Jaenisch, Muraru, and Pandey join PharmTech's Cole to discuss FDA's generative AI paper, ARPA-H's SURPASS trials, and AI accountability.
News|Videos|October 16, 2026
PharmTech AI Pulse Check: Why Pharma Should Weigh In on FDA's Generative AI Paper
The deadline to comment on FDA's generative AI paper is Oct 19, 2026. We explain why professionals in pharma manufacturing should weigh in.
Advertisement
Advertisement
FDA’s discussion paper on generative AI for medical devices has opened a public comment period running through October 19, 2026, and the panelists on PharmTech AI Pulse Check argue that the industry’s response will matter well beyond device regulation. Richard Jaenisch, Florin Muraru, and Gourav Pandey walk through what they expect commenters to raise, and why pharma manufacturing, quality, and regulatory professionals, not just device makers, have a stake in how the conversation lands.
Related to this article
PharmTech AI Pulse Check panelists explain why attribution, audit trails, and sign-off matter more than AI watermark detection for GxP quality teams.
Richard Jaenisch examines whether FDA's NAM pathway truly shortens drug pipelines or just shifts the evidentiary burden elsewhere.
API-gated journals may skew pharma regulatory research as AI agents favor accessible sources, raising citation integrity and pharmacovigilance risks.
Shadow AI and vendor data retention put GMP records and trade secrets at risk. AI Pulse Check panelists outline what pharma AI policies require.
PharmTech AI Pulse Check episode 2 covers AI data governance, API-gated journals, watermarking limits, and why attribution beats detection in GxP.
Pharma manufacturing spent 90 years learning that producing correct outputs isn't the same as catching your own errors. AI has only learned the first.
The FDA expanded Anktiva to BCG-unresponsive papillary-only NMIBC using existing CIS trial data, a precedent with implications for development timelines and supply planning.
Advertisement
Advertisement