The U.S. central bank also kept its benchmark short-term interest rate steady near zero and said it would likely stay there for an extended period to guide the way to recovery.

The Fed made its clearest statement to date that it sees the recession nearing an end and that shattered financial markets are healing.

“Information since the Federal Open Market Committee met in June suggests economic activity is leveling out,” the Fed said, referring to its policy-setting panel. “Conditions in financial markets have improved in recent weeks.”

It is the first time since August 2008 that the committee’s statement has not characterized the economy as contracting, weakening, or slowing.

Many peg the onset of the crisis to French bank BNP Paribas’ move in August 2007 to freeze funds because of problems with U.S. subprime mortgages. In the months that followed, the U.S. economy toppled into the most damaging financial crisis and painful recession in decades, and the economic malaise spread around the world.

“They see the worst with the economy is behind us but they don’t want to jump the gun and pull back quickly,” said Craig Thomas, a senior economist at PNC Financial Services in Pittsburgh.

The Fed cautioned that the economy remains fragile as employers continue to cut jobs and businesses trim investment.

U.S. Treasury prices fell after the Fed statement in apparent disappointment that the Fed did not increase the amount of debt that it plans to buy but subsequently regained some ground.

However, major U.S. stock indexes flirted with 10-month highs and the U.S. dollar rose against the yen.

The Fed cut interest rates to a range of between zero and 0.25 percent in December and pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into financial markets to stimulate economic activity in aggressive efforts to thwart the recession.

President Barack Obama’s ability to implement his health care and environmental reforms partly depend on his administration’s ability to turn the economy around with a controversial $787-billion economic stimulus package.

The recession has seen tax revenues fall and spending rise, leading to a record federal budget deficit expected to top $1.84 trillion in the current fiscal year.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s own renomination hopes for a second term have a lot riding on his ability to restore growth and jobs after the Fed’s role in controversial financial rescues and after questions about why the Fed did not spot the gathering storm earlier and take steps to prevent it.

Recent reports imply that the economy may be coming out of its swoon and that job losses, which have topped 6 million since the recession began in December 2007, may be moderating.

Still, the Fed renewed its warning that economic activity is likely to stay soft for “a time.” Household spending, while stabilizing, is still weak as a result of the grim labor market and tight credit, the Fed said.

To quell worries the Fed’s bloated balance sheet may sow the seeds of dangerous inflation once the recovery gains traction, Bernanke has taken pains to explain the Fed has tools to pull money out of the financial system to prevent price pressures from building.

Some analysts also worry the Fed’s easy money policies are setting the stage for another asset bubble, just as an extended period of low rates in the early part of the decade encouraged the housing boom that triggered the crisis.

The central bank cautiously moved to pull back some of that help for the economy on Wednesday, signaling it would slowly phase out a program to buy $300 billion in longer-term Treasuries by the end of October.

“To promote a smooth transition in markets as these purchases of Treasury securities are completed, the committee has decided to gradually slow the pace of these transactions

and anticipates that the full amount will be purchased by the end of October,” the Fed said.

The Fed launched the debt-buying program in March when it had already chopped interest rates to zero but wanted to open the money taps even wider to support the struggling economy. Treasury purchases were scheduled to expire in September.

The Fed’s decision to refrain from expanding its bond buying while standing pat on rates contrasts with approaches taken by other central banks around the world faced different stages of economic and financial stabilization.

The Bank of England stunned markets last week by expanding its program of bond purchases by a much larger amount than expected, saying the recession deeper than it had forecast.

Warnings from the experts that inflation will increase rapidly, forcing interest rates to rise and in turn pushing up the cost of borrowing, have become a familiar refrain.

However, homeowners on low variable-rate deals may be comforted to know that even some of Britain’s top economists do not see the value in switching to a fix.

With the Bank of England widely expected to leave official interest rates on hold at 0.5% for the fifth month in a row on Thursday, The Sunday Times asked leading economists what they do with their mortgages.

Martin Ellis, chief economist at Halifax, Britain’s biggest mortgage lender, and Simon Rubinsohn of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors were among those on variable deals, which rise and fall in line with Bank rate — yet neither had any intention of fixing.

Not everyone was happy to tell us about their own finances — economists at Nationwide, Standard Life Investments, Deutsche Bank and Collins Stewart, for example, were unable to take part.

Our survey found that those wanting to buy now had slightly different views from homeowners on super-low trackers.

