DebateHealthTeacher Resources

Classroom Debate: Should Drugmakers Use Fast-Track Review Programs?

cclassroom

2026-02-13

9 min read

A ready-to-run unit for teachers: debate formats, background reading, and a grading rubric to explore FDA fast-track trade-offs in 2026.

Hook: Teach a high-stakes, real-world debate in one unit

Teachers: you need ready-to-run lessons that sharpen critical thinking, cover current events, and save planning time. The debate over whether drugmakers should use fast-track review programs at the FDA is perfect — it’s current (see Pharmalot’s Jan 2026 reporting), ethically complex, and aligned to civics, science, and media-literacy standards. This unit gives you a structured debate format, background reading, classroom activities, and a robust student rubric so students practice evidence-based argument, analyze risk/benefit trade-offs, and explore pharmaceutical ethics in 2026.

Why this topic matters in 2026

In late 2025 and early 2026 regulators, drugmakers, and the press renewed attention on accelerated approval pathways — Fast Track, Priority Review, Breakthrough Therapy, and Accelerated Approval — because of legal concerns, the rise of AI-assisted drug discovery, and high-profile controversies about weight-loss drugs and post-market safety. As STAT’s Pharmalot reported in January 2026, some manufacturers are cautious about joining newer speedier programs due to possible legal and reputational risks. That makes this a live, multidisciplinary topic that trains students to reason with real-world uncertainty.

Learning objectives

Students will explain how accelerated FDA pathways function and why they exist.
Students will evaluate trade-offs between faster access and safety using evidence.
Students will practice structured debate formats and oral/written argumentation.
Students will apply ethical frameworks to pharmaceutical decision-making.
Students will be assessed using a clear, transferable rubric focused on reasoning and sources.

Unit overview & timing (5 lessons, 45–60 min each)

Lesson 1 — Background & framing: Introduce FDA pathways and recent 2025–2026 developments. Read a short news brief (class set) and map key stakeholders (drugmakers, FDA, patients, payers, courts).
Lesson 2 — Research workshop: Students work in teams to gather evidence. Provide curated sources and teach source evaluation.
Lesson 3 — Rehearsal & case building: Teams construct affirmative and negative cases; coach on refutation and turning arguments.
Lesson 4 — Formal debate day: Host Oxford-style or Parliamentary debates (formats below). Peer and teacher assessments with rubric.
Lesson 5 — Reflection & synthesis: Write an evidence-based policy memo or op-ed. Debrief ethics and the role of media reporting (e.g., Pharmalot coverage).

Which debate format to use (matching time and skills)

Choose a format that fits your class size, time, and goals:

Oxford/Cross-Examination (best for middle/high school)

Teams: Proposition (pro fast-track) vs. Opposition (no fast-track for drugmakers).
Structure: Opening statements (4–5 min each), cross-examination (3 min), rebuttals (3–4 min), closing (2 min).
Why use it: Clear speaking slots and cross-examination practice teach evidence interrogation.

Parliamentary (best for advanced high school/college)

Teams: Government vs. Opposition with shorter prep time (20–30 min) for spontaneity.
Structure: 5–7 minute speeches, points of information, responsive refutation.
Why use it: Develops quick thinking and adaptability—mirrors real policy debates.

Policy Debate (research-heavy, tournament style)

Teams present highly researched plans; rounds involve constructive speeches and cross-examination.
Why use it: Best for deep dives into evidence, legal risk, and cost-benefit modeling.

Class roles and scaffolding

Assign explicit roles to reduce prep time and build accountability:

Lead researcher: Collects primary sources and prepares annotated bibliography.
Legal analyst: Interprets potential legal liabilities and policy precedents.
Ethics lead: Frames moral arguments (utilitarianism, deontology, equity).
Economics/health policy lead: Assesses cost, access, and payer implications.
Spokespeople: Deliver opening/closing and manage cross-examination.

Background reading — teacher-curated starter list (2025–2026 context)

Provide students with a tight set of high-quality readings. Keep the list balanced: regulatory documents, journalism, and ethical analyses.

Primary: FDA webpages on Fast Track, Priority Review, Breakthrough Therapy, and Accelerated Approval (official guidance pages).
News: Pharmalot / STAT, Jan 15, 2026 — coverage of drugmaker hesitancy around newer speedier review programs.
Investigative: Selected op-eds about post-market safety (weight-loss drugs debate), ideally from major outlets in 2025–2026.
Ethics: Short academic pieces or think-tank briefs on risk/benefit frameworks and equity in access.

Tip: Provide PDFs or printouts for equitable access. For younger students, create a 1-page primer summarizing the pathways in plain language.

Sample debate motions & prompts

Primary motion (clear, testable): "This house believes drugmakers should use FDA fast-track review programs whenever available."
Alternative motion (policy focus): "This house would require pharmaceutical companies to complete confirmatory trials within two years after accelerated approval."
Ethics prompt: "Is it ethical to prioritize access to potentially life-saving drugs even if long-term safety data are incomplete?"
Stakeholder prompt: "Whose interests should weigh most when approving drugs quickly: patients, developers, payers, or regulators?"

Evidence matrix for students (quick template)

Claim: (short sentence)
Evidence: (source, date, direct quote or data)
Warrant: (explain how evidence supports the claim)
Impact: (why this matters to the motion — safety, access, cost, legal risk)

Classroom-ready case outlines (pro & con)

Pro (for fast-track use)

Thesis: Fast-track accelerates access to promising therapies for patients with urgent needs.
Evidence options: historical cases of life-saving drugs where delays cost lives; FDA data on time-to-approval reductions; patient testimonials or advocacy group positions.
Ethical angle: Prioritarian argument — prioritize the worst-off; procedural argument — for transparency and post-market monitoring.

