I'm tentatively in favor of reevaluating the FDA, as I've argued at length elsewhere. The question to consider is whether the FDA's expensive ex-ante regulation

I'm tentatively in favor of reevaluating the FDA, as I've argued at length elsewhere. The question to consider is whether the FDA's expensive ex-ante regulation does more good than harm when compared with cheaper ex-post liability rules, especially in light of the FDA's incentive to be more cautious than is socially optimal. I have strong doubts that the agency does more good than harm in light of the massive costs it imposes on medical research.