Those looking to remortgage may have missed the cheapest deals, for now, though those who are buying still prefer to fix, according to Mark Harris of Savills Private Finance, the independent mortgage broker.

Bank of England data last week showed that the average five-year fixed-rate mortgage for borrowers with a 25% deposit rose 0.61 percentage points in June to 5.54%, adding £1,220 to the cost of a new £200,000 loan. Mortgage rates for two-year and three-year fixes also rose significantly. Here, we look at what the experts are doing with their mortgages.

Stuart Thomson, Ignis Asset Management Thomson, an economist at Ignis — the Glasgow-based fund management firm formerly known as Resolution Asset Management — argues strongly that deflation is a bigger threat than inflation. Interest-rate rises are therefore “very far in the distant future”, he said, adding that he will be paying his lenders’ standard variable rate (SVR) for the foreseeable future on his three mortgages.

For his main home in Glasgow, he took out one of Halifax’s two-year fixes in 2006, but is now paying its SVR of 3.5%. While this is not the lowest rate available — HSBC offers a two-year tracker at 2.49% — he said that HSBC’s £799 arrangement fee would wipe out much of the savings from switching.

He is doing even better on his two buy-to-lets, with Mortgage Express, the broker-only arm of Bradford & Bingley, which has been government-owned since September.

He is paying an SVR of only 1.75% over Bank rate, or 2.25%, so the rental income on the properties, in the prime London areas of Fulham and Clapham, comfortably covers his entire mortgage repayments.

He said: “Fixed-rate loans have already priced in substantial interest-rate rises over the next two years — you are paying an awful lot for that insurance unless you believe interest rates are going to rise even more rapidly, which we don’t.”

Simon Rubinsohn, Rics Rubinsohn, Rics’ chief economist, believes rates will rise, but not by very much. He took out a current account mortgage — similar to an offset — with Royal Bank of Scotland when he bought his house in north London in spring 2005. The arrangement allows him to put the interest earned on his savings toward reducing the interest on his loan. He said: “I think rates may go up a bit, but the outlook is pretty benign. We don’t expect rates to rise until 2010 and then by only half a percentage point.”

Peter Spencer, Ernst & Young Item Club Spencer is the chief economic adviser to the respected independent economic forecasting group. Spencer was fortunate enough to take out a Bank rate tracker with a margin close to 0.5% above Bank rate. He hopes to pay off his mortgage soon.

The Item Club believes that Bank rate will stay at 0.5% until the end of 2010.

Spencer said: “Inflation will be pinned to the floor by the weight of the profit margins banks are charging on the cost of loans. The spreads banks are charging for fixed-rate loans are scandalous.”

James Butterfill, HSBC Private Bank Butterfill, an economist, sold his home in London last summer and had been renting while he waited for property prices to hit bottom — which he believes they now have. Last week, he bought a house in Clapham.

HSBC’s, rather than the Bank of England’s, view is that house prices will be “stagnant” for the next year-and-a-half, but Butterfill decided to buy now to take advantage of cheap mortgage rates. He secured a three-year fix from the Royal Bank of Scotland at 3.95%.

For buyers, there is not much between three-year fixes and trackers — indeed, the best long-term tracker is only slightly cheaper than Butterfill’s fix, at 2.99% from HSBC.

Butterfill concedes that a three-year term is a bit of a “gamble” as the view is that this is precisely when inflation will rise. He said: “Inflation expectations depend on good central bank policy. I am gambling on the fact that the Bank of England does not make policy errors. Then, hopefully, I can cherry-pick from some more attractive mortgages in three years’ time.”

Martin Ellis, Halifax Ellis took out a tracker four years ago and while he anticipates Bank rate will rise to 1% in 2010, runaway inflation is “a long way off” — if it occurs at all. “I think it’s going to be some time before rates rise much beyond that,” he said. “We’ve seen some pretty bad economic figures recently and we are expecting sluggish growth for some time.

Sandy Hutchens is watching the markets and is not pleased to see such uncertainty from the borrowers.

“I do have a concern about money for loan modifications, particularly with such a high range of re-default,” Reich told participants at a conference in Washington organized by the Office of Thrift Supervision. “Focusing on job creation is a better way to focus federal dollars than on a loan modification process may be only partially effective.”

Reich’s statement clashed with Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation chairwoman Sheila Bair over the best way to use government funds to end the financial crisis.

