Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> less regulation without purpose

Everyone agrees with that; all regulation that actually exists or has been proposed has/had a purpose behind it.

Individuals may disagree with whether the purpose is desirable, whether the regulation effectively serves the purpose, and whether (assuming they agree that the purpose is beneficial and it is actually served in effect by the regulation) the beneficial effect of serving the purpose is worth any costs that the regulation creates, but those are different issues than "regulation without purpose".




of course. I was implying that regulation without a purpose:

1)That is logical, and makes sane tradeoffs.

2)Is in the publics interest instead of lobbyists.

3)Is divined using evidence.

We need unbiased medical experts to propose a system that works which has the following charachteristics:

1) Promotes the creation and development of drugs and the advancement of medical science.

2) Allows for a tight feedback loop and quick sceintific evaluation of new drugs, possibly allowing less dangerous drugs quicker feedback cycles.

3) Lowers the cost to get to market.

This is a VERY hard problem to solve as an exercise, but particularly difficult within the current political framework.


> We need unbiased medical experts to propose a system that works which has the following charachteristics:

Unbiased medical experts are not particularly likely to be experts on three points you suggest are critical, since none of those are actually even remotely medical questions.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: