4 ms·

“We believe it is inappropriate for the state to substitute its judgment for the judgment of the regulatory, scientific and medical experts at FDA.” If this do

“We believe it is inappropriate for the state to substitute its judgment for the judgment of the regulatory, scientific and medical experts at FDA.” If this doesn't tell you all you need to know about regulatory capture and the FDA...

Nasrudith 8y ago
To be fair I wouldn't want that either - especially depending on the state. The state positions are far too subject to demagoguery for the sake of career advancement. An appointed and tenured agency like the FDA is at least better in that respect that they are more likely to act based upon actual problems with some degree of caution and attention to evidence instead of stirring up panics for the sake of advancement. Unlike literally every 'tough on crime' politician and the abhorrent historical trends. Precisely the reason why they are appointed instead of elected officials.
- fapjacks 8y ago
  You are right, of course, generally speaking. It -- corruption -- seems to be one of humanity's most intractable problems. But just talking only about the FDA specifically, they are clearly in the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry. The FDA makes policy decisions that are highly influenced by pharmaceutical companies and completely counter to the body of scientific evidence. Just go read Scott Gottlieb's Twitter feed. Or do even the most minimal, cursory research on the FDA's history. This may not mean anything to you, but I personally believe that regulatory capture is greater in the FDA than it is in the CPUC, California's hilarious "public" utilities commission.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    Yeah it is all heuristic at this point. There is one radical theoretical solution for regulatory capture that I can see which could have its own issues both economically and incentive wise: regulatory jobs are the last job one takes. In exchange for a lifelong pension they can never work or accept any form of compensation ever again. This would include running their own business and indeeed all forms of compensation including speaking fees and even amenities. You are free to go speak at every Ivy league after retirement but that is essentially just a hobby. It would no doubt be expensive in itself but it could pay off in reduced corruption costs.

Nasrudith 8y ago

To be fair I wouldn't want that either - especially depending on the state. The state positions are far too subject to demagoguery for the sake of career advancement. An appointed and tenured agency like the FDA is at least better in that respect that they are more likely to act based upon actual problems with some degree of caution and attention to evidence instead of stirring up panics for the sake of advancement. Unlike literally every 'tough on crime' politician and the abhorrent historical trends. Precisely the reason why they are appointed instead of elected officials.

fapjacks 8y ago
You are right, of course, generally speaking. It -- corruption -- seems to be one of humanity's most intractable problems. But just talking only about the FDA specifically, they are clearly in the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry. The FDA makes policy decisions that are highly influenced by pharmaceutical companies and completely counter to the body of scientific evidence. Just go read Scott Gottlieb's Twitter feed. Or do even the most minimal, cursory research on the FDA's history. This may not mean anything to you, but I personally believe that regulatory capture is greater in the FDA than it is in the CPUC, California's hilarious "public" utilities commission.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Yeah it is all heuristic at this point. There is one radical theoretical solution for regulatory capture that I can see which could have its own issues both economically and incentive wise: regulatory jobs are the last job one takes. In exchange for a lifelong pension they can never work or accept any form of compensation ever again. This would include running their own business and indeeed all forms of compensation including speaking fees and even amenities. You are free to go speak at every Ivy league after retirement but that is essentially just a hobby. It would no doubt be expensive in itself but it could pay off in reduced corruption costs.