2 Comments

" . . . establish their safety before innovations can be introduced on the market." This, unfortunately, is largely what a governmental body, such as the FDA, is guided by when considering vaccines for COVID-19, or any other innovative medication. Safety over efficacy is their guiding principle.

Expand full comment

Thanks for a great article! I'm very much enjoying this.

When you brought up genetic engineering, it made me think of "Jurassic Park" by Michael Crichton. If that novel is about one thing, it's a commentary on the concerns (or fears) surrounding the power of genetic engineering, with dinosaurs used as a literary device to dramatize the point.

In regards to the "precautionary principle", you also reminded me of the logically fallacious concept of "shifting the burden of proof". There's a website called "Logically Fallacious" that gives a good explanation, with examples, here: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof

Another great example of the "Precautionary Principle" fallacy is given by Leonard Peikoff in response to the question, "Why did Ayn Rand require proof that smoking was harmful before she stopped instead of going with the safety principle requiring positive proof of it being safe before starting?" You can find Leonard Peikoff's response here: https://peikoff.com/2012/05/21/why-did-ayn-rand-require-proof-that-smoking-is-harmful-before-she-stopped-instead-of-going-with-the-safety-principle-requiring-positive-proof-of-it-being-safe-before-starting/

Thanks, again, for a great article! Keep up the good work!

Expand full comment