUA, if an expectation of an earlier EUA had been set by the FDA the company would have had a stronger incentive to ramp up production. It is incorrect to view the manufacturing and approval as independent – both are linked, with the timeframe set for one affecting the timeframe for the other. In economic terms, the elasticity of manufacturing to demand is not zero. Production of J&J’s vaccine began long ago so they could provide vaccines for their Phase I/IIa trial which began on July 22, 2020. While the company has faced production setbacks, a GSA report (GAO-21-265) estimates they will have 2 million doses available on February 26th.

The government of South Africa announced on February 10th that they would start administering the J&J vaccine to frontline health care workers. Now imagine if the FDA had made the J&J vaccine available just two weeks prior and assume that 2 million doses could therefore be distributed two weeks earlier as a result. At the current monthly rate of deaths, the average american has a 1/9,410 chance of dying from COVID-19 every 2 weeks. The risk of dying from the J&J vaccine, by contrast, based on the Phase I/II data and our prior knowledge about similar vaccines, is at most 1/1,000,000 (likely an overestimate). Assuming the vaccine is 100% effective at preventing death from COVID-19 (a safe assumption based on the current science), delivery of 2 million J&J vaccines 2 weeks earlier could save 212 lives and reduce suffering in many more. However, this number is obviously an underestimate because the vaccines will be distributed to the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions first, who have a 10x – 100x higher chance of dying from COVID-19 than the average American. So, the true number of lives that would have been saved is in the ballpark range 2,120-20,120.

The FDA’s decision to delay approval of the AstraZeneca vaccine by demanding additional American Phase III trial participants represents an even more egregious decision which surely cost thousands of Americans their lives. To be respectful of the purpose of the meeting at hand, however, I have restricted my discussion here to the J&J vaccine alone.

I ask that the FDA produce a cost-benefit analysis and clearly explain the reasons for the following decisions:

  • The reason the FDA did not allow the J&J vaccine to be made available via the FDA’s Expanded Access Program after excellent Phase I/II safety & immunogenicity data was published The Lancet on January 13th, 2021. (side note: see this article in STAT)
  • The reason the FDA did not recommend and/or advocate that those with a high risk of dying from COVID-19 obtain the J&J vaccine via the Right-to-Try pathway prior to EUA.
  • The reason the FDA, in October, created a requirement for a median 2 month follow up period in Phase III trials.
  • The reason the FDA decided not to recommend J&J use challenge trials to demonstrate the efficacy of their vaccine in a faster manner.
  • The reason the FDA decided not to allow pre-distribution of the J&J vaccine prior to EUA to speed up distribution.
  • The reason the FDA did not implement rolling reviews for the J&J vaccine.
  • The reason the FDA decided it needed 22 days to review J&J’s EUA application.

For each point, a cost-benefit calculation should be provided including a list of costs and benefits to the action vs the opposite action, ideally expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) saved or lost.

Finally, I ask that in their communications and messaging the FDA focus on the efficacy of the J&J vaccine against hospitalization and death, especially against the South African variant, so Americans are informed first and foremost about the most important benefits of this vaccine.

Respectfully,
Daniel C. Elton, Ph.D.

 

Dan Elton, Ph. D., is Director of Scholarship for the U.S. Transhumanist Party.  You can find him on Twitter at @moreisdifferent, where he accepts direct messages. If you like his content, check out his website and subscribe to his newsletter on Substack.

Micronationalism and Seasteading – Tools for a Better Future – Article by Jan-Olav Spiekermann

Micronationalism and Seasteading – Tools for a Better Future – Article by Jan-Olav Spiekermann

Jan-Olav “Joe” Spiekermann


The way any kind of government works, no matter if you live in a communist dictatorship, an absolute monarchy, or a so-called Western democracy, is through force.

Governments think that they do have the right to do with people whatever they want. Taking your money, your private property, your freedom, your dignity, or even your life – no problem, the government is allowed to do so.

Private persons are only allowed to violate the physical integrity, the private property, or even the lives of other persons in order to defend themselves against a current assault. And even then you have to pay attention to the proportionality of the defense measures.

If you look around the world like that, it looks like the current forms of political and social coexistence are not working well. Rather, it looks like our current forms of state coexistence are repeatedly leading to outbreaks of violence, crime, misery, and decline.

A key aspect of transhumanism is the wish to improve health and longevity. The goal is, in the end, to defeat death.

