There must be something in the middle.  Bureaucracy needs to be revitalized on a frequent basis so that people don't become too complacent at any particular position.  The general tenet that a successful bureaucrat has more minions under his control needs to be reversed such that smaller and more effective groups within a bureaucratic department are rewarded.  And the power to make decisions needs to be pared down to the bare minimum.

But ultimately, a group of people who are particularly knowledgeable about something are likely to render better contol in the interest of the rest of society than one individual would.  The cost of R&D, and the potential profit from a successful drug are too high to expect one person to remain impartial in determining the safety and permissibility of drugs.  The drug companies would not develop new drugs if they thought they could never get anything to market because of regulations.  But if they have gone to the trouble and expense of developing a new drug and its chances for success in passing muster with the drug reviewing individual are dicey, one person is probably an easier target to discover and apply pressure than a bureaucracy.  

For drugs in particular it may be in our interest to retain a conservative pace.  There are many cases where people get desparate and are willing to throw caution to the wind as soon as some new potential cure is known, whether or not it has been tested and shown to be safe and effective.

Is there some happy medium between a single individual and a pedestrian bureaucracy?  This is definitely something to improve upon with experiments.