Abstract

Medicines regulators have generally adopted a scientistic view of medicines evaluation, which they present as an exercise that should—and indeed can—be purely “objective,” based only on knowledge produced through validated research protocols. The growing body of social science literature analyzing the regulation of medicines has questioned this pretense of objectivity and underlined the socio-political construction of evidence on the risks and benefits of medicines. But while the European Medicines Agency has become the dominant regulatory body in Europe and a key player at world level, very few studies have investigated its actual practices. Based on interviews with European regulators, but also on direct observations of several meetings of the European Medicines Agency’s main expert committee, this article aims to analyze how regulatory knowledge is defined and then transformed into regulatory decisions. First, it describes the main characteristics of European medicines regulation and the historical definition of what can count as “objective” evidence on the safety and efficacy of medicines. Second, it demonstrates that experts use many different types of knowledge in building their opinions: the results of studies, but also knowledge about firms’ past and present strategies, about patients’ needs and future behavior, about the state of research and clinical practices, and about legal and policy-making issues. Third, it explains why, in spite of the various forms of knowledge involved, experts manage to produce consensual opinions on medicines and why these opinions are considered genuine decisions in the sector.