A federal judge in Texas rules this week to suspend the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. BIO interim President and CEO, Rachel King, released the following statement:  “The preliminary ruling by a federal judge in Texas is an assault on science and the FDA’s long-standing role as the authority to make decisions on the safety and efficacy of medicines. For a court to invalidate the approval of a drug that was reviewed and approved more than two decades ago is without precedent. As legal scholars have noted, the courts do not have the medical expertise to make these types of scientific determinations.  “This decision has ramifications that extend well beyond this case, setting a dangerous precedent for undermining the FDA and creating regulatory uncertainty that will impede the development of important new treatments and therapies.  “As this case works its way through the appeals process, it is our hope that this ruling is overturned, so that patients and drug developers can rely on the rigorous FDA approval process as the scientific and trusted standard for drug approvals.  “We are seeing amazing breakthroughs in labs across the country. We are on the cusp of groundbreaking new medicines that will transform the standard of care for our loved ones. We need a regulatory, legal and policy environment that reflects the needs of these patients, respects the expertise of our nation’s leading scientists and protects the ecosystem that allows medical breakthroughs to go from the bench to a patient’s bedside.”    

Healthcare Ready, Biotechnology Innovation Organization, and Wakefield Research release data Washington (March 30, 2023) -- The last several years have shown that preparing for a public health emergency is vital to protect the public, our national security, and the economy. As policymakers in Congress reflect on ways to strengthen our public health preparedness efforts, the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) and Healthcare Ready, in conjunction with Wakefield Research, have released new survey data that show American voters -- on both sides of the aisle -- believe their congressional representatives should prioritize funding for public health preparedness to ensure the United States isn't vulnerable during future public health crises.   In summary, the polling data show:  There is overwhelming bipartisan support for the federal government to act on a variety of fronts:95% of respondents believe that "The federal government should prepare for a wide variety of potential public health emergencies." 92% of respondents agree that "The lessons learned from the last pandemic should be incorporated into our national preparedness efforts for the next public health emergency." 90% of respondents agree that "The federal government should expand long-term preventive measures to help avoid any future pandemics."   More than 8-in-10 voters believe it is 'extremely' or 'very' important for the federal government to prioritize funding for public health emergency preparedness:More than two-thirds (71%) of voters want the federal government to increase funding for public health preparedness rather than maintain or decrease it because current spending levels are too low (50% say the federal government is spending too little, 17% say too much, 33% say about right).Nearly 8 in 10 voters (77%) say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports funding for public health preparedness.  Voters also…