Reich’s comments were focused, in part, on Bair’s controversial proposal that would use $24.4 billion of a $700 billion government bank bailout program to modify loans. Bair argues that her proposal, which isn’t supported by outgoing Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, could avert 1.5 million foreclosures. Reich also referred to a job creation stimulus proposal put forward by President-elect Barack Obama.

Reich told MarketWatch that use of government capital to buy large minority stakes in U.S. savings and loan banks is working, but that it is too early to get a sense of how much lending participating institutions are doing.

To back his argument, Reich pointed to statistics released Monday by the Office of Comptroller of the Currency director John Dugan showing a high re-default rate on mortgages that have been modified in the first two quarters of 2008.

“The results were surprising, and not in a good way,” Dugan told a gathering in Washington at the Office of Thrift Supervision’s annual conference.

According to the OCC statistics, which looked at loans modified in the first quarter and second quarter of 2008, 36% of borrowers had re-defaulted by being more than 30 days past due and after six months, the rate was roughly 56%. After eight months, 58% of borrowers had re-defaulted.

The OCC tracked the number of borrowers that re-defaulted on their mortgages after the modification was completed. Dugan acknowledged that not all re-defaulted mortgages go to foreclosure, but he argued that the number was very high. Dugan said he was not sure why there was such a high level of re-default, pointing out that it may be because the modifications were not low enough to be affordable.

Bair contended that the statistics provided by Dugan did not provide enough details about the circumstances surrounding mortgage re-defaults such as whether a borrower’s income has been verified or not. She argued that even with the statistics, a large number of modified mortgages have not led to foreclosure.

“Without more data about whether it was a meaningful reduction in the rate, it’s not clear how successful the modification is,” Bair said. “We do need more detailed reports and more granulated reporting.”

Other bank regulators argued that the government should employ an all encompassing approach that includes a jobs stimulus package, a capital purchase plan for financial institutions and mortgage modification. “I suspect there isn’t any one approach that is clearly superior to any other approach,” said Federal Reserve vice chairman Donald Kohn. “These problems are pervasive enough that we need to focus on a number of different fronts.”

President-elect Barack Obama said on Saturday that he wants to create millions of jobs by investing in a huge new national program to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure.

Dugan agreed that across the board approach should be used. He added that Bair and others should use the statistics the OCC produces to develop a successful loan modification program for 2009.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank reiterated Monday that he wants part of the $360 billion left in the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program to be used to help modify loans.

“The singular latest failure of public policy is to do significant foreclosure relief,” said Frank. “Principle reduction has got to be one of the things we do. There still is money left in the TARP.”

The Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) has today revealed that the number of mortgages approved for house purchase soared 23% in June, compared with May.

The rise is the fifth consecutive monthly increase and represents the highest level for a year.

According to the CML, 45,000 home loans were granted during the month – just 6% lower than June 2008 and is certain to fuel hopes of a recovery in the housing market.

However, the group cautions that the level is far from a return to the housing boom and first-time buyers still need an average deposit of 25% in order to secure a mortgage.

First-time buyers were granted 17,200 loans during the month, totalling £1.9 billion – more than a quarter on the previous month.

CML economist Paul Samter comments: “Low interest rates and realistic selling prices have helped generate a welcome increase in transactions. But there is some way to go before we reach normal levels of activity.”

“There are tentative signs that lending criteria are easing, but remortgaging demand is likely to remain subdued whilst interest rates stay at current levels,” adds Mr Samter.

Meanwhile, the number of loans for remortgaging rose by 13% compared with May. Record low interest rates are “dampening” the demand for remortgaging, according to the CML.

In other news today, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Rics) said house prices will rise over the next few months due to a shortage of homes for sale.

According to Rics, part of the renewed optimism within the housing market comes as a result of demand from new buyers outstripping supply.

The organisation said just 8% more surveyors reported seeing price falls than those who said the cost of homes increased – this represents the lowest figure for two years.

Furthermore, 29% of surveyors predicted sales levels would rise going forward.

However, Jeremy Leaf of Rics, cautions: “Although demand for property is continuing to rebound, it still remains low from a historical perspective.”

