This is an example where researchers bury their heads in their PhDs and their research funding, instead of helping their Society.

Perhaps a bit harsh.

But why are we not investing in social and chemical solutions to addiction?

Do we want to be buried by their bodies?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/09/shocking-picture-of-ohio-couple-apparently-overdosing-with-child/

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/29/upshot/fentanyl-drug-overdose-deaths.html

https://fox17online.com/2018/12/29/opioid-deaths-in-children-on-the-rise/

C'mon people, grow a conscience, alright

I'll be the first to agree with you that the last thing we need right now is another opioid on the market and that there is a significant risk that such a drug will worsen the opioid epidemic. We should be doing everything we can to prevent or mitigate the harms that arise from prescription opioid misuse and use disorder. If it were up to me, we would not allow this drug to enter the market. However, it's not up to me, and so generating effective solutions requires that we consider multiple components to this problem. For example, take a step back and think about the fact that FDA is constrained by U.S. law to serve very specific evaluative and regulatory purposes and has established processes that it must apply fairly to all pharmaceutical companies. Consider the following quote from a New Yorker article about the approval of Zohydro:

" But he also chastised the expert panel for some of their more pointedly critical remarks about Zohydro ER, observing that they were “punishing this company and this drug because of the sins of the previous developers and their products” and that “from a regulatory standpoint, that’s not something we can do.” He explained that as long as the drug met F.D.A. requirements, it ought to pass muster; Zohydro ER could not be scapegoated simply by virtue of being an opioid. “We are obligated at the agency to operate within the regulatory framework,” he said, “and that includes providing a level playing field for industry. We don’t have a choice by that. It’s the law.” " - (Source: https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/why-did-the-f-d-a-approve-a-new-pain-drug)

So perhaps some solutions could center around re-defining how FDA officially evaluates "risk" so that in the case of opioids, it is clear that risks outweigh the benefits - which then, by its own rules, forces FDA not to approve. That could perhaps then force companies to only to submit applications for opioids with strong abuse deterrent formulations. Obviously this is not a perfect solution, but I do think this is the sort of path we want to consider more seriously.