Facebook, FDA and Nancy discussed on Life of the Law

Life of the Law
|

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Twenty three million other testing companies aren't free. They are relatively cheap and getting cheaper. And so there is a corollary going on to extend that. People have to realize that when he participate in these type of test, they may very well become a product about his soul to their party in use for purposes. That they didn't anticipate. So you're right. The ask all these questions, Nancy, and you know, to get to a point made earlier, which is again on the on the lack of education to engage these questions actually see it as being a little bit a little bit worse than that. So not only is there a lack of capacity to engage, but also a kind of pre existing ideology mythology about DNA that has come to kind of fill in the lack of education. That is, people tend to have a particular understanding of DNA being kind of very reductionist thing that necessarily can tell you everything about yourself. It's become innocence the new former religion. It's something that people were time have come to worship Daichi that DNA contains all the information about us and can be used to not only tell us everything about who you are, but can be used to predict thing that we may do in a future. And that mythology has been around for decades, going back to the genetics movement in ariz- of scientific racism in the late nineteenth century. And so you had that ideology. You kinda swimming around. Our society for that meant for that long in that now runs up to new tools, new techniques that can tell us interesting things about ourselves. It's a very toxic mix in terms of what people think that what do can actually do for us and it's, you know, we're on a very troubling time, and this is going to require some really deep thinking about what it means their hands around this and make sure that you know folks are fully fully participating in the process of making sure that things go in the right direction. But how do you only participate in this at this point? It's like, oh, how would three years ago? How would you fully participate in making sure Facebook wasn't using your data to influence the two thousand sixteen election in two thousand fourteen? I mean, how? How do we? How do we grasp where we are right now? So I think you know, I think you know five or seven years ago, no one would have thought of Facebook as being political. They would have thought of it as a new. Drool site were people came together and reconnect with friends and family. No one would've said it has a particular political motive to it. Now, people understand that Facebook and other forms of social media are explicitly political. And so similarly, I think you tend to think of science and technology is being benign, neutral ways of improving human health and health outcomes. And now we're starting to have an important conversation about understanding that they're actually certain political aspects to science and technology. And again, many scholars and academics have been talking about the political aspects of science and technology and medicine for many, many years. And I think we're now starting to have a public conversation about, you know, while science and medicine can do wonderful things in terms of a primer health, we also understand that there are certain political aspects of it in terms of as you were saying, Nancy, how certain third parties can take advantage of our private health information for their own private benefit leak question for you. What does the one of the things that you look at is the regulatory landscape surrounding biotech technology? As wondering if you could speak to that, what is it like? Because I was one of the things. That we had a hard time wrapping our head around. It seemed like there wasn't just one governing body say there's there's multiple entities that would have an impact on regulations impacting biotechnological advancements who's watching so it it. It depends on what you're specifically talking about, but in general, you know, there's entities like DA in the USDA in the that are charged with regulating and specifically the FDA charged with regulating more medical biotechnologies and they do that from a perspective of is it safe and effective and do the benefits outweigh the risks on a case by case basis. So they take a predominantly scientific approach. And one thing to note that I think sometimes people don't realize is that the role of agencies like the FDA is not to. Assess whether or not something should happen so that that question of values isn't. They don't have a mandate to look at that. That's not their role. Their role is to look at the scientific evidence of the application itself. So whatever you're trying to do with the biotechnology to look at it on a case by case basis and determine, you know, do you have data that suggests strongly that this application is safe, meaning bed medically safe? And that's an important distinction because not saying is socially safe, they're saying is medically safe, and is it effective? So does it do the thing that you say it does? And there are cases where you know not safe is kind of spectrum so is effective, and and they way where on that spectrum your application lies with respect to what you're trying to do. So if you're trying to treat a patient that's terminally ill. Whether you know how safe what kind of side effects are possible is probably different than if you are trying to treat baldness, you know, so on, they do this kind of on a case by case basis. And that's generally how the US does is we, we regulate products, not processes for that reason because the way you apply, it makes a difference. But that should be also kind of qualified a little bit because we do have a framework, it's called the coordinated framework for the regulation of biotechnology. And so this is a case where the FDA in the US in the bay are given a framework for a process instead of product, and they're still asked to look at it on a product case by case basis. But there's kind of framework. With which to look at those operations because you know the, the government kind of understands that there's some unique risks in some unique challenges with biotechnology that we don't have for other more traditional medical interventions. So so there's that this is a very long answer to your question, so there's that, but then there's, you know, and that's, that's regulation. But then there's governance and governance is kind of different. You know, these are things like norms what's considered appropriate in the scientific community in the medical community. There's

Coming up next