Con (against fast-track use)

Thesis: Speedier review increases the risk of inadequate safety data, leading to harm and legal exposure for manufacturers.
Evidence options: examples of drugs with adverse outcomes after accelerated approval; STAT Pharmalot reporting on industry hesitation and legal concerns; data on confirmatory trial delays.
Ethical angle: Precautionary principle and equity concerns if harms disproportionately affect marginalized groups.

Classroom moderation & safety notes

Debates about drugs can touch on personal health experiences. Set expectations: avoid sharing personal medical histories in public; use anonymized case studies. Emphasize respect, source-based claims, and that the goal is analysis, not medical advice. Provide trigger warnings and offer opt-outs or alternative assignments for students uncomfortable with the topic.

Grading rubric — detailed, transferable (100 points)

Rubric suitable for teacher and peer assessment. Weightings are flexible but recommended as below.

Argument & Evidence (40 points)
- 36–40: Claims are clear, logically organized, and supported by high-quality evidence (peer-reviewed, official FDA docs, reputable journalism). Sources cited correctly.
- 28–35: Good claims, some evidence gaps, minor sourcing issues.
- 0–27: Weak claims, little or unreliable evidence.
Critical Thinking & Refutation (25 points)
- 23–25: Anticipates counterarguments and responds with data-driven refutations; shows depth of analysis and ethical nuance.
- 17–22: Addresses counters but misses opportunities to turn them or lacks depth.
- 0–16: Little to no refutation or relies on fallacies.
Delivery & Teamwork (15 points)
- 13–15: Clear voice, persuasive pacing, effective teamwork; roles used well.
- 9–12: Generally clear but some delivery or coordination issues.
- 0–8: Mumbled, disorganized, or poor coordination.
Use of Sources & Attribution (10 points)
- 9–10: All claims attributed; sources are current (2025–2026) and relevant; includes Pharmalot/STAT where used.
- 6–8: Some missing attributions or reliance on weaker sources.
- 0–5: Unattributed claims or unreliable sources.
Reflective Writing (10 points)
- 9–10: Final memo/op-ed synthesizes debate, cites evidence, and reflects on ethical trade-offs and proposed policy changes.
- 6–8: Synthesis present but limited reflection or weak evidence use.
- 0–5: Little reflection or unsupported recommendations.

Sample teacher feedback comments

"Excellent use of FDA guidance to support your timeline claim — consider adding a counterexample to strengthen your rebuttal."
"Your ethical framing was compelling; add more data on post-market harms to show magnitude."
"Good teamwork and clear transitions — work on citing sources in speech notes for transparency."

Assessment alternatives & differentiation

Not every class needs a full competitive debate. Alternatives:

Group poster presentations summarizing risks and benefits.
Short mock hearings with students role-playing FDA officials, company CROs, and patient advocates.
Written policy memo for different grade levels: 300 words (middle school), 800–1,000 words (high school), 1,500+ words (AP/college).

Teaching tips for credibility & 2026 trends

Emphasize modern context: by 2026, the integration of AI in drug discovery and increased public scrutiny of accelerated approvals makes this debate timely.
Teach source literacy: differentiate between primary regulatory text, investigative reporting (e.g., Pharmalot/STAT), and opinion pieces.
Use contemporary case studies from 2024–2026 — for instance, discussions around GLP-1 weight-loss drugs and subsequent safety monitoring — but frame them as examples, not definitive causal claims.
Invite a local health policy professional or university researcher for a Q&A (virtual if necessary) to boost authenticity and E-E-A-T.

Sample student handout (one-page)

Motion: "This house believes drugmakers should use FDA fast-track review programs when eligible."

Roles: Lead researcher, legal analyst, ethics lead, economics lead, spokesperson.

Quick evidence checklist: FDA documents, peer-reviewed study, reputable news story (2025–2026), stakeholder statement, at least one counterexample.

Prep time: 2 class periods + debate day. Use the evidence matrix and cite sources.

Reflection prompts for students

Which evidence shifted your position and why?
How should regulators balance speed and certainty in 2026 when AI is reducing discovery timelines?
Whose voices were missing in your debate, and how would you include them next time?

"Some major drugmakers are hesitating to participate in the Trump administration's speedier review program for new medicines over possible legal risks." — Pharmalot, Jan 15, 2026

Final takeaways & classroom outcomes

Running this unit gives students: practical debate skills, nuanced understanding of FDA pathways, and ethical fluency about how society should distribute risk and benefit. It also saves you planning time with ready-to-use scaffolds, a tested rubric, and flexible formats to match your classroom.

Actionable steps to start tomorrow

Print the one-page student handout and rubric (use the template above).
Select your debate format and assign teams; give teams the curated reading list with at least one STAT Pharmalot piece and an FDA fact sheet.
Run the 5-lesson sequence; collect final memos and grade with the rubric.
Invite feedback from students on sources and fairness; iterate next unit.

Resources & links for teachers (starter)

FDA guidance pages: Fast Track, Priority Review, Breakthrough Therapy, Accelerated Approval.
Pharmalot / STAT coverage (Jan 15, 2026) on industry hesitancy and legal risk.
Selected ethics primers and think-tank briefs on health-risk trade-offs (search for recent 2025–2026 publications).

Call-to-action

Ready to run this unit? Download the printable handouts, rubric, and slide-ready lesson slides from our teacher resource page. Try one debate round this week, note how students used evidence, and share a short reflection with our community — we’ll send feedback and sample student work to help you refine the next iteration. Equip your students to reason about complex 2026 policy issues — start now.

classroom

Contributor

Senior editor and content strategist. Writing about technology, design, and the future of digital media. Follow along for deep dives into the industry's moving parts.