But the circumstances we live in are literally so sick and destructive, that they, on the contrary, create and spread suffer and death.

Nearly every second a person gets cancer, for example. So many people are unable to live without pills. Stress, pressure, political conflicts, and pollution definitely contribute to making many people ill and causing their premature deaths.

We have to look for better, more humane, and sustainable political and social forms of coexistence. Within the structures of the existing nations, this is pretty hard, as governments determine too many aspects of private life, and and too many people are trapped in their hamster wheels and neither willing nor able to question fundamental aspects of their lives.

Micronations are a way for pioneers to try out something new. Indeed, micronations connect people from many different cultures from all over the world.

Micronations can really change something in the minds and lives of those, who participate in them. But micronational projects nearly always have one fundamental weakness: Their scope of action is of course severely restricted by the government of the respective macro-nations on whose territory they are located. So little practical knowledge can be gathered about alternative forms of living together.

There are only three land parts of the earth that could be called “terra nullius”: Bir Tawil between Egypt and Sudan, Marie Byrd Land in West Antarctica, and some pieces of land between Croatia and Serbia, that are unclaimed due to a border conflict, which is a result of the breakup of Yugoslavia. These few territories are all claimed by micronations.

A solution to this lack of available land is to create micronations on seasteads within international waters.

Our planet Earth is also called the Blue Planet. Why? Because the majority of this planet is not land – it is water. And in international waters, especially outside of the exclusive economic zones, there is no macronational authority. If you create a seastead, e.g., a platform, an artificial island, or a floating house, you may do whatever you want. And if many people come together on seasteads, they can start new nations. These seastead-micronations would be de facto fully sovereign states.

The people of these ocean-based seasteads would be able to try out new concepts of good government. And there would a competition between the new governments as to who can provide the best form of society in order to attract new seasteaders. This competition would be greater than exists on land because, if a seastead-micronation consists of many separate, movable units that are owned by their residents, people could even move from one seastead-micronation to other seastead-micronations, if they do not agree with the way things work.

Another aspect of seasteading within international waters is that people could also find ways of self-governance without any kind of nation or government.

In any case, the practical experiences gained from the creation of seastead-micronations or other self-ruled forms of seasteading would help people all over the world to improve their way of running countries and to create a better, more humane, and sustainable future for all of us.

Opponents of the concept of small political entities often say that city-states simply do not work and are unable to survive. Well, just think about the city-states of ancient Greece. They influenced the world like very few other states did.

The scientific, cultural, political, artistic and philosophical achievements of ancient Greece are immortal. Even the great Roman Republic, which was at first a city-state, was largely influenced by ancient Greek culture. It is certainly possible that future seastead-micronations will have a similar impact.

Jan-Olav “Joe” Spiekermann is the U.S. Transhumanist Party Advisor on Seasteads and Micronations. Find out about Mr. Spiekermann here

A Polite List of Requests to the FDA – Article by Dan Elton

A Polite List of Requests to the FDA – Article by Dan Elton

Daniel C. Elton, Ph.D.


A List of Requests to President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.,
HHS, FDA, and Congress: 

Approve the following vaccines for emergency use immediately: 


Give people the right to try the following vaccines: 

Seriously study and consider these actions: 

  • Allow hospitals and pharmacies to start stockpiling unapproved vaccines so they can be rapidly disseminated upon approval. 
  • Allow Moderna to give fractional doses. Data from Moderna’s clinical trials have illustrated that people between ages of 18 and 55 who received two 50-microgram doses showed an identical immune response to the standard of two 100-microgram doses.
  • Allow all age groups to get the vaccine. Research published in the journal Science indicates that as of October 2020, “individuals aged 20-49 are the only age groups sustaining resurgent SARS-CoV-2 transmission with reproduction numbers well above one”. Thus, targeting vaccines at these groups may accelerate the end of the pandemic and save more lives than continuing to restrict the vaccines to the elderly and vulnerable.
  • Consider making “First Doses First” national policy.


