4 ms·

True, but it isn't the case that we know how to repair blood vessels or regrow limbs in other vertebrates. Medical regulations haven't retarded basic research,

True, but it isn't the case that we know how to repair blood vessels or regrow limbs in other vertebrates. Medical regulations haven't retarded basic research, it's just that biology is fundamentally very complex and most medical progress amounts to diligent iteration of inspired guesswork and observation.

WalterBright 6y ago
People are not likely to invest in research and development without a corresponding probability of making money off of it. The regulations make that very difficult.
- elil17 6y ago
  That’s why the government provides drug research grants and 20-year drug monopolies (aka patents)
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    Nowhere near enough to compensate for the costs and delays of the regulations, unless it is a blockbuster drug. Government research grants are doled out by a bureaucratic committee unwilling to take risks - so the grants are for safe, incremental, conservative, political gains. (After all, the committee has to answer to whoever their oversight bureaucrats are.) This is not where game-changing innovation comes from.
smabie 6y ago
It's pretty hard to know the path not taken. I used to work at the FDA, and let me tell you, they're basic reason for existence is to slow down innovation. Many think it's worth it, but I personally believe that their risk aversion has hurt much more people than it has helped. But from a political perspective, it's the right move because no one is going to blame you for hypothetically preventing some life-saving wonder drug from existing; they're going to blame you for approving some drug that kills a bunch of people. In the first case, the harm is almost impossible to quantify or even reason about, in the second case the harm is direct and known.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  That's exactly what's researched in the book: "Regulation of Pharmaceutical Innovation" by Sam Peltzman

WalterBright 6y ago

People are not likely to invest in research and development without a corresponding probability of making money off of it. The regulations make that very difficult.

elil17 6y ago
That’s why the government provides drug research grants and 20-year drug monopolies (aka patents)
- WalterBright 6y ago
  Nowhere near enough to compensate for the costs and delays of the regulations, unless it is a blockbuster drug. Government research grants are doled out by a bureaucratic committee unwilling to take risks - so the grants are for safe, incremental, conservative, political gains. (After all, the committee has to answer to whoever their oversight bureaucrats are.) This is not where game-changing innovation comes from.

smabie 6y ago

It's pretty hard to know the path not taken. I used to work at the FDA, and let me tell you, they're basic reason for existence is to slow down innovation. Many think it's worth it, but I personally believe that their risk aversion has hurt much more people than it has helped. But from a political perspective, it's the right move because no one is going to blame you for hypothetically preventing some life-saving wonder drug from existing; they're going to blame you for approving some drug that kills a bunch of people. In the first case, the harm is almost impossible to quantify or even reason about, in the second case the harm is direct and known.

WalterBright 6y ago
That's exactly what's researched in the book: "Regulation of Pharmaceutical Innovation" by Sam Peltzman