On a case by case basis you might have a point, but over time we have tons of statistics on how many drug trials fail and hurt people, vs succeed and save peopl

On a case by case basis you might have a point, but over time we have tons of statistics on how many drug trials fail and hurt people, vs succeed and save people. It would be relatively easy to calculate the risk/benefit objectively. That's also an ideal use case for prediction markets, if you want to get really good predictions. Also, I've heard this argument used before in other contexts. Do people really believe that because you can't make perfect predictions, you should default to inaction? That's just silly. You do the best with what you know and believe. And if you really believe your predictions are wrong, then you can just adjust them accordingly and make them correct. If you don't believe that, then you obviously wouldn't find that argument convincing in the first place.