People own the decisions
Subject-matter experts are accountable for the correctness and suitability of analyses and conclusions.
Our position is neither blanket rejection nor uncritical adoption. We support careful, context-specific AI use when transparency, validation, data protections and qualified human oversight remain central.
AI may accelerate scientific discovery and operational workflows. In regulated research, the standard must always be evidence that can be inspected, challenged, reproduced, and trusted.
Subject-matter experts are accountable for the correctness and suitability of analyses and conclusions.
A model’s intended task, assumptions, boundaries and failure modes should be explicit.
The stronger the potential influence on patient safety or regulatory decisions, the greater the need for evidence of performance.
Never put patient-level, sponsor-confidential or regulated information into unauthorized public AI tools.
Retain provenance, revisions, code and review records appropriate to the regulated workflow.
Model versions, input drift and evolving agency expectations require ongoing evaluation.
FDA and EMA jointly published ten guiding principles for good AI practice in drug development in January 2026. FDA has also published a draft guidance proposing a risk-based credibility assessment framework for certain AI models used to support regulatory decision-making.
COTA advocates responsible AI practices. This page does not claim COTA currently deploys validated AI in regulated study deliverables.
Bring us the question, the protocol, or the challenge. We'll help map the next move.