The FDA has not moved fast enough given the gravity of the situation we face. Consider the following: 

  • Pfizer sent its paperwork to the FDA on November 22, 2020, but rather than immediately convening its panel of experts, the FDA scheduled a review meeting for December 10. During that three-week wait, 27,000 Americans died of COVID-19. According to Dr. Marty Makary, a professor of public health policy at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who has conducted over a hundred clinical studies during his career, the FDA “could have done the approval in 24-48 hours without cutting any corners”.  The slow rollout that followed after the FDA approved the vaccine on December 11 was not due to delays in production – Pfizer had millions of doses produced and sitting in cold storage at the time of the approval. 
  • While Americans were waiting for the Pfizer vaccine that millions of their taxpayer dollars had been invested in, the FDA went dark for 4 days during the Thanksgiving holiday, with almost all of its 17,000 employees taking that time off, including those working on critical COVID-19-related work. 
  • Moderna sent its paperwork to the FDA on November 30, 2020. As with the Pfizer vaccine, the FDA needlessly delayed the approval by scheduling the review meeting for December 17. 
  • The FDA’s equivalents in the EU, Canada, Switzerland, UK, Israel, and Singapore all use rolling reviews, evaluating data as it becomes available for the sake of efficiency. The FDA does not. 
  • The Sputnik V vaccine was approved September 4, 2020, over 150 days ago. In a paper in The Lancet, phase III results indicate it has an effectiveness of 91.6% and excellent safety profile. 
  • China began administering the CanSino Biologica vaccine to its military in June after Phase I and Phase II clinical trials established safety and immune response. (The phase II results were published in The Lancet on July 20th, 2020). China approved the vaccine for their public on December 24, 2020. 


Here’s what public-health experts are saying:
 


“The F.D.A. needs to catch up to the science… They are inadvertently killing people by not following the science.” – Michael Mina, Epidemiologist, Immunologist, Physician, Harvard Medical School.

“We’ve gone from ‘Operation Warp Speed’ to develop a vaccine to ‘Operation Turtle Speed’ to review it… The FDA needs to stop playing games and authorize the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.  It’s safe, cheap ($2-$3 a dose), and is the easiest vaccine to distribute.”Marty Makary, M.D., a professor of health policy at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. 

I do think we’ve been too conservative… companies that potentially make public health diagnostic tests did not feel that there was, for example, a pathway to get those approved at the F.D.A.”Vivek Murphy, President Biden’s nominee for Surgeon General.

“We’ve already bought 300 million doses of the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine. We’ve paid for it — over a billion dollars — so let’s use it… I know we have some of that vaccine stockpiled.”Dr. Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and the lead developer of a COVID-19 vaccine being produced in India.


More quotes from notable public figures: 

“For years the FDA was focused on, don’t repeat thalidomide. Drugs must be safe. AIDS forced a hard reckoning. The people who are dying while you wait matter. But this is a third, even harder conceptual change. Stopping the spread of the disease matters. And the FDA does not have the years it took to make the AIDS change of mindset.”John Cochrane, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. 

The new strains spread quickly. The speed of our countermeasures will decide our fate. What feels like reasonable delays in our normal experience of time — a few weeks here for Congress to debate a bill, a few weeks there for the F.D.A. to hold meetings — could lead to the kind of explosive infections that overwhelm our hospitals and fill our morgues.”Ezra Klein, co-founder of Vox.

“The US failure to authorize the AstraZeneca vaccine in the midst of a pandemic when thousands are dying daily and a factory in Baltimore is warmed up and ready to run is a tragedy and dereliction of duty of epic proportions. The AZ vaccine should be given an EUA immediately and made available in pharmacies for anyone who wants it while continuing to prioritize Moderna and Pfizer for the elderly and essential workers.”Alex Tabarrok, Bartley J. Madden Chair in Economics, George Mason University. 

“It’s amazing that not only is this vaccine (AstraZeneca) not approved, there’s no political pressure to approve it.”Matthew Yglesias, author of One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger.

“The UK has authorized #AstraZeneca vaccine for #CV19 but #FDA won’t “because of questions about its efficacy among older people.”
Then authorize its use for younger people!
Dear FDA: Get out of the way!
Over 7,000 Americans died of CV19 in the past two days!
You are murdering us!”
– @Robert Zubrin on Twitter, author of The Case for Mars and The Case for Space.

Further reading: 

Dan Elton, Ph. D., is Director of Scholarship for the U.S. Transhumanist Party.  You can find him on Twitter at @moreisdifferent, where he accepts direct messages. 

How We Can Judge the Safety and Efficacy of New Vaccines Prior to Phase III Data and Why We Must – Article by Dan Elton

How We Can Judge the Safety and Efficacy of New Vaccines Prior to Phase III Data and Why We Must – Article by Dan Elton

Daniel C. Elton, Ph.D.


