I didn't say that anyone wanted to abandon safety. I said that they wanted to deprioritize safety, presumably to increase successful drug development. > Maybe

I didn't say that anyone wanted to abandon safety. I said that they wanted to deprioritize safety, presumably to increase successful drug development. > Maybe we can find some other way to test drugs that is cheaper per useful drug than the current system and equivalent or better in terms of safety to humans. Maybe. But we should start at a place of shared understanding. HN is notorious for "if they just"isms with regards to other fields. Consequently, I think it's fair to point out that the thing that most people are lamenting (strict adherence to standards, extremely conservative trial progression) are attached to a value (avoiding harm to humans). If people are advocating to upend the apple cart, then they don't just get to say "We want to continue to prioritize safety and also not do some things that increase safety." Personally? I'd be fine with an informed consent alternative that helped speed through population-targeted or riskier drugs. Better to have options. But implementing that system would have costs.