4 ms·

There is a fundamental difference between snapchat and medical tests. You cannot approach one as you approach the other. I have worked for a medical software co

There is a fundamental difference between snapchat and medical tests. You cannot approach one as you approach the other. I have worked for a medical software company and the atmosphere is completely different from the usual move-fast-break-things culture at other places. You digitally sign for every line of code you write or review, every test you write, every test you say is working. If a single bug is found in your code, after deployment, it is traced back to the tester, dev and manager and it is counted against their performance. TL;DR people die when you move fast and break things in medicine, and your company gets sued for millions of dollars.

_audakel 10y ago
Beign at either extreme, moving too fast or moving too slow, is problematic. A related field to medical is the Space + Rocket industry. Heavily regulated and if you make a mistake people die. For much of the lifetime of the industry, NASA was the best there was. They embraced a "zero bug" mentality (http://www.jamesshore.com/Agile-Book/no_bugs.html http://www.jamesshore.com/Agile-Book/no_bugs.html). It resulted in very slow and costly development and we accepted that as the way things where, ie very expensive and little progress. SpaceX came in with a move fast and break things mentality. They did not approach this in the way that had always been done (move slow and make no mistakes). They have greatly reduced cost and increased capability to a level that arguably would never have been reached by NASA, all without loss of life. We don't need to test or develop medical in a haphazard way, but do have to accept that the way things work currently will not result many advancements (at least not rapid advancements). FDA regulations are fine until you realize that you have a currently incurable medial condition, and wonder if medical innovation was easier if you would have a cure. Is the regulation to ease fear of a potential death/injury worth the many real deaths of people who we do not have treatments for?
- CaptainZapp 10y ago
  They have greatly reduced cost and increased capability to a level that arguably would never have been reached by NASA, all without loss of life. Well, they haven't attempted manned space flight yet, have they?

_audakel 10y ago

Beign at either extreme, moving too fast or moving too slow, is problematic. A related field to medical is the Space + Rocket industry. Heavily regulated and if you make a mistake people die. For much of the lifetime of the industry, NASA was the best there was. They embraced a "zero bug" mentality (http://www.jamesshore.com/Agile-Book/no_bugs.html http://www.jamesshore.com/Agile-Book/no_bugs.html). It resulted in very slow and costly development and we accepted that as the way things where, ie very expensive and little progress. SpaceX came in with a move fast and break things mentality. They did not approach this in the way that had always been done (move slow and make no mistakes). They have greatly reduced cost and increased capability to a level that arguably would never have been reached by NASA, all without loss of life. We don't need to test or develop medical in a haphazard way, but do have to accept that the way things work currently will not result many advancements (at least not rapid advancements). FDA regulations are fine until you realize that you have a currently incurable medial condition, and wonder if medical innovation was easier if you would have a cure. Is the regulation to ease fear of a potential death/injury worth the many real deaths of people who we do not have treatments for?

CaptainZapp 10y ago
They have greatly reduced cost and increased capability to a level that arguably would never have been reached by NASA, all without loss of life. Well, they haven't attempted manned space flight yet, have they?