A common refrain we hear from public intellectuals about vaccines prior to Phase III data is “we don’t know anything about the safety or efficacy of vaccine X”. This attitude is both false and misleading to the public, instilling uncertainty and fear about vaccines. To see why it is false, consider if a normal vaccine safety study was done, but by coincidence all of the vaccines were given in hospital rooms that were painted blue. Could we conclude on the basis of such a study whether the vaccine would be safe if administered in rooms painted red? Yes, we can, and we should. We can utilize two forms of reasoning to conclude that the vaccine is safe if given in red rooms, even though we have no data on the matter.

The first form of reasoning roughly approximates the way an ideal Bayesian statistical reasoner would function to compute what is called a “prior probability distribution”. Under this form of reasoning, we consider the millions of doses of similar vaccines (called the “reference class”) that have been administered. For instance, we might consider the vaccines developed for very similar coronaviruses like SARS and MERS.  We note that if the color of paint did affect the safety of those vaccines, this would have likely been detected over the course of prior studies and over the course of millions of doses given previously. Of course, there is a chance the correlation might have been missed. To figure out how big that is, we can go a level deeper and consider a reference class of “things people might notice or fail to notice in medical studies”. We can conclude that for prior vaccines, if such correlations existed they would generally be picked up. On the basis of this and the fact that no such correlation was ever discovered in the reference class of prior vaccines we can conclude that the probability of vaccines like the COVID-19 vaccine being dependent on the color of paint is very small. 

The second type of reasoning, which happens to be much more straightforward in this situation, is what the physicist David Deutsch calls “reasoning from our best explanation of the world”. According to the philosopher of science Karl Popper, we should reason using our explanatory theories of the world which have survived the most rounds of attempted falsification, and which have the highest degree of falsifiability (this rules out non-testable explanations like “vaccines work via invisible ghosts”). In more prosaic terms, this simply means reasoning using the best scientific theories which make predictions in the domain under consideration. We note that our best theories of vaccine function do not anywhere depend on the color of paint in the room. Instead they depend on things like T-cells, binding affinities of molecules, the concentrations of certain molecules in the body, etc. So, we decide that the vaccine is safe regardless of the color of paint in the room where it is administered. 

Both of these forms of reasoning are valid and both are foundational to science, rationality, and human progress. Both of these types of reasoning can be used to say that vaccines under development are likely to be safe and effective before any data comes in. It’s why a reporter who interviewed numerous top scientists reported that they all told him that “they expected the vaccines were safe and effective all along.” Yet instead of proudly sharing this important knowledge with the public, we rarely hear scientists say publicly that they expect the vaccines are safe and efficacious. Instead, they hedge, saying “we have to wait until the data comes in”. This is unethical both on Kantian grounds (they are lying) and on consequentialist grounds, because it leads to undue caution and the public being afraid of vaccines. 

Unfortunately, there is little incentive for scientists to tell the truth about what the likely risks and benefits are with new vaccines before full Phase III data is published. If, for instance, one or two people suffer severe side effects in a Phase III trial (which is rare, but has happened) a scientist who said they suspected it was “very safe” might receive harsh criticism for making a premature assessment. On the other hand, the same scientist will get no pushback for saying “we need to wait for data to make a judgement”. Indeed, they are likely to even be praised for exhibiting the virtues of “caution, prudence, and scientific skepticism”. Moreover, under no scenario should someone be allowed to get a vaccine until the full data comes in, even though it’s fine to allow people to sign up for studies where they have a 50-50 chance of getting the vaccine. Not very consistent, eh?

As US Transhumanist Party Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II has described in detail in an an earlier publication on this site, all of this is the result of a deeply flawed and deadly ethical principle called the precautionary principle, which unfortunately many people have fallen under the sway of. The principle originates in the environmentalist movement but is widely applied in medicine, and was instrumental in decisions such as the Bush administration’s ban on stem-cell research and decisions to ban life-saving GMO technologies such as golden rice. It has been formulated to varying degrees in several different ways. The United Nations World Charter for Nature (1982) issued one version of the principle, stating: 

Activities which are likely to pose a significant risk to nature shall be preceded by an exhaustive examination; their proponents shall demonstrate that expected benefits outweigh potential damage to nature, and where potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activities should not proceed. 