If you are considering buying a house, one of the first decisions you need to make is whether buying a house instead of renting one is the right direction for you. Since owning a home is the “American Dream”, many people simply assume that it’s always to their advantage to buy a home, and for most, it is. Take a moment to review the following table to see how your situation fits in. Items in the green boxes are advantages and in the red boxes are disadvantages.

you know that big dollars are involved. A-Rod, or Alex Rodriguez and baseballs highest paid player, is buying the star Island mansion outside of Miami from Shaq, Shaquille O’Neal and the NBA’s most famous player.

The 8 bedroom, 19,440 square foot home is located just between Miami and Miami Beach and is long been a home for celebrities. Neighbors include Will Smith, Gloria Estefan, Rosie O’Donnell, Madonna, and Sylvester Stallone. The home was originally placed on the market for 35 million 2 years ago.

Two brokers speaking on condition of anonymity said the contract is worth $25 million to $27 million. The assessed value of the house on 2.45 acres is $25.3 million, according to the Miami-Dade County property appraiser’s office.

The sales contract came to be almost two months after the 7-foot-1, 340-pound center filed for divorce from his wife, Shaunie. The couple has been married for five years. They have four children.

Brokers said “A-Rod” Rodriguez has been looking for a bigger home for at least two months. Shaq’s home is more than twice the size of the Coral Gables home occupied by Rodriguez, a former New York Yankee who became a free agent after he opted out of a $252 million contract at the end of the World Series.

Rodriguez is said to have started home shopping shortly before his agent, Scott Boras, announced the third baseman wanted to test free agency.

Ever drive past a gorgeous house and think, someday I’ll be able to afford that, or maybe you already own your dream home – which in that case check out how you can save through mortgage refinancing. But for those of us who haven’t quite found or begun paying on that house we want to grow old in, here are a few tips to have that dream – cheaply.

The Secrets of Home Buying and Mortgage Rates

What most people who are looking to buy a home for the very first time don’t know, is that there has not been an opportunity this good for a low mortgage rate since before they were born. No seriously, I’m actually not exaggerating. Mortgage rates have not been this low for over 37 years.

But even if you set aside the insanely low interest rates, there’s still the fact that property values are at an all time low as well. While this is bad news for existing homeowners, it is fantastic news for home buyers. Homes are now worth a third of what they were just 5 years ago. Heck, even if you already had a house, buying a second one may not be a bad idea. My very wealthy to be in-laws are even investing in an extra house to sell and make a profit in a few years, because let’s face it – a deal as sweet as this does not last long. While selling a house is definitely a bad idea right now, buying a second one is a sure way to make money in this economy.

Tax Rewards to the First-Time Home Buyer

Lastly, this applies directly to those first-time home buyers, the government is even giving incentives to buy homes. You could get up to an $8,000 tax credit just for being a first-time home buyer. While last year’s tax credit of $7,500 was like an interest-free loan, this year’s never has to be paid back. That’s insane. It’s like free money for an already great investment. Unless you live in New York City where space is non-existent, paying rent has got to get old.

So while everyone’s wondering what the best stock to invest in is, you already know what pays off – buying a home. It’s the classic example of “buy low, sell high.” For existing and future homeowners alike, buying a house today, and selling it in 5 years will easily pay for your kids’ college. It’s the perfect deal: low mortgage rates, cheap great housing, and a low risk investment.

The National Association of Realtors reports that “Shaun Donovan, secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, (on May 12) said that the Federal Housing Administration is going to permit its lenders to allow home buyers to use the $8,000 tax credit as a down payment.”

Here’s what this means: With an FHA loan, a first-time home buyer can purchase a property with as little as 3.5% down — but really considerably less because closing costs can be rolled into the purchase price or gifted to the buyer by the seller. Using the $8,000 tax credit for a down payment would allow a first-time buyer with reasonably decent credit (FHA loans have much lower credit score requirements than conventional mortgages) and proof of income to purchase a $228,000 home with no out of pocket expenditure.

Is that really a good idea? I don’t think so. Remember that writing mortgages where the buyer had no skin in the game at the time of the sale is maybe not the main factor in the overheating of the real estate market, but it’s certainly in the top five (low interest rates, shoddy underwriting standards, mortgage fraud, dishonest mortgage brokers and no skin in the game were, in no particular order, probably the top five problems).

For prospective first-time home buyers though, this is good news. FHA lenders will be able to monetize the tax credit through short-term bridge loans. That is, they’ll lend you the money for the down payment and then you pay it back when you receive the tax credit.

Whether it will help plant the seeds for another wave of foreclosures remains to be seen.

