Publicación: Rules versus standards: what are the costs of epistemic norms in drug regulation?
Cargando...
Archivos
Fecha
2019-01-01
Autores
Andreoletti, Mattia
Editor/a
Director/a
Tutor/a
Coordinador/a
Prologuista
Revisor/a
Ilustrador/a
Derechos de acceso
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Resumen
Over the last decade, philosophers of science have extensively criticized the epistemic superiority of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for testing safety and effectiveness of new drugs, defending instead various forms of evidential pluralism. We argue that scientific methods in regulatory decision making cannot be assessed in epistemic terms only: there are costs involved. Drawing on the legal distinction between rules and standards, we show that drug regulation based on evidential pluralism has much higher costs than our current RCT-based system. We analyze these costs and advocate for evaluating any scheme for drug regulatory tests in terms of concrete empirical benchmarks, like the error rates of regulatory decisions.
Descripción
Categorías UNESCO
Palabras clave
clinical trials, rules, standards
Citación
Centro
Facultad de Filosofía
Departamento
Lógica, Historia y Filosofía de la Ciencia