The principle starts off OK but dives into serious error in the last line. The issue is that the precautionary principle only focuses on the potential adverse effects of proceeding and ignores the potential adverse effects of not proceeding, i.e., the effects of delay. As should now be clear in the case of the COVID-19 vaccines, not proceeding can sometimes be much more deadly than proceeding! There is often a high but unclear risk to not proceeding, and a low but unclear risk to not proceeding. (Picture two probability distributions, both wide (unclear) but one with a mean that is distinctly higher than the other). That’s where the precautionary principle throws expected utility theory (cost-benefit analysis) out and says we cannot proceed. The Nobel Prize-winning physicist Freeman Dyson stated the issue as follows: 

The Precautionary Principle says that if some course of action carries even a remote chance of irreparable damage to the ecology, then you shouldn’t do it, no matter how great the possible advantages of the action may be. You are not allowed to balance costs against benefits when deciding what to do.” — Freeman Dyson, Report from the 2001 World Economic Forum

Imagine an alternative world in which our society and government was not under the sway of the precautionary principle. In this alternative world, scientists would give their truthful assessment of new vaccines to the public, stating that they are likely safe and effective, using one or both of the reasoning methods mentioned above. In such a world, given the clear potential harms of inaction, the public would be allowed to purchase new vaccines if they wanted, if the companies manufacturing them were comfortable doing so, and if they were fully informed prior to their decision that they were taking an unapproved product that carries potential risks but also potential benefits. Initially, only a few people would purchase the vaccines, perhaps on the basis of Phase I results. These would be folks like those who injected themselves with a DIY vaccine over the summer, and the tens of thousands who were willing to participate in clinical trials as early as last spring. Companies would be incentivized to survey those who took the vaccine and collect self-reported data on their outcomes, which is very cheap and easy to do. After a few months going by without any of those people keeling over and dying, and with very few (likely none) of those people getting hospitalized for COVID-19, more people would feel comfortable getting the vaccine. Things would quickly snowball, with more and more people becoming willing to get the vaccine. During this time the distribution system would have been stood up and become operational, with on-site stockpiles building up ahead of the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization (currently, the FDA does not allow hospitals to stockpile unapproved vaccines ahead of their EUA). To present this case in its strongest form, in a future post I plan to estimate how many lives would have been saved, assuming many vaccines had become available to those who wanted them last March or August. However, I hope it’s easy to see that thousands of lives would have been saved in this alternative world.  

For more on the transhumanist alternative to the precautionary principle, the proactionary principle, see Max More’s excellent book chapter as well as the Wikipedia article and references therein.

Dan Elton, Ph. D., is Director of Scholarship for the U.S. Transhumanist Party.  You can find him on Twitter at @moreisdifferent, where he accepts direct messages. 

The Overpopulation Myth – Article by Arin Vahanian

The Overpopulation Myth – Article by Arin Vahanian

Arin Vahanian


Of all the objections to life extension, one of the most pernicious is that there are too many people on Earth. Indeed, this objection in particular is rather harmful not just because it appears to advocate for suffering and death, but also because it appears to be a valid objection on a surface level.

Visions of mass starvation, billions of people living in deplorable conditions, and wars over resources, help fuel the popularity of this objection. However fascinating these sorts of overly dramatic, sensational Hollywood scenarios may seem to some people, believing in the inevitability of these scenarios would be ignoring the countless ways that science and technology have allowed us, time and again, to exceed our limitations, improve health outcomes, and create a better environment for humanity to thrive in.

There are many reasons why these dreadful scenarios continue to exist in peoples’ minds. One of the reasons why doomsday thinking has managed to remain a part of our zeitgeist is because the entertainment industry is addicted to it, constantly proliferating nightmarish scenarios of technology being a destructive force hell-bent on the devastation of humanity and the world. A less obvious reason is also because some well-meaning influential people have been fabulously wrong and have continued to double-down on being wrong over the years.

Biologist Paul Ehrlich famously said in 1968 that “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”

Looking at this statement more than 50 years later, Paul Ehrlich wasn’t just wrong, he was completely wrong. None of his Malthusian predictions even came close to being true. I suppose that supporters of this sort of doomsday thinking will say in response that even though Ehrlich has been wrong for decades, he will one day be right. Even if a broken clock is right twice a day, we shouldn’t base the future of humanity on such faulty thinking. While it is possible for these horrific scenarios to come true, it does not mean that these scenarios are destiny. Humanity has weathered challenges and difficulties en route to coming up with amazing technological and medical innovations that have improved the quality of life for billions of people. And while challenges such as climate change should be taken very seriously, the fact that these challenges exist does not mean that humanity is doomed. It simply means that we need to make adjustments and to utilize science and technology to their fullest in order to resolve these threats.