Sandy Hutchens was very impressed with  this Keynote Address by Margaret Hamburg, M.D. and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

Annual Conference of the Endocrine Society
Washington, D.C.
June 12, 2009

Good afternoon, and thank you, Bob, for your generous introduction.

I am greatly honored to address this conference. I am impressed by your organization with its world-wide membership and significant role in the practice and advancement of science to which millions of people with endocrine disorders look for ways to restore their health.

I also feel that this honor is not entirely deserved because I was sworn in as FDA commissioner less than three weeks ago, and I have yet to accomplish anything that would merit appearing before this large and distinguished audience.  In fact, I have been turning down formal speaking engagements because I still feel that I have so much to learn about the FDA and its myriad activities and issues.

Nevertheless, when I received this invitation, I said yes. This is, in part, because former Senator Lowell Weicker, who is the president of the Trust for America’s Health where I served on the Board, had a hand in inviting me take part in your conference.

But also because endocrinology is a field that I’ve always found fascinating.  In fact, as I began my career in medicine I intended to pursue a path related to endocrinology.  I planned to be an academic physician, with a professional life mixing clinical care, research and teaching.  For a year before medical school and during my first summer after medical school began, I worked at the National Institutes of Health in a neuroendocrine/neuropharmacology lab…and did additional research later at Rockefeller University.

Back then my plan was to do subspecialty training in endocrinology.  However, my interests and direction changed during the course of my training as I watched the AIDS epidemic emerge and spread, and witnessed the profound implications it had for medical care, public health and society.  At that time, medicine had little to offer beyond supportive care . . . and in those earliest days, science could not even offer an understanding of the nature of the disease and its causative agent.

Yet the ramifications of this new disease were far-reaching and raised complex legal, social, ethical and economic issues.

This is when I began to think about public health and health policy, and a career that would enable me to work at the interface of medicine with an array of other important, pressing concerns.

My Chair of Medicine was very disturbed when, at the end of residency, I decided to go to work in Washington at the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.  (as it was called way back then).   He said to me, “If you are not back in two years to do your subspecialty training – in endocrinology – you will be throwing away all your training.”

I did not return . . . and I cannot say that I have really looked back.

But I appreciate being able to be here today, despite the fact that I am not a legitimate, card-carrying endocrinologist.

I am struck by the fact that since the formation of your organization in 1916 as the Association for the Study of Internal Secretions, the Endocrine Society has devoted itself to advancing the field of endocrinology to benefit patients.  Over almost a century, you have contributed to incredible advances in the treatment of previously devastating disorders.  And with each advance, the quality of life for countless patients has improved.

I must also comment that you have definitely traded up in terms of your name.

So too for the FDA, which was created by President Teddy Roosevelt in 1906 as the Bureau of Chemistry in the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  The agency’s mission from the start was to stop adulteration of medications and foods in order to protect the public health. Over time, our agency has grown into the Food and Drug Administration, with regulatory authority over more than $2 trillion dollars in food and medical products.

Through countless medical advances and challenges, the agency’s public health mission has remained.  And it is what has drawn me to the FDA … and it is what makes me eager to talk with you today.

Endocrinology faces numerous critical public health challenges … from the rising prevalence of diabetes to the importance of finding novel treatments for endocrine cancers.  The Endocrine Society is on the front lines confronting these challenges, by supporting cutting edge research, excellent clinical care, and advocacy.

My vision is for FDA to be a public health partner, embracing a unique and vital regulatory role, but also committed to a core mission to promote and protect the health of the public.  Using the best available science, the agency should take every opportunity to save lives and reduce suffering from disease…and we should work closely with organizations such as yours.

I see the FDA as an agency that’s dedicated to science for action — science that helps translate the discoveries made in laboratories into medical products and devices that can save lives and limit disease, that safeguards consumers from health hazards they cannot control on their own, and that helps to prevent unnecessary threats to health.  In my view, these are among the most meaningful services a government can provide for its citizens.

As the FDA commissioner, I have a simple goal.  I hope to help assure in the United States “conditions in which people can be healthy”, which is how the Institute of Medicine defines the mission of public health.
To that end, I will do my best to make full use of the FDA’s wealth of experience, the remarkable dedication of its staff, and all of the agency’s intellectual and scientific resources to help advance science in the domains that are in the FDA’s purview — a vast area that includes all drugs, biological products and medical devices; all blood products and vaccines; the entire food supply except for meat and poultry, which are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture; all equipment that emits radiation; and all cosmetics, animal medications and animal feed.

