[roflc0ptic]

> their decisions have huge penalty for incorrectly saying "yes" but zero penalty for incorrectly saying "no".

The FDA acting out this incentive scheme _is_ the problem.

The issue is the opportunity cost: "I default to no, because while that may cost millions of lives, I don't incur responsibility for their deaths."

The incentives should change to "I am responsible to take informed risks to maximize the wellbeing of the population." There is a literal death toll from their inaction, and it doesn't get counted in the equation. It's possible to design a system that takes that into account; that's what's being argued for.

[epistasis]

I would agree that these sorts of agencies should take a proper risk/benefit analysis. And I would argue that the FDA is by far the best at taking this approach, despite lawmakers not yet officially making it their mandate. They have been responding to criticism over the past few decades.

[roflc0ptic]

That’s a perspective I haven’t heard; I’ve generally heard the opposite. Would love to hear more about that - any reading recommendations?