Re:Tesla's 'Full Self-Driving Capability' Falls Short of Its...
by Retric on Sunday September 06, 2020 @12:36AM
(#24389009)
If we knew the results it wouldn’t be research. Medical research is dealing with potential future solutions to known problems. The risk is from a drug that’s either useless or actively harmful. Saying we don’t know if self driving cars are eventually going to be better is therefore no different than considering a new vaccine.
Anyway, move fast and break things is ingrained into the core of the medical profession when there is an unmet medical need.
The FDA for example has: Accelerated Approval, Fast track designation, Breakthrough therapy designation, and Priority Review all designed to speed things up when the benefits are significant.
They don’t apply for new pain medication because the risk vs reward is very different. 2014: https://www.fda.gov/media/94063/download
PS: I think we can agree that in terms of car safety there is clearly a large unmet need. That’s not to say self driving is the solution, just that it’s a serious contender.
And yet there is no evidence of these assertions other than wishful thinking.
There is no evidence that self-driving systems are safer than humans, so there is no reason to treat them as if they are. In fact, compared to other luxury vehicles, Tesla vehicles are involved in more accidents.
The medical world is extremely conservative. The FDA has incredibly high standards to meet, thankfully, and demands ample scientific evidence for the medicines and treatments it approves.
"Move fast and break things" doesn't exist in the medical world, but it does exist outside of it in the form of unregulated supplements and illegal procedures and distribution of medication. People are routinely made into victims of this market just so someone can make a quick buck.