Further, rather than extrapolate wildly and bring forth doomsday scenarios, we should bring forth data and facts to support our arguments. As I mentioned in a previous article, according to The World Bank and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, the worldwide population growth rate is slowing down and is projected to eventually stabilize and begin falling. Nowhere is this more apparent than in countries such as Germany, Italy, Spain, China, Russia, and even the United States, where birth rates are below the 2.1 live births per woman required to just maintain population equilibrium. Additionally, even countries such as India, which used to have a very high birth rate, have seen huge declines in birth rates in recent years. Finally, according to a study published in the Lancet, the global population is expected to peak at 9.73 billion in 2064, before dropping to 8.79 billion in 2100. As a result, more than 23 countries are likely to see their populations halve by the end of this century. This includes countries such as Spain, Italy, Ukraine, and China.

Even if the above trends were somehow reversed, and human beings suddenly began reproducing more, we would be able to accommodate the increased population through solutions such as seasteading, vertical farming, 3D printing, and nanotechnology. Indeed, these technologies, and more, are among the many that would allow us to overcome limitations and alleviate potential threats resulting from an increased population. And I have not even begun speaking about space exploration.

The simple fact is that there is no fixed number of people who should be living on Earth at any given moment. In fact, we should rightfully be laughed out of the room if we asked the question, “What should the world’s population be?” We may as well ask how long a piece of string is. How many people is too many people? Further, how does one decide how many people is too many? Do you see how absurd this sort of thinking is? Even if we were to run detailed calculations on how many people the Earth could accommodate at any given point in time, what is true right now may not be true later, as planet Earth is dynamic, human beings are dynamic, and the forces of physics are dynamic. More importantly, we would be ignoring the awesome power of technology to allow us to do more, with less.

Therefore, let us move away from the pessimism, the doomsday scenarios, and the lack of vision, and move toward data, facts, science, and technological innovations that have allowed us, and will continue to allow us, to accommodate the needs of humanity. This does not mean that we should ignore challenges and perils and hope that everything will work out in the end. It does mean, however, that we should recognize the threats humanity is facing, and then take swift, concerted action toward eliminating those threats by using advancements in science, technology, and modern medicine.

But to go back to the topic, and frame the argument in a simpler way, one might want to ask proponents of the overpopulation myth whether they would have wanted their own parents to hold the same views about there being too many people on Earth. Of course, such critics of life extension would never want this to be the case, because it would mean that they themselves would not exist.

I would urge those who are critical of life extension to refrain from trying to decide how many people should be living on Earth. Indeed, rather than playing judge, jury, and executioner, I would recommend them to take a look in the mirror and appreciate the tremendous gift they were given – the gift of life. Had their parents held the faulty belief that there are too many people on Earth, these critics wouldn’t be able to offer their criticisms now. I am not suggesting that people should not offer valid criticisms of life extension. Nor am I suggesting that we gloss over the present and future challenges the Earth is facing. I am suggesting, however, that critics provide data, facts, and valid arguments to support their conclusions, rather than paint doomsday scenarios and claim that there are “too many people already.”  Indeed, the next time you hold a loved one in your arms, think about how you would feel if this person had never been born, or if this person was mercilessly ripped away from you.

So far, the likes of Thomas Malthus and Paul Ehrlich have been completely wrong with their predictions, though it is possible for them and others like them, to be right someday. However, we should not take pleasure in being right, we should take pleasure in being better people. Being right is not what is important – being able to actualize oneself, improve the human condition, and make the world a better place to live, is what is important. And we cannot do that if we extrapolate wildly, spread fear, and insist that humanity is doomed. The truth is that humanity’s future hasn’t even been written yet. But when we do write it, we should do so utilizing the best that science and technology have to offer, in order to improve the human condition.  Overpopulation, calamity, and starvation are not destiny – but human improvement is, and has been, since the dawn of time.

Arin Vahanian is the Vice-Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party. 

Judge, Jury and Executioner Syndrome – Article by Arin Vahanian

Judge, Jury and Executioner Syndrome – Article by Arin Vahanian

Arin Vahanian


The topic of life extension seems to bring forth strong emotions from people. While living longer and healthier is a goal that nearly all people say they have, there are critics of life extension who have become quite vociferous in their opposition to extending the human lifespan.  The truth is, living a longer and healthier life shouldn’t be controversial at all. After all, it is what we humans have been trying to do since day one.

