2026-08-23T13:07:00-0400 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
以下是前FDA局长斯科特·戈特利布的访谈文字实录，他目前担任辉瑞和联合健康集团的董事，该访谈于2026年8月23日在《与玛格丽特·布伦南直面国家》节目中播出。
*
玛格丽特·布伦南： 接下来我们邀请到前FDA局长斯科特·戈特利布博士。他同时也是辉瑞和联合健康集团的董事。欢迎再次来到《直面国家》。本周有一些好消息，我想请您谈谈。我们听闻了一款实验性mRNA治疗性癌症疫苗，它能让高危黑色素瘤患者的生存期延长。它并非预防癌症的疫苗——人们听到“疫苗”可能会这么想——而是莫德纳与默克合作开发的一款目前看来有效的治疗手段。您如何看待这项mRNA技术的突破？
斯科特·戈特利布博士： 是的，这项成果意义重大。我们已经为此努力了三四十年，如今的变化在于，我们能够找到癌细胞表面的蛋白质，以此训练免疫系统识别癌症、预防癌症复发。所以这并非传统意义上的疫苗，而是一种癌症免疫疗法。我们通过递送mRNA，让身体识别癌细胞表面的蛋白质，从而教会体内的T细胞在癌症复发时及时发现它。目前我们还没有完整的试验结果，需要等待核心数据公布，但试验已经证明，它能够预防癌症复发——也就是说，当身体通过这些特定抗原完成训练后，T细胞就能在癌细胞扩散到身体其他部位时及时识别它们。我的声音断了，抱歉。
玛格丽特·布伦南： 没关系。戈特利布博士，您现在能听到我说话吗？我们正在尝试修复信号。先插播一段广告，看看能不能修好，让我们都能听清彼此。马上回来。
[广告插播]
玛格丽特·布伦南： 欢迎回到《直面国家》。刚才我们遇到了一些技术问题，但我相信现在我们已经能再次听到前FDA局长戈特利布博士的声音，也确认他能听到我们。刚才的状况很抱歉。您能听到我们吗？
斯科特·戈特利布博士： 可以听到了，谢谢。
玛格丽特·布伦南： 太好了。
斯科特·戈特利布博士： 我现在可以正常交流了。
玛格丽特·布伦南： 我们接着刚才的话题，在中断前您正在讲解这项前景光明的mRNA研究。针对白宫就这项突破发表的言论——他们称这证明了HHS削减mRNA疫苗研究联邦资金的决定是正确的，认为私营部门可以承担相关研发工作——您如何看待这种说法？
斯科特·戈特利布博士： 是的，你看，我认为HHS的相关声明主要针对的是用于传染病的mRNA疫苗。这项研究则不同。正如我所说，这并非传统意义上的疫苗，而是一种癌症免疫疗法。将其称为疫苗其实是用词不当。目前我们有多种策略可以训练免疫系统识别癌症、预防复发，包括CAR-T细胞疗法等已经研发数十年的技术，而这正是其中之一。它恰好利用mRNA来诱导产生癌症抗原，也就是那些能够最终训练T细胞识别可能扩散到身体远端、未被手术或初始化疗清除的癌细胞的蛋白质，但它确实不是疫苗。它的作用是训练免疫系统识别癌症，从而预防复发。
玛格丽特·布伦南： 好的。您在首届特朗普政府时期担任FDA局长，我知道您曾表示，截至目前，FDA在应对美国境内的食源性疫情方面表现不错。但HHS正在严厉回击相关批评，称在召回方面，当前的召回数量处于十多年来的最低水平。这是否意味着他们的工作做得非常出色，还是说恰恰相反？
斯科特·戈特利布博士： 是的，你看，我不会用召回数量来衡量他们的工作好坏。召回情况与整体监管项目的有效性并不直接相关。我不认为这个监管项目效果不佳。如果你看看今年的情况，除了那次异常严重的环孢子虫疫情之外，食源性疫情的数量并没有超过往年平均水平。我认为那次疫情暴露出我们从墨西哥部分地区进口农产品存在的严重问题，因为那些地区被贩毒集团控制，墨西哥和美国都无法向那里派遣检查员。至于召回本身，这些大多是自愿召回。FDA历史上仅实施过一次强制召回，那还是2018年我在任期间推动的。所以这些都是企业自愿发起的召回。召回数量下降可能有两种原因：一是企业不愿发起召回，二是他们未能及时发现疫情。实际上，召回数量略有上升。我不会用这个指标来评估整个监管项目的整体有效性。我认为，今年FDA在疾控中心发现疫情后，能够及时介入处理，表现得还算合理。
玛格丽特·布伦南： FDA监管着美国经济约20%的领域，这是一个负责食品和药品监管的重要机构。总统已经提名了新的局长人选，他表示海蒂·奥弗顿博士将成为下一任FDA局长。她将在国会面临一些质疑，其中包括共和党议员。参议员比尔·卡西迪指出，她缺乏管理经验，并且正如他所说，她积极参与了“荒谬的疫苗行政命令”，这让他质疑她是否有勇气捍卫科学和儿童健康。您认为她是一位强有力的候选人吗？
斯科特·戈特利布博士： 我认为她可以成为一位优秀的候选人。你看，她拥有深厚的政策背景，曾在白宫国内政策委员会工作两年，并在该职位上负责监管FDA事务。如果你询问该机构内部的人员，无论是资深职业官员还是政治任命官员，他们都对她的领导能力充满信心。她曾在某些问题上维护该机构，大家认为她帮助他们推进了公共卫生议程。她还参与过新冠疫情应对工作，在新冠疫情早期协助恢复检测工作，与她共事过的人都认为她在这方面表现出色。所以我认为她完全可以胜任这一职位。我认为这一职位首先是政策角色，而非运营角色。你需要身边有优秀的运营人才，要招聘并留住优秀员工并将他们安排在关键岗位上，同时需要各中心的强有力领导。我认为她清楚这一点，她在FDA工作过足够久，明白这一点。但这确实是一个政策岗位，一个政治职位，她确实具备相关经验，而且我认为与白宫建立良好关系非常重要。
玛格丽特·布伦南： 但她将会面临关于她对堕胎药物米非司酮发表的言论的质疑。她似乎暗示希望对该药物实施更多联邦限制。她曾与总统一同出席椭圆形办公室的活动，还称赞欧洲国家不强制要求学生接种疫苗但仍保持高疫苗接种率。您认为她的确认听证会难度会有多大？
斯科特·戈特利布博士： 嗯，你看，我认为她不会因为对疫苗的态度不够“怀疑”而失去选票。但如果人们认为她在该问题上态度软弱，她就可能会失去选票。我认为有三位参议员尤其会对此感到担忧。如果你看看她在X平台上受到的批评，大多来自反疫苗人士。我认为她在这些问题上的立场还算合理。那场新闻发布会确实不太妥当。不幸的是，如今在本届政府中获得高级公共卫生职位，在疫苗问题上表现出一些模棱两可的态度几乎是“入场券”。我希望有人能够坚定明确地支持儿童免疫接种计划和保护儿童的基本疫苗接种措施，但目前我们还没有看到这样的表态。我希望，当她有时间在国会面前解释自己的立场，进行更深入的实质性讨论，而不仅仅是在白宫的新闻发布会上发言时，我们能听到她更周全的想法。这是我的期望，也是我的希望。
玛格丽特·布伦南： 如果听证会安排妥当，我们会持续关注。戈特利布博士，很高兴我们最终恢复了信号，能够听清您的发言。稍后我们会回来。
Transcript: Dr. Scott Gottlieb on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,” Aug. 23, 2026
2026-08-23T13:07:00-0400 / CBS News
