PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 17, 2014
Research for All Act of 2014 - Directs the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to review and develop policies to ensure that the design and size of clinical trials for products granted expedited approval to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition are sufficient to determine the safety and effectiveness of the products for men and women using subgroup analysis.
Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require FDA, at the request of the sponsor of a new drug, to facilitate the development and expedite its review if the drug is:
intended to avoid serious adverse events or to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition,
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
intended for safer or more effective treatment for either men or women than a currently available product approved to treat the general population or the other sex, and
supported by results of clinical trials that include and separately examine outcomes for men and women.
Amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to determine when it is appropriate for projects of basic research involving cells, tissues, or animals to include both male and female cells, tissues, or animals. Requires, in such cases, disaggregation of results according to sex. Provides guidelines for ensuring that sex differences are examined and analyzed.
Authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to support the continued operation and expansion of Special Centers of Research on Sex Differences.
Requires the Comptroller General (GAO) to provide to Congress updated versions of the reports entitled “Women's Health: NIH Has Increased Its Efforts To Include Women in Research” and “Women's Health: Women Sufficiently Represented in New Drug Testing, But FDA Oversight Needs Improvement,” including in the reports examination of:
the inclusion of women, female animals, and female-derived cells and tissues in federally funded research over the past decade;
federal reporting and analysis of subgroup information and the translation of differences to the medical community and patients;
the effect of inclusion rates in research on the quality of women’s health care; and
current efforts within government agencies to encourage the sharing of research data on sex differences and mechanisms to improve such sharing.
People & committees
Rep. Cooper, Jim [D-TN-5] · D–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4879 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4879 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4879 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4879 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.