3 ms·
I don't know the details of the testing regimen, but it seems to me that you're offering a false choice fallacy: that we must either do testing the way it's don
by CWuestefeld 12y ago
I don't know the details of the testing regimen, but it seems to me that you're offering a false choice fallacy: that we must either do testing the way it's done today, or not do testing.
While I don't know what the alternative might be, it seems reasonable to assume that there are other levels of intermediate trade-off, where we're willing to accept somewhat higher risk for lesser expense (not to mention faster time-to-market).
- rayiner 12y agoThere are an infinite number of intermediate points in the design space in which you trade off lower testing costs for higher risk. But what does "higher risk" mean? It means nothing other than costs borne by the public. And at $1 million per person-decade, those costs add up really quickly. Those 90-95% of drugs that fail clinical testing have to go somewhere. Cheaper testing might mean that only 75% of drugs fail, and 25% end up in the market. Could this be more efficient overall? Maybe. Or it could be a lot less efficient, since 80% of those drugs are harmful or ineffective and would've failed more stringent testing! It's not testing that makes drug development expensive. That's just the symptom. What makes drug development expensive is that the science doesn't exist to let us improve on that 90-95% number.
- dllthomas 12y ago"the science doesn't exist to let us improve on that 90-95% number." I'd just like to add a note that we more or less know that, because reducing that 90-95% number would be tremendously profitable.