The following is the transcript of the interview with former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, who is on the boards of Pfizer and UnitedHealthCare, that aired on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on Aug. 23, 2026.
*
MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to former FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb. He sits on the boards of Pfizer and United Health. Welcome back to Face the Nation. There was some good news this week, and I want to have you weigh in on it. We heard about this experimental mRNA therapeutic cancer vaccine that allows people with high-risk melanoma to live longer. So it- it doesn’t prevent cancer. People hear vaccine, they might think that, but rather it’s a collaboration between Moderna and Merck that is an effective treatment so far. How do you understand this mRNA breakthrough?
DR. SCOTT GOTTLIEB: Yeah, this can be highly significant. This is something that we’ve been working on for 30 or 40 years right now, and what’s changed is that we have the ability to find proteins on the surface of cancer cells that can be used to try to train the immune system to identify cancer and prevent cancer recurrence. And so, this isn’t a vaccine in a traditional sense. This is a form of cancer immunotherapy. We are delivering mRNA to try to train the body on proteins that are found on the surface of cancer cells, so that you can teach the T cells in the body to spot the cancer should it recur. And what the trial demonstrated, and we don’t have the full results, we have to wait for the top line results to come out, but what the trial demonstrated was that it prevents cancer recurrence, so that basically, when the body is trained on these specific antigens, the T cells can be- be able to spot the cancer if it should recur in other parts of the body. I lost sound. I apologize.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Oh, it’s okay. Can you hear me now, Dr. Gottlieb? Can you hear me now? I think we’re trying to fix that. Let me take a quick commercial break, and let’s see if we can get this fixed so all of us can hear each other. We’ll be right back.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to Face the Nation. We have been having some technical issues, but I believe we can now once again hear Dr. Gottlieb, the former FDA commissioner, and that he can hear us. Sorry about those problems there. You can hear us?
DR. SCOTT GOTTLIEB: Thanks.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Great.
DR. SCOTT GOTTLIEB: I can.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I wanted to pick up- when we left you, you had been explaining the promising mRNA research. In terms of what the White House has said about this breakthrough, they said it vindicated HHS’s decision to reduce federal funding of mRNA vaccine research, arguing the private sector can do it. What do you make of that spin?
