4 ms·

Question: Would it be awesome if FDA allowed Pharma to conduct drug-tests like this? Put a "beta-2.9" on the vial and let people try it out... Some may die, be

by mritun 5y ago

Question: Would it be awesome if FDA allowed Pharma to conduct drug-tests like this? Put a "beta-2.9" on the vial and let people try it out... Some may die, be disabled or may linger in vegetative state life-long, but it was their choice afterall and the it can argued that medicinal side-effects are very small cause of mortality and hence long-term the "public beta tests" will make drugs more effective and save more lives!

CreepGin 5y ago
Depends on how much the drug costs. If it costs 100k a pop, then I don't see the general public being affected by it too much. RIP those brave rich souls.
- mritun 5y ago
  General public is affected. A Tesla can cause accident on a public road with other drivers on the road, or cause a cascade or a pile-on - innocent bystanders can die or be injured.
colinmhayes 5y ago
I think the difference is releasing self driving provides the data Tesla needs to improve it. Releasing a half baked drug doesn't help the pharma company improve it. If you're asking whether that would be awesome if it lead to pharmaceutical innovations I think it would.
- flutas 5y ago
  > I think the difference is releasing self driving provides the data Tesla needs to improve it. Releasing a half baked drug doesn't help the pharma company improve it. The pharma company could see results (self-driving car data) and figure out what caused the issues (details of the deaths in pharma, accidents in Tesla) and use that to make the next beta version. I don't really see how that isn't an apt analogy. It's called clinical trials for pharma the key point being it's opt in and doesn't affect anyone around the subject, unlike Tesla's autopilot beta.
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  > Releasing a half baked drug doesn't help the pharma company improve it. Sure it does. It identifies cases where the drug may have unexpected side effects so either the chemistry, dosage, or expected risk factors can be refined.
edude03 5y ago
I'm pretty sure this is a logical fallacy. In the case of medications it's actually a fairly common situation where a patient has a terminal illness that there is no treatment available for, but you can get it on "the blackmarket" and in that case, it's either die for sure, or maybe not die, and in that case having a beta makes sense - it ensures you're atleast getting the thing you think you're getting. To me autonomous vehicles are similar - the people who have access to them know they're not perfect, but they're willing to spend the money because they think it's better than the alternative
- mritun 5y ago
  Better than the `alternative` ?... which is drive the car like everyone else? Why do Tesla drivers get the privilege to beta-test their cars on public road with everyone else around and potentially in their kill-zone?
  - edude03 5y ago
    Why does anyone get to drive on public roads? This seems to be what this entire thread is about. Are you against Tesla owners in particular? I can hit and kill someone in any car with or without driver assist technologies. Are you worried that it's more likely that I will kill someone while using technology that is invented to make that less likely?

by mritun 5y ago

CreepGin 5y ago

Depends on how much the drug costs. If it costs 100k a pop, then I don't see the general public being affected by it too much. RIP those brave rich souls.

mritun 5y ago
General public is affected. A Tesla can cause accident on a public road with other drivers on the road, or cause a cascade or a pile-on - innocent bystanders can die or be injured.

colinmhayes 5y ago

I think the difference is releasing self driving provides the data Tesla needs to improve it. Releasing a half baked drug doesn't help the pharma company improve it. If you're asking whether that would be awesome if it lead to pharmaceutical innovations I think it would.

flutas 5y ago
> I think the difference is releasing self driving provides the data Tesla needs to improve it. Releasing a half baked drug doesn't help the pharma company improve it. The pharma company could see results (self-driving car data) and figure out what caused the issues (details of the deaths in pharma, accidents in Tesla) and use that to make the next beta version. I don't really see how that isn't an apt analogy. It's called clinical trials for pharma the key point being it's opt in and doesn't affect anyone around the subject, unlike Tesla's autopilot beta.
AlexandrB 5y ago
> Releasing a half baked drug doesn't help the pharma company improve it. Sure it does. It identifies cases where the drug may have unexpected side effects so either the chemistry, dosage, or expected risk factors can be refined.

edude03 5y ago

I'm pretty sure this is a logical fallacy. In the case of medications it's actually a fairly common situation where a patient has a terminal illness that there is no treatment available for, but you can get it on "the blackmarket" and in that case, it's either die for sure, or maybe not die, and in that case having a beta makes sense - it ensures you're atleast getting the thing you think you're getting. To me autonomous vehicles are similar - the people who have access to them know they're not perfect, but they're willing to spend the money because they think it's better than the alternative

mritun 5y ago
Better than the `alternative` ?... which is drive the car like everyone else? Why do Tesla drivers get the privilege to beta-test their cars on public road with everyone else around and potentially in their kill-zone?
- edude03 5y ago
  Why does anyone get to drive on public roads? This seems to be what this entire thread is about. Are you against Tesla owners in particular? I can hit and kill someone in any car with or without driver assist technologies. Are you worried that it's more likely that I will kill someone while using technology that is invented to make that less likely?