9 ms·
The only downside is in the other case people die before they pay.
by mukyu 16y ago
The only downside is in the other case people die before they pay.
- jacoblyles 16y agoLots of people die from not getting life-saving drugs because they are held up by the FDA too, including drugs which are already available and shown to be effective in other countries with less strict regulatory regimes. The net lives-saved statistic of FDA regulation is really hard to calculate. But assuming that you have some number of lives-saved in mind, you have to ask yourself if that number is worth delaying pharmaceutical research. Maybe your counter-factual world is downright apocalyptic - I don't think that's likely. But if so it makes sense to have strict regulation. There are some scholars of the issue that think the lives-saved number of FDA regulation is negative, in which case of course the cost is not worth it. edit: I removed an illogical claim that may make follow up comments make less sense.
- krschultz 16y agoYou've thrown around the number 90% for both the amount of money the FDA delays drugs and the amount of time it delays it. Which says to me you are just pulling numbers out of thin air here.
- jacoblyles 16y agoI read a few places before that 90% of the cost of developing a drug occurs after clinical trials begin but I have things to do other than write HN comments so I didn't look it up again. I will be happy if someone else finds a reference to support or deny that and will happily admit I am wrong if I am. Of course I'm totally wrong about the 90% delay I put in this last comment, I was thinking about this on the way to the office. If we're thinking about the added cost of regulation we have to compare the cost of regulation to what drug companies would spend on clinical trials in an alternative regime, and that number is not $0.