However, when the topic turns to living a healthy life indefinitely, critics seem to come out of the woodwork, citing various reasons why humans should not live radically longer. While each of the major objections to life extension deserves its own space (and its own rebuttal), one objection, in particular, is rankling in its lack of substance – that human beings already live long enough.

As ridiculous as this objection is, we need to address it, not only because of the amount of damage it does to humanity by limiting life-extension research, but also because it causes unnecessary pain and suffering. People who present this objection have what I like to call “Judge, Jury, and Executioner Syndrome.”

I can’t imagine that people in the 14th century suffering and then dying from the Bubonic Plague at age 20 or 30 would have considered their life to have been “long enough.” In the same way, nor could I imagine that someone would actually find declining and then dying from an aging-related disease such as dementia at age 75 to be desirable.

But how long is long enough? Is it 40 years, like it used to be in 19th-century England? Or is it 82 years, as it is in modern-day Japan? Or is it 100 years?

It is difficult to answer this question, because there is no correct answer to the question.

However, rather than going down a rabbit hole, the best way to answer such critics is to ask them why they get to decide how long people should live. Of course, they have no right whatsoever to decide how long the human lifespan should be. This should end the conversation right then and there, but sadly, in some cases, it does not.

To go further, one might want to ask these critics whether they believe their parents or grandparents, if they are still alive, have lived too many years and whether they would want them to die quickly because they have already lived “long enough.” Or, even better, we should ask critics of life extension how many years they think their children should live (if they have children). Of course, no one, other than a psychopath, would wish such suffering and death upon their loved ones.

Therefore, it appears that people who oppose life extension on the basis that humans already live long enough, tend to only hold this view toward other people, and not themselves or their loved ones. This seems to me to be horribly cruel, not to mention illogical. However, we should not consider those who claim they are satisfied with the 82-year lifespan for themselves, as being nobler or more altruistic than other people. After all, they are still trying to play judge, jury, and executioner!

The argument that human beings already live long enough attacks the very core of what it means to be human. Human beings are designed to want to survive, and to continue living. Otherwise, we would have stopped trying to live longer a long time ago, and as a consequence, we would have stopped trying to find cures for diseases such as cancer, heart disease, or diabetes. The very fact that we are so dedicated to finding cures for conditions that have ravaged humanity is proof that we are dedicated to living longer and healthier. There is no rule that says that human beings can only live until 100 years old, or that they are not allowed to try to live longer.

Of course, just as no one may decide how long the human lifespan should be, neither should we force those who do not want to live longer and healthier, to live longer and healthier. This is a personal choice that everyone must make for themselves. But opponents of life extension do not have the right, nor do they have the ability, fortunately, to decide how long the human lifespan should be.

Even if there is some unalterable limit to how long a human lifespan can be, wouldn’t it be better to come to this conclusion and obtain closure after conducting medical and scientific research, rather than hastily quitting, and in the process, damning all of humanity to pain, suffering, and death, solely to satisfy a falsely held belief that humans already live long enough?

I understand that no matter what I may be arguing in this article, there will always be people who do not want to live much longer and healthier than they do now, for whatever reason. While I respect their decision to not want to extend their own life, I also ask them to respect my wishes to live longer and healthier. Surely this seems like a fair position to take.

There is absolutely no reason at all to apologize for wanting to live a healthy life indefinitely. No one should be asking, “Why do you want to live longer?” Rather, we should be asking, “How can we live longer and healthier?” This sort of inclusive, optimistic, and honest approach will go a long way toward removing some of the obstacles to life extension, thus putting humanity just a bit closer to attaining what it has been seeking since the beginning of time – to live a longer, healthier life.

Arin Vahanian is the Vice-Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party. 

Anti-Aging: The Growing Popularity Of Radical Life Extension – Article by Kimberly Forsythe

Anti-Aging: The Growing Popularity Of Radical Life Extension – Article by Kimberly Forsythe

logo_bg

Kimberly Forsythe


There are numerous anti-aging therapies, which are used to slow the aging process in humans. Each of these therapies has its own advantages and disadvantages. For example, there are anti-aging processes such as anti-oxidants, anti-aging nutrients, anti-aging exercise programs, anti-aging diets, and anti-aging supplements that are said to extend a person’s lifespan. Aging is said to be a natural process that cannot be slowed or reversed once humans undergo it, and which accelerates greatly after puberty and early adulthood; however, some experts do not agree with this. There are several theories on the subject of aging that have varying outlooks on the actual causes of aging.