DR. SCOTT GOTTLIEB: Yeah, look, I think that the statements from HHS pertain, in particular, to mRNA vaccines used for infectious diseases. This is different. Like I said, this is not a vaccine in a traditional sense. It’s a cancer immunotherapy. I think it’s a misnomer to call it a vaccine. There’s a lot of different strategies that we use to try to train the immune system to identify cancer and prevent cancer recurrence right now, including CAR-T cells and other kinds of strategies that have been around for decades. And that’s what this is. It happens to use mRNA to try to elicit those cancer antigens, those cancer proteins that are going to ultimately train T cells to identify cancer that might have spread distant parts of the body and weren’t excised with surgery or with upfront chemotherapy, but it’s not a vaccine. This is training the immune system to identify cancer to prevent recurrence.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, you were the FDA commissioner at the beginning of the first Trump administration, and I know you’ve said to date you think the FDA has been doing a pretty good job handling these foodborne outbreaks that the country has been experiencing. HHS is pushing back pretty hard on any criticism of what’s going on, saying that when it comes to recalls, they’re at the lowest levels in more than a decade. Does that mean they’re doing their job really well, or does that mean they’re not doing their job?
DR. SCOTT GOTTLIEB: Yeah, look, I wouldn’t point to recalls as a measure of whether they’re doing a good job or not doing a good job. Recalls really don’t comport with whether or not the overall program is effective, and I don’t think the program is not being effective. I think if you look at this year, there haven’t been more outbreaks than what we traditionally see, with the exception of that cyclospora outbreak, which was an extraordinary outbreak, and I think points to real problems with produce that we are sourcing from portions of Mexico, where you can’t send in inspectors. The Mexicans and the U.S. can’t send inspectors into those regions because they’re controlled by cartels. As far as the recalls themselves, these are largely voluntary. There’s only been one mandatory recall in the history of FDA. That was back in 2018. We took it when I was there. So these are voluntary recalls by companies, and there could be the fact that recalls are down because companies aren’t taking recalls. It could be that recalls are down because they’re not identifying outbreaks, and in fact, recalls aren’t down. When you look at the actual numbers, recalls are up slightly. It’s just not the- the metric I would point to to assess the overall effectiveness of the program. I think FDA has done a reasonable job this year getting on top of these outbreaks when they’ve been identified by CDC.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The FDA oversees roughly 20% of the U.S. economy. This is an important agency with oversight of food and drugs. The president did make a new selection. He says Dr. Heidi Overton should be the next commissioner. She’s going to face some skeptics in Congress, including Republicans. Senator Bill Cassidy, who cited her lack of managerial experience, and as he put it, her active role in the nonsensical vaccine executive order makes him question her commitment to standing up for science and children’s health. Do you think she’s a strong candidate?
DR. SCOTT GOTTLIEB: I think she could be a strong candidate. Look, she has a deep policy background, having worked in the White House on the Domestic Policy Council for two years and oversaw FDA from that position. If you talk to people inside the agency, both senior career staff as well as the politicals, they feel very confident in her leadership. She has protected the agency on certain issues. They felt that she helped them advance their public health prerogatives. She also worked on the COVID response, trying to get testing back up and running in the early days of COVID, and was effective in that role if you talk to people who work with her. So I think she could be quite good in this role. I think this is first and foremost a policy role. It’s really not an operational role. I think you need to have good operational people around you. You have to hire and retain good people and put them in key roles. You need strong leadership in the centers, and I think she has a sense that- that she needs to do that. She’s been around FDA long enough to know that. But this is a policy role. It’s a political job. She certainly has that experience, and I think having the relationship to the White House is going to be important.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But she’s going to take questions about comments she has made about the abortion drug Mifepristone. She seemed to indicate she wants more federal restrictions on it. She stood next to the president in that Oval Office event where he- and she personally praised European countries who do not mandate vaccines for school but still have high vaccination rates. How tough is this confirmation hearing going to be?
DR. SCOTT GOTTLIEB: Well, look, I don’t think she’s going to lose votes because she’s not skeptical of vaccines enough. I think she’s going to lose votes if people perceive her as being weak on that issue. There’s three senators in particular that I think are going to be concerned about that. And if you look at the criticism she’s been getting on X, it’s mostly from the anti-vaxxers. I think she’s reasonably good on these issues. I think that press conference was unfortunate. I think unfortunately it’s table stakes these days to getting a high-level appointment in a public health job in this administration to evidence some mixed messaging around vaccines. I’d like to see someone make a very full-throated statement in support of the childhood immunization schedule and basic protections for children, that’s not what we’re getting these days. I think hopefully, when she has time to explain herself before Congress and get into this in a more substantive way, and not just a press conference in the White House, you’re going to hear something more thoughtful from her. That’s my expectation. That would be my hope.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We will watch it if that hearing is scheduled. Dr. Gottlieb, I’m glad we got you back, and we could- we could hear you. We’ll be back in a moment.
发表回复