This is an enormous task that I will seek to accomplish the only way it can be done, which is in cooperation with the numerous stakeholders, both in the U.S. and abroad, who share the FDA’s interest of protecting and promoting health, well-being and vitality.

So what does this mean from the perspective of a medical discipline such as endocrinology? Let me offer a few thoughts.

The work starts with a key principle of public health – prevention.  I am interested in exploring how FDA can better work with the food industry, consumers and others to take steps to reduce the rising tide of obesity and diabetes.  The agency has authority, for example, over the food label, as well as other potential venues and mechanisms to address such important threats to health. This is an arena where I am sure we could work together, and I would welcome your ideas and input.

The agency should also be open to the concept of effective preventive therapy and interventions for people at very high risk of developing diabetes, working with researchers to define how to study and demonstrate the safety and efficacy of such approaches.

A second key principle of public health is the importance of balancing risk and benefit, using the best available data and judgment to make decisions.  Endocrinology has been struggling with some of these issues recently, with controversies over the safety of medications used for diabetes.

The challenge facing clinicians is similar to what faces the agency – how to respond in the face of uncertainty.  There is no simple answer.  Like good clinicians, we need to be deliberate, careful, and clear in our reasoning and judgment.  We need to reach out to expert advisers, and where appropriate, seek additional data.  Regardless of our conclusions, we must transparently explain how and why the agency makes its decisions.

A third key principle of public health is collaboration.  We must work with many different partners, often in unusual ways, to accomplish real victories for health.

I have been pleased to learn about recent efforts at the agency to work with medical specialty societies to improve outcomes for patients.

For example, our Division of Metabolism and Endocrinology Products is participating in the pilot of a “Safe Use” initiative to think about how we can reduce common medication errors and improve health.

I am also aware that Dr. Mary Parks, an endocrinologist and the director of the Division of Metabolism and Endocrinology Products, keeps in close contact with organizations representing her field of science.

For example in April, she conducted a joint public workshop with the American Thyroid Association, and two days ago she discussed regulatory perspectives in your session on “Biomarkers in Cardiovascular Endocrinology in Clinical Trials and Drug Development.”

To some outside, this may seem like an obscure topic, and certainly not at the heart of public health.  But, in fact, work such as this, goes to the core of our public health mission. If those biomarkers in cardiovascular endocrinology lead to the development of a breakthrough treatment, thousands or even millions of patients may benefit.

Good public health and clinical practice depend on good science…and so does the work of the FDA.  If we can develop the right scientific tools to address public health problems, clinical practice and patient outcomes will improve dramatically.

That’s why one of my early and top priorities is strengthening FDA’s scientific capacity and improving regulatory science for public health. Everything we do at the FDA must rest on a strong foundation of science.  The quality of our work – and our credibility – will be forever jeopardized without this.  We have extraordinary talent at the FDA, but over the years important aspects of our scientific endeavor have been under-resourced and under-appreciated.

This must change.

We must be able to recruit and retain the best possible scientists.  And we must give them the facilities and opportunities they need to do their jobs…and to do them as well as possible.  I think that there are many valuable—and doable– strategies to enhance our science base, some of which are already underway, and others still need to be developed and implemented.

But success will also depend on stronger collaboration with the broader scientific community.  Regulatory science is an essential, yet still under-developed field.  It would be my hope to see expanded efforts in this arena, including the engagement of academic scientists and research universities, and more research aimed at addressing the unmet scientific needs involving the safety and effectiveness of regulated products, as well as at how best to leverage emerging science and technology to strengthen and streamline the drug and product review process.

On the subject of regulatory science, let me thank the Endocrine Society for recently releasing a statement on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals.  I appreciate the willingness of the Society to think about broad policy issues and provide your perspective on how the best available evidence should influence decisions that affect our whole society.

The agency is now taking a fresh look at the evidence on bisphenol-A, and I will refer your report to the scientists leading this effort.

Thank you for your time this afternoon.  I see today as the start of a valuable working relationship, and I look forward to exchanges and discussion between the agency and the Society.

I may not have become an endocrinologist … but standing here, I feel that we have a lot in common. I look forward to working with you toward our common goal to improve the health of millions of people in the United States and around the world.

Thank you very much.