What Causes Aging in Humans?

There are various theories that explain the causes of aging, but they do not all agree. While we are making new discoveries all the time, we still do not have definitive answers on what causes aging. Some researchers believe that oxidative damage is what causes aging, and others believe genetics are involved in causing aging.

The evidence for the oxidative damage by sunlight, poor diet, and poor exercising habits is strong. For example, if your parents or grandparents had a shorter lifespan than the average person, it’s possible that part of the reason was that they didn’t have a good diet, they didn’t exercise, or they didn’t avoid the common environmental hazards we encounter today. That certainly makes some sense.

You might think that they all contribute equally, which is certainly plausible. Consider how much impact the food we eat has on our health. If the foods we eat are generally unhealthy, then the oxidative damage done to our cells will be greater, and our lifespan will be shortened. If the foods we eat are rich in antioxidants and are beneficial to health, then we will be healthier, and the oxidative damage we do to our cells will be lessened.

So, one could say that oxidative damage is what causes aging, and the antioxidants are what counteract it. But that’s too simple. Actually, free radicals do more damage to our cells than oxidative damage, so it stands to reason that free radicals add to the damage. In other words, instead of wearing away at the cells in a chemical process, free radicals cause cell death.

However, the evidence for genetics is also strong. When the telomeres within the protective shell of the cell are damaged, they become shorter. As a result, the “RNA” within the telomere becomes too short. The second factor which causes aging is cell senescence, or aging at the cellular level.

There are many different forms of cell senescence, but the main ones are in peripheral tissues such as skin, muscles, and blood vessels. If this continues, then the total number of cells may start to decline. The decline in cell numbers is partly what causes aging in general.

Another factor is called DNA damage, and this is caused by exposure to radiation and to chemicals used during manufacturing. This is a big problem, because DNA is responsible for the repair of cellular damage, and if it gets damaged, it can stop replicating to produce new cells altogether. This would mean that the aging process could not be stopped, and the body will just keep getting older without any real control.

What is Radical Life Extension?

Radical life extension is the process of using anti-aging technology to reverse age-related processes that are already underway. Anti-aging techniques rely on a combination of knowledge and understanding of the aging process, as well as on modern-day scientific breakthroughs. Scientists are only just now beginning to unlock many of the mysteries surrounding the mechanisms of aging.

In theory, we could live forever if we found a way to completely rejuvenate ourselves after we passed the age of sixty. Some people are under the impression that curing or reversing aging is impossible. But at the very least, we might be able to make ourselves better, or at least age gracefully. It is not known how far the search has come, but some of the results so far have been very promising.

When Will Aging be Cured or Reversed?

To cure or reverse aging, it will be necessary to find some way to increase the lifespan of humans. Many questions surround which scientific approach to anti-aging will be the most beneficial to humans. Perhaps we will lengthen lifespans by curing all of the diseases that we are prone to, or perhaps by using genetic engineering to insert new genes into the human genome. For some transhumanists, the ultimate aim would be to live forever. Others, however, wish only to increase the number of healthy years.

There is a great deal of interest in the subject of radical life extension, and there is considerable money involved. Investors are piling in to fund research to unlock more theories about aging and the mysteries that scientists are trying to unravel. There are, unfortunately, many unfounded claims and charlatans out there misleading the public about how we may be able to cure or reverse aging.

Some people have made the mistake of thinking that radical life extension is magic, or of taking a magical pill that will turn you into an immortal. While there is promising research for medications that can reduce biological age, the notion that it will be an immediate and instant cure is likely a distortion of the truth. We need to understand that aging is just one of the processes that occur within us, but there are many ways we can counter these processes. It is possible to extend your life significantly, but this requires an understanding of the aging process as a whole.

Overall, the more resources we put into studying the aging process and search for effective ways of curing or reversing aging, the faster we will find answers to questions that humans have sought after for ages. The “Fountain of Youth” may arrive sooner than we think. It is important that we collectively understand the implications of reversing aging and take steps to address these issues as soon as possible.

Related reading:

Healthier, longer lifespans will be a reality sooner than you think, Juvenescence promises as it closes $100M round