AI
Saturday, April 28, 2007 9:25:00 AM
"but what is the possible logic ..."
"Fine, but what is the possible logic in publicly antagonizing FDA leadership?"
I think you've done a fine job in analyzing this. Pazdur and Co. are not nuts, but they also clearly are not skilled political operators either. Perhaps this is a statement of the painfully obvious.
The most likely explanation for the pattern of behavior is a combination of a bit of deficiency in political skills, but mostly that they've played and exhausted their cards internally, and concluded they'd lost there, and the only remaining leverage was external.
If that is indeed the case, then the only way to turn Von E would be via political pressure from above, and the only way that pressure could come is via suffficiently ratcheting the pressure on those in the political food chain "above". In turn, the only way to accomplish that is (a) get the issue jacked up in profile (hence the inelegant public ruckus they've tried to stir up) and onto the radar screen of those "above", and (b) inspire/embolden the political interests with levers of influence on those "above" to use those levers.
FWIW, I've worked in and around agency politics for a couple decades (including representing clients before FDA a number of years back), and I can confirm your assessment is the one most likely to be true.
Your conclusion that Pazdur and Co's behavior is an indicator they've lost (or believe they've lost) internally is the most logical one (and incidentally, the one I believe as well). Sure, the path of public criticism they've taken runs the risk of pushing Von E and the agency in the opposite direction they'd like. But if they've concluded they've lost internally, then that's not really a risk. From their philosophical point of view and from their future interests on future organization and approvals, they do risk diminishing their clout. But apparently they view the damage of losing on this one as so large, they're willing to accept that risk.
I don't doubt there's some irrationality (born of emotion, ego, etc) mixed in the decision making process for them. And yes, it's naive to the point of being laughable that some suggest this couldn't possibly have anything to do with indirect monetary considerations or greed. No doubt that's in the mix too.
Setting aside issues of substance and merit, and reading this in strictly political terms, I cannot imagine laying any kind of substantial bet on the short side of DNDN. Even hedged.
Why then are there so many doing it? That I'm going to try and address in a subsequent post.
"Fine, but what is the possible logic in publicly antagonizing FDA leadership?"
I think you've done a fine job in analyzing this. Pazdur and Co. are not nuts, but they also clearly are not skilled political operators either. Perhaps this is a statement of the painfully obvious.
The most likely explanation for the pattern of behavior is a combination of a bit of deficiency in political skills, but mostly that they've played and exhausted their cards internally, and concluded they'd lost there, and the only remaining leverage was external.
If that is indeed the case, then the only way to turn Von E would be via political pressure from above, and the only way that pressure could come is via suffficiently ratcheting the pressure on those in the political food chain "above". In turn, the only way to accomplish that is (a) get the issue jacked up in profile (hence the inelegant public ruckus they've tried to stir up) and onto the radar screen of those "above", and (b) inspire/embolden the political interests with levers of influence on those "above" to use those levers.
FWIW, I've worked in and around agency politics for a couple decades (including representing clients before FDA a number of years back), and I can confirm your assessment is the one most likely to be true.
Your conclusion that Pazdur and Co's behavior is an indicator they've lost (or believe they've lost) internally is the most logical one (and incidentally, the one I believe as well). Sure, the path of public criticism they've taken runs the risk of pushing Von E and the agency in the opposite direction they'd like. But if they've concluded they've lost internally, then that's not really a risk. From their philosophical point of view and from their future interests on future organization and approvals, they do risk diminishing their clout. But apparently they view the damage of losing on this one as so large, they're willing to accept that risk.
I don't doubt there's some irrationality (born of emotion, ego, etc) mixed in the decision making process for them. And yes, it's naive to the point of being laughable that some suggest this couldn't possibly have anything to do with indirect monetary considerations or greed. No doubt that's in the mix too.
Setting aside issues of substance and merit, and reading this in strictly political terms, I cannot imagine laying any kind of substantial bet on the short side of DNDN. Even hedged.
Why then are there so many doing it? That I'm going to try and address in a subsequent post.
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
