4 ms·

I would say, a better approach would be to have better checks and balances in play. Maybe he falsified research, why was it recommended as a standard procedure

I would say, a better approach would be to have better checks and balances in play. Maybe he falsified research, why was it recommended as a standard procedure by European Medical Guidelines without proper evaluation? I would hold them criminally liable before I hold the researchers liable.

jessriedel 2y ago
Why? Like, from the practical standpoint I understand why we need procedures that are robust to individual evil actors. But, from a moral standpoint, if you prove unambiguous fraud by a very brilliant person who has been entrusted with incredible resources and freedom by the public, why shouldn’t that person go to jail? Civil engineers understand the seriousness of their job, and medical researchers should too. (And of course, many do understand, and very few commit unambiguous fraud.)
- SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
  Agree but… What if it isn’t a person you can point to, but rather a company? And what if you can’t jail a company, but you can fine them. And what if the fine ends up just being the “cost of doing business” to the company? Which company received the largest criminal fine ever handed out? Hint, it’s a pharmaceutical company.
  - graemep 2y ago
    A company is made up of people. A fraud like this (i.e. actually involving falsifying data) would have to be done by an individual or a group of individuals. They can be jailed. if there are aspects of it (e.g. inadequate procedures and checks that fall short of criminal by any identifiable people) then you need fines that are too large to be just a cost of doing business.
    - SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
      Pfizer was the answer, 2 billion.
hodgesrm 2y ago
That seems like prosecuting the police for a crime committed by someone else. How does that change incentives in a productive way?
- darth_avocado 2y ago
  But it is not like that. The research was a fraud. It didn’t kill anyone. Once it was recommended by European Medical Guidelines, it started killing people. I would argue negligence on their part. It’s like this: If a factory somewhere knowingly provides subpar nuts and bolts. And then Boeing puts them in all their planes without proper testing. If a plane crashes, who is liable? There’s definitely wrongdoing on the factory’s part, but who would you as a victim sue first?
  - DSMan195276 2y ago
    > without proper testing What would 'proper testing' look like and how long would it take? That's the real rub here. Ultimately you have to apply such a policy to everything because you won't know what's fraudulent, so how many lives are saved vs. lost by introducing a delay (which could be years in the worst case)?
    - darth_avocado 2y ago
      Which is why things are the way they are
      - DSMan195276 2y ago
        What way is that? Do you think medical research has overall cost more lives than it saved in the last ~20ish years? Obviously nobody is happy this happened, but you haven't proposed an alternative that would clearly be better.
bluGill 2y ago
If someone legitimately discovers something better how long do you wait - killing people in the process - to ensure it really is better? Mostly we assume researchers are honest (which is probably true).
- darth_avocado 2y ago
  But that’s true for all medical trials. If someone discovered a new drug that works, why wait for multiple rounds of human trials and then approvals from the proper authorities?
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Many millions of lives would have been saved if we didn't wait. There is good reason we wait, but it isn't perfect.
  - pvaldes 2y ago
    Because the drug could work really well into doing what is supposed to do, but still generate totally unsuspected and catastrophic collateral effects in other areas. Effects that could be hidden until some time pass and everybody is using the product. Nobody wants the tragedy of Thalidomide happening again.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  > Mostly we assume researchers are honest (which is probably true). I'd guess the average researcher is as honest and as fallible as the average human. They aren't gods, certainly they can have personal or political motiviations, become blinded by ambition, or succumb to pressure from others, or from potential personal financial or power gains.

jessriedel 2y ago

Why? Like, from the practical standpoint I understand why we need procedures that are robust to individual evil actors. But, from a moral standpoint, if you prove unambiguous fraud by a very brilliant person who has been entrusted with incredible resources and freedom by the public, why shouldn’t that person go to jail? Civil engineers understand the seriousness of their job, and medical researchers should too. (And of course, many do understand, and very few commit unambiguous fraud.)

SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
Agree but… What if it isn’t a person you can point to, but rather a company? And what if you can’t jail a company, but you can fine them. And what if the fine ends up just being the “cost of doing business” to the company? Which company received the largest criminal fine ever handed out? Hint, it’s a pharmaceutical company.
- graemep 2y ago
  A company is made up of people. A fraud like this (i.e. actually involving falsifying data) would have to be done by an individual or a group of individuals. They can be jailed. if there are aspects of it (e.g. inadequate procedures and checks that fall short of criminal by any identifiable people) then you need fines that are too large to be just a cost of doing business.
  - SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
    Pfizer was the answer, 2 billion.

hodgesrm 2y ago

That seems like prosecuting the police for a crime committed by someone else. How does that change incentives in a productive way?

darth_avocado 2y ago
But it is not like that. The research was a fraud. It didn’t kill anyone. Once it was recommended by European Medical Guidelines, it started killing people. I would argue negligence on their part. It’s like this: If a factory somewhere knowingly provides subpar nuts and bolts. And then Boeing puts them in all their planes without proper testing. If a plane crashes, who is liable? There’s definitely wrongdoing on the factory’s part, but who would you as a victim sue first?
- DSMan195276 2y ago
  > without proper testing What would 'proper testing' look like and how long would it take? That's the real rub here. Ultimately you have to apply such a policy to everything because you won't know what's fraudulent, so how many lives are saved vs. lost by introducing a delay (which could be years in the worst case)?
  - darth_avocado 2y ago
    Which is why things are the way they are
    - DSMan195276 2y ago
      What way is that? Do you think medical research has overall cost more lives than it saved in the last ~20ish years? Obviously nobody is happy this happened, but you haven't proposed an alternative that would clearly be better.

bluGill 2y ago

If someone legitimately discovers something better how long do you wait - killing people in the process - to ensure it really is better? Mostly we assume researchers are honest (which is probably true).

darth_avocado 2y ago
But that’s true for all medical trials. If someone discovered a new drug that works, why wait for multiple rounds of human trials and then approvals from the proper authorities?
- bluGill 2y ago
  Many millions of lives would have been saved if we didn't wait. There is good reason we wait, but it isn't perfect.
- pvaldes 2y ago
  Because the drug could work really well into doing what is supposed to do, but still generate totally unsuspected and catastrophic collateral effects in other areas. Effects that could be hidden until some time pass and everybody is using the product. Nobody wants the tragedy of Thalidomide happening again.
SoftTalker 2y ago
> Mostly we assume researchers are honest (which is probably true). I'd guess the average researcher is as honest and as fallible as the average human. They aren't gods, certainly they can have personal or political motiviations, become blinded by ambition, or succumb to pressure from others, or from potential personal financial or power gains.