3 ms·

This is sadly true. I've ranted here about the very high cost of regulation in human biotech before. Because veterinary medicine is much, much less regulated i

This is sadly true. I've ranted here about the very high cost of regulation in human biotech before. Because veterinary medicine is much, much less regulated it advances much faster. Sad but true.

kirse 17y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would think that harvesting a batch of puppies for organs/cells probably has far fewer ethical considerations than when messing with people. Since you're all about decreasing the cost of experiments and regulation for humans though, I take it you are going to be one of the first to sign up for the next generation of human experiments that have little to no regulatory standards? All these people complaining about lack of progress in regulated human bio-sciences could probably be put to good use. I think it's pretty easy to examine that increasing the supply of humans willing to advance science in the name of unregulated testing would rapidly drop costs. So let's sign all these complainers up and get them what they want!
- biohacker42 17y ago
  If I may correct you. The ethics of messing with people are not the main barrier, they are no barrier. It's the legal restrictions - the government regulations which make any kind of messing with perfectly willing humans very costly and time intensive. Since you're all about decreasing the cost of experiments and regulation for humans though, I take it you are going to be one of the first to sign up for the next generation of human experiments that have little to no regulatory standards? Yep. But willing volunteers are not in shortage and are also no barrier to the advancement of science. It is once again the regulations, their cost is to the cost of paying human drug testers as Everest is to an ant hill. In other words: You can't give me what I want, because the government is protecting me from me. Only in recent years has the FDA been willing to soften its restriction if I happen to be dying, but even then only if I'm really close to the end. Then I can legally try the cutting edge drugs.
  - kirse 17y ago
    The ethics of messing with people are not the main barrier, they are no barrier. It's the legal restrictions But ethics and morality ARE the barrier. Sure, you have plenty of scientists who wouldn't blink an eye before doing just about anything to a fellow human, but ethics are most certainly the explanation for why these legal restrictions and government regulations are put into place. Just about every core law and regulation put into place has a basis in an ethical judgment. because the government is protecting me from me. You act as if this is a bad thing? Personally I prefer it that scientists far more knowledgeable than myself are doing their best to ensure that I'm not brushing my teeth with lead-laced toothpaste, drinking milk that hasn't been properly prepared, helping to ensure that processes are standardized and providing me with convenient ways to know that I'm not unknowingly poisoning myself, etc. The FDA has done far, far more good than harm in this case. I think if people want to do testing then they should leave the USA. Get out of my country, I don't want it to be legal for scientists to perform borderline unethical treatment on my citizens. Go to China for that, it's really that easy.
    - jacoblyles 17y ago
      >"The FDA has done far, far more good than harm in this case." How sure are you of that? I am certain that the organization is structured to make many more type II than type I errors, and I would guess that type II errors cause at least the same magnitude of harm and they are, by their nature, much harder to measure. Random paper on the topic: http://repositories.cdlib.org/pep/96-2/ http://repositories.cdlib.org/pep/96-2/
    - sho 17y ago
      "I don't want it to be legal for scientists to perform borderline unethical treatment on my citizens." Huh? You've got it completely backwards. What is really unethical is retarding process, and not allowing people to have the best possible medical care. If there's a huge breakthrough in medical technology - and stem cells appear to be such a breakthrough - by denying it to people without an excellent reason you are causing untold, needless suffering. "Go to China for that, it's really that easy." I never thought I'd see the day where an American told another to go to China to get the innovative medical care they need because the USA was too bogged down in bureaucratic mire. Is it opposite day or something?
- sgibat 17y ago
  I'm not sure which fallacy you're committing, but I'm sure it is one. Someone can wish for others to have the ability to make certain choices while not necessarily wishing to make that choice themselves. Maybe your parent post doesn't want to, but I'm sure lots of very sick people would be willing to try almost anything.

This is sadly true. I've ranted here about the very high cost of regulation in human biotech before. Because veterinary medicine is much, much less regulated it advances much faster. Sad but true.

kirse 17y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would think that harvesting a batch of puppies for organs/cells probably has far fewer ethical considerations than when messing with people. Since you're all about decreasing the cost of experiments and regulation for humans though, I take it you are going to be one of the first to sign up for the next generation of human experiments that have little to no regulatory standards? All these people complaining about lack of progress in regulated human bio-sciences could probably be put to good use. I think it's pretty easy to examine that increasing the supply of humans willing to advance science in the name of unregulated testing would rapidly drop costs. So let's sign all these complainers up and get them what they want!

biohacker42 17y ago
If I may correct you. The ethics of messing with people are not the main barrier, they are no barrier. It's the legal restrictions - the government regulations which make any kind of messing with perfectly willing humans very costly and time intensive. Since you're all about decreasing the cost of experiments and regulation for humans though, I take it you are going to be one of the first to sign up for the next generation of human experiments that have little to no regulatory standards? Yep. But willing volunteers are not in shortage and are also no barrier to the advancement of science. It is once again the regulations, their cost is to the cost of paying human drug testers as Everest is to an ant hill. In other words: You can't give me what I want, because the government is protecting me from me. Only in recent years has the FDA been willing to soften its restriction if I happen to be dying, but even then only if I'm really close to the end. Then I can legally try the cutting edge drugs.
- kirse 17y ago
  The ethics of messing with people are not the main barrier, they are no barrier. It's the legal restrictions But ethics and morality ARE the barrier. Sure, you have plenty of scientists who wouldn't blink an eye before doing just about anything to a fellow human, but ethics are most certainly the explanation for why these legal restrictions and government regulations are put into place. Just about every core law and regulation put into place has a basis in an ethical judgment. because the government is protecting me from me. You act as if this is a bad thing? Personally I prefer it that scientists far more knowledgeable than myself are doing their best to ensure that I'm not brushing my teeth with lead-laced toothpaste, drinking milk that hasn't been properly prepared, helping to ensure that processes are standardized and providing me with convenient ways to know that I'm not unknowingly poisoning myself, etc. The FDA has done far, far more good than harm in this case. I think if people want to do testing then they should leave the USA. Get out of my country, I don't want it to be legal for scientists to perform borderline unethical treatment on my citizens. Go to China for that, it's really that easy.
  - jacoblyles 17y ago
    >"The FDA has done far, far more good than harm in this case." How sure are you of that? I am certain that the organization is structured to make many more type II than type I errors, and I would guess that type II errors cause at least the same magnitude of harm and they are, by their nature, much harder to measure. Random paper on the topic: http://repositories.cdlib.org/pep/96-2/ http://repositories.cdlib.org/pep/96-2/
  - sho 17y ago
    "I don't want it to be legal for scientists to perform borderline unethical treatment on my citizens." Huh? You've got it completely backwards. What is really unethical is retarding process, and not allowing people to have the best possible medical care. If there's a huge breakthrough in medical technology - and stem cells appear to be such a breakthrough - by denying it to people without an excellent reason you are causing untold, needless suffering. "Go to China for that, it's really that easy." I never thought I'd see the day where an American told another to go to China to get the innovative medical care they need because the USA was too bogged down in bureaucratic mire. Is it opposite day or something?
sgibat 17y ago
I'm not sure which fallacy you're committing, but I'm sure it is one. Someone can wish for others to have the ability to make certain choices while not necessarily wishing to make that choice themselves. Maybe your parent post doesn't want to, but I'm sure lots of very sick people would be willing to try almost anything.