PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 29, 2010
Ethical Pathway Act of 2010 - Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), acting through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (FDA), to establish a mechanism by which an applicant for an abbreviated new drug application submitted under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, for license of a biosimilar biological product submitted under the Public Health Service Act, or for a license to sell in the United States a drug that has been approved for marketing in a foreign country may request a cost-sharing arrangement under which the applicant and the holders of relevant applications or licenses shall make every effort to ensure that any regulatory test data and results of clinical investigations involving humans and vertebrate animals conducted regarding such applications or licenses is shared, including the regulatory test data necessary to obtain marketing approval from the Secretary.
Permits such applicant to request such arrangement if, but for the arrangement: (1) the applicant would be required to conduct clinical investigations involving human subjects that violate Article 20 of the Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects in order to obtain the Secretary's approval or licensure; or (2) the duplication of the clinical investigations required for such application would violate other applicable ethical standards concerning the testing of products on humans or other vertebrate animals.
Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) the responsibility of an applicant that intends to perform clinical investigations involving humans or vertebrate animals to verify that those investigations have not been performed or initiated by another person, (2) agreement between an applicant and the holders of the relevant applications or licenses on a fee that is reasonable and fair that permits the applicant to rely upon information from such regulatory test data, and (3) procedures to determine such fee or required payment when such parties fail to reach such an agreement.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the fee for reliance on such regulatory test data to be determined after considering: (1) the actual out-of-pocket costs of the applicable clinical investigations; (2) the risks of the investigations; (3) any federal grants, tax credits, or other subsidies; (4) the expected share of the global market for the product involved; and (5) the amount of time the holders of the relevant applications or licenses have benefited from exclusive rights and the cumulative revenue earned on the products that relied upon the data at issue. Directs the Secretary to adopt procedures and rules under which sufficient information about costs and fees will be made public.
People & committees
Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT] · I–VT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Introduced in Senate
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 14, 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 S.3921 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 S.3921 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 S.3921 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 S.3921 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.