About this blog

CRITical Thinking is a blog written by staff, directors, and friends of the Collaboration for Research Integrity and Transparency (CRIT), a joint program of Yale Law School, Yale School of Public Health, and Yale School of Medicine. CRIT's mission is to promote health by improving the integrity and transparency of biomedical and clinical research. This blog is published by and reflects the personal views of the individual authors, in their individual capacities. It does not purport to represent Yale University's institutional views, if any. No representation is made about the accuracy of the information, which solely constitutes the authors’ personal views on issues discussed. The information contained in this blog is provided only as general information and personal opinions, and blog topics may be updated after being initially posted.

CRITical Thinking Blog

Promoting Transparency in Clinical Research

November 3, 2017
By Margaret McCarthy, Jeanie Kim, Joseph S. Ross

Clinical research generates information that is critical to our understanding of medical products. Researchers and pharmaceutical companies conduct clinical studies to see if a promising biomedical discovery can lead to a safe and effective medicine for patients. Investigators start with laboratory testing and preclinical studies that provide basic answers about a treatment’s mechanism. Then, studies involving human participants provide a clearer picture of how the drug, biologic, or device will interact with the human body: Is the drug toxic or safe to use? What is the appropriate dosage?

Read more

Regulating Medical Products in the Interest of the Public

October 25, 2017
By Alain Alsalhani

There seems to be a deep confidence crisis in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as an institution.

Read more

Regulators Must Act In The Public Interest When Considering Real World Evidence: Examples from TB and HIV Treatments

October 16, 2017
By Marcus Low, Catherine Tomlinson

In general, fears about the potential harms of weakening evidentiary requirements through developments such as the 21st Century Cures Act in the US and so-called adaptive pathways in the EU, are warranted. These legal and regulatory changes increase the likelihood that the public will be exposed to unsafe and/or ineffective medicines. Unfortunately, the deregulation debate is more complicated than this, as shown by three examples relating to tuberculosis (TB) and HIV medicines, which highlight the need for regulatory approaches that allow for consideration of real world evidence when potential benefits outweigh harms.

Read more

Supporting Evidence-Informed Practice By Improving Clinical Research

October 9, 2017
By Rita Banzi

How can we support evidence-informed practice if the vast majority of the research on drugs is flawed?

Read more