It would have been longer in Europe. You know why, because meticulous review is quintessential for safety of patients/clinical trial participants. Priorities are different in different countries. Efficiency is important. But never at the cost of safety.
-
-
-
But what about the safety of patients that currently have diseases that might be treated with this? Why isn't THAT considered?
-
Safety SHOULD sometimes be sacrificed if it means greater overall chance of saving life.
-
you don't need to sacrifice safety to calculate a reasonable balance between risk & benefit. regulations in the US & Europe have pretty clearly gone over the top and sacrificed reward potential for little or no safety benefit. this can be fixed without following China.
@BeatSpath -
Just suppose a risk assessment takes 6 years and never comes to a different conclusion than the same RA in another geography. Well this is what happens. No benefits on safety, just delaying global innovation
-
What if it takes 6 months.
-
that would be much better than what we face now. the real Q to be answered is why are we still doing RAs for the thousandth iteration of something that has been grown on millions of hectares, consumed in billions of meals, never having caused a single problem?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Not unrelated: in China abortions are free to anyone and sometimes mandatory. You cannot separate human trials of CRISPR/Cas9 from fertility politics. The technology uses embryos, and lot of them. The research goals are a ethical mine field. Don't envy China too hard.
-
I honestly don't give a fuck about embryos. China is going to eat our lunch in science in the 21st century because they have more honor students than we have students. America is further slipping by making higher education so expensive and cutting research.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is not precisely a good thing. I would be genuinely scared of a CRISPR trial that was approved in a day.
-
Perfect is the enemy of good!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Isn't that
@POTUS plan? Get rid of regulations that hamper innovation and commerce? Good to see some journalists support him. -
Maybe the question should be why those regulations were created in the first place, lest we forget.
-
That's always the question. But you can't praise China's lack of regulations without acknowledging Americans trying to do the same thing.
-
I'd be hesitant to praise China for this as they view individual safety and life a bit differently.
-
That's the point. WSJ makes headline about 2 yr approval wait for US scientist but China gives it in few hours. WSJ thinks regulations bad.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Sensationalism has no place in science journalism, WSJ.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes, because China really doesn't care about mistakes.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"Sometimes we need rules." Victor Frankenstein, as told to Mary Shelley.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.