A significant disconnect exists between the FDA leadership's public statements promoting flexibility and the stringent, delay-prone reality faced by companies. For areas like gene therapy, firms report feeling the "rug was pulled out," suggesting investors should be skeptical of the agency's accommodating PR.

The current unpredictability at the FDA is so pronounced that prominent biotech investor Peter Kolchinsky of RA Capital is now advising his portfolio companies to de-risk development by conducting early-stage clinical trials outside the United States. This marks a significant strategic shift for US-based innovators.

Unicure's setback with its Huntington's gene therapy demonstrates a new political risk at the FDA. A prior agreement on a trial's design can be overturned by new leadership, especially if the data is not overwhelmingly definitive. This makes past regulatory alignment a less reliable indicator of future approval.

Moderna spent $1 billion on a trial based on FDA guidance that was later deemed unacceptable. This arbitrary "changing of the rules" after the fact makes long-term, capital-intensive investment in new medicines like vaccines extremely risky for pharmaceutical companies.

FDA CBER Director Vinay Prasad is reportedly overriding staff recommendations not just in his own center (vaccines), but also in CEDAR (drugs), as seen in the Disc Medicine case. This consolidation of decision-making power in one individual is making FDA approvals far more unpredictable for drug developers.

Recent events, like Moderna's rescinded 'refusal to file' letter, reveal that alignment with FDA staff on trial design is no guarantee. Senior leaders, notably Vinay Prasad, are reportedly overturning prior agreements, creating extreme uncertainty and making it impossible for companies to trust the regulatory guidance they receive.

The current disconnect between the FDA leadership's public calls for flexibility and its divisions' strict actions is not new. For decades, the agency's hierarchy has acted as a promotional arm to encourage industry, while the review divisions have maintained a more conservative, old-school approach to rigor. This historical pattern is often overlooked.

The FDA's current leadership appears to be raising the bar for approvals based on single-arm studies. Especially in slowly progressing diseases with variable endpoints, the agency now requires an effect so dramatic it's akin to a parachute's benefit—unmistakable and not subject to interpretation against historical data.

Industry sentiment on the FDA is not monolithic. A recent survey reveals that while biotechs largely maintain confidence in the agency's hardworking staff and their day-to-day interactions, there is deep concern and a lack of trust in the agency's top leadership. This nuanced view highlights that the perceived problems are rooted in politicization and leadership competence, not frontline operations.