know-how to conduct such analyses, by sifting through the scientific evidence to determine the most. accurate and up-to-date information regarding a particular drug, and how those data affect human usage”); Schering Corp. v. Food & Drug Admin., 51 F.3d 390, 399 (3d Cir.1995). The Circuit has stated that the FDA’s “judgment as to what is required to ascertain the safety and efficiency of drugs falls squarely within the ambit of the FDA’s expertise and merit deference” from the courts. A.L. Pharma, Inc. v. Shalala, 62 F.3d 1484, 1490 (D.C.Cir.1995) (quoting Sobering, 51 F.3d at 399). This high degree of deference has been applied to the FDA’s determinations regarding which methodologies it determines are needed to test the bioequivalency of a given generic. See Serono, 158 F.3d at 1325 (<HOLDING>); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Shalala, 923
holding that we show  deference to an agencys conclusions in the area of its expertise holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference holding that agencys construction of statute it was charged with enforcing was entitled to deference because it was reasonable in line with the statutes meaning and related to its expertise holding that an rld manufacturer was unlikely to succeed on its challenge to the fdas reliance on animal studies to establish the bioequivalency of a proposed generic because courts are bound to show deference to the agencys factfinding in this area of its technical expertise holding that animal studies can be a proper foundation for an experts opinion but that those opinions must be sufficiently supported by the animal studies on which they purport to rely