Things Heard: e199v3
Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011 at
10:54 am
Good morning to y’all.
- An idea … seems not so good to me. Whaddya all think?
- American cryptography done right, a last survivor passes on.
- So, what in the FDA is being done to cut this time to market down. If the answer is “nothing” as I suspect it is, then the FDA is failing its primary function.
- Mr Obama on OWS, Chicago hasn’t to my knowledge had a big OWS presence compared to other cities, but the smell of human waste was quite noticeable last weekend.
- While I’d agree that continued employment and bonus should be tied to performance, I’m not convinced “standardized tests” are a good metric.
- Mr Wright noted approvingly.
- Perhaps not the expected reaction given the litany of events?
- A closeup of an unusual missile launch, and I have to say this is a (welcome) contrast to the Vietnam era drug abuse means of dealing with stress and boredom.
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
So, you’re asking for a socialist, “do as we say” sort of regulatory environment, instead of one driven by markets well-regulated?
The problems McArdle cites in her brief post are problems of capitalism — we don’t know the winners before the race is run. She makes no mention of FDA having a role that makes a problem FDA can fix.
Democrats have called for greatly increased research budgets at NIH and NSF, and that research could speed some of this drug development — but conservatives say we can’t afford to do that. Gotta let Warren Buffet make as much money as possible, can’t afford more research.
Will you write your congressman to correct that view and urge more federal spending?
Here’s FDA’s story: http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143534.htm
Ed,
So to counter the spending and costs of FDA obstruction you suggest we spend even more public money?
And yes, I know Ms McArdle didn’t write about the FDA. I asked a question that came to mind reading her post. That’s all. And you’ve given the knee jerk left answer. Can you offer any original notions?
The FDA is the “Food and Drug Administration” … one would think it’s mandate would be positive not negative, which is how it is taken.
You offer no evidence of any FDA obstruction. FDA has been underfunded for 20 years, and yes, responsible Americans would support increasing its budget in order to provide better watchdog results.
Of course, if your paycheck comes from poisoning babies, then you would want to continue to undercut the work of FDA. Perhaps you operate a company that cheats on the stuff you put into food, or you sell tainted “drugs.” Then you’d want to continue to underfund FDA.
The rest of us kinda like the babies we have, and want to protect them.
The question that came to your mind, Mark, is one FDA asked 30 years ago, and answered. In the links I offered, you could have read about the New Drug Application Process (NDA) and expedited NDAs, and how they have been used to speed the development of life-saving drugs a lot over the past 30 years.
One would hope that people who like babies wouldn’t be taking completely unjustified pot shots at FDA. FDA’s mandate is a positive one, and shame on you for casting unwarranted aspersions. You owe them an apology.
Ed,
Your not making any sense. You first cite (and praise as if cost free) the regulatory actions of the FDA keeping those “tainted” drugs from babies. These are all negative actions. Then you offer that the FDA’s mandate is a positive one (after citing praising their negative mandate).
I apparently owe them an apology for your confusion? Listing a bunch of negative actions and requesting a apology for a claim that they don’t do positive things doesn’t make sense.
Look. If I build a thing, grow something, or make something possible (finance, organize, or do something) those are all positive activities. If I prevent you from doing something (proscribing, restricting via licensing or taxing) those is negative.
The “NDA” is an “expediting” in that it speeds the process through the FDAs own regulatory morass. This is not positive, just a little less negative. Actual real life positive things an FDA could do would be to indemnify those with FDA approval from suit or providing the actual testing procedures and frameworks instead of just regulating them.
Sorry, Mark, I didn’t realize you’d slipped into the Bizarro world. Help me understand:
1. Seatbelts in cars are negative mandates.
2. Proper nutrition is a negative action set.
3. Learning how to swim so you don’t drown, as the YMCA and Red Cross teach, is negative action.
4. A flu shot is a negative response.
5. Brakelights on a car are negative signs.
6. The Scout helping the old lady across the street is committing a negative action (though I’m really unclear on this one — but it’s akin to the Expedited NDA process) (the Scout didn’t build the street, nor the crosswalk, nor the traffic light).
7. Throwing a life ring to a drowning swimmer encumbers the victim with negative activity.
You don’t know what you’re talking about, you didn’t bother to check to see what FDA actually does on this issue, but I’m wrong.
Be careful sailing around the corners of the ocean, eh?
And, by the way, nothing in any of your original links suggests that FDA is in any way an obstacle in the development of new drugs. If you read McArdle and her sources, they point to the fact that no one knows how a drug will perform, no one knows how effective a drug may be, no one knows what the side effects might be — and so drug development is highly iffy.
FDA doesn’t make the laws of chemistry, you know.
You do know that, right?
Ed,
I guess my explanation of negative vs positive didn’t make any sense to you. Not one of your list of 7 negative actions are actually negative actions. A negative action is a restriction on action like a regulation. Not one of those items is like that.
Furthermore, I haven’t said that negative mandates are all bad, which conclusion you seem to be assuming. A negative action imposes a cost, that cost may be outweighed by a larger benefit, which should be established before imposing the negative.
Look at your list.
1. Creating seatbelts is a positive thing. Requiring them is the negative.
2. Proper nutrition is a concept. It is not a positive or negative action. Teaching it is a positive action. Requiring it by regulation would be a negative.
3. Learning to swim is positive. Requiring that is negative.
4. A flu shot is neither. Making vaccine is positive.
5. Brakelights are neither.
6. Helping someone cross the street is a positive action. Requiring (for example) that elderly be helped when crossing streets would be negative.
7. Throwing a life ring is positive. Requiring that the swimmer use it would be negative.
The FDA by requiring high levels of regulatory scrutiny and checks for drug sale is a high level of regulatory (negative) action. This slows development of drugs. The question was what does the FDA do to facilitate drug research and development. Apparently you don’t think they do at all. I offered two ways in which this might be done.
So?