GoodTaste
Key Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2016
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Chinese
- Home Country
- China
- Current Location
- China
The logic of "Instead, criticism of FDA actions..." is not clear to me.
It sounds as if that the "non-agency scientists, including the leaders of the US National Institutes of Health" should be the members of the advisory committees or directly offer their expertise to the FDA rather than going to media to complain as to make the situation worse.The word "instead" appears not to have been used smoothly. I am not sure.
What is the logic of "instead" here?
==================
To define integrity at the FDA a decade ago, I turned to the agency’s chief scientist, top lawyer and leading policy official. They set out three criteria (see go.nature.com/2gx1hz). The first was that decisions should be “based on a rigorous evaluation of the best available science”, drawing on “appropriate expertise, including the use of advisory committees”. Today, the agency has yet to consult such a committee for a major decision on COVID-19. Instead, criticism of FDA actions from non-agency scientists, including the leaders of the US National Institutes of Health, has filtered into news reports, sowing doubts about whether potential risks and unintended consequences have been properly considered.
Source: Nature Sep.9, 2020
How the FDA should protect its integrity from politics
It sounds as if that the "non-agency scientists, including the leaders of the US National Institutes of Health" should be the members of the advisory committees or directly offer their expertise to the FDA rather than going to media to complain as to make the situation worse.The word "instead" appears not to have been used smoothly. I am not sure.
What is the logic of "instead" here?
==================
To define integrity at the FDA a decade ago, I turned to the agency’s chief scientist, top lawyer and leading policy official. They set out three criteria (see go.nature.com/2gx1hz). The first was that decisions should be “based on a rigorous evaluation of the best available science”, drawing on “appropriate expertise, including the use of advisory committees”. Today, the agency has yet to consult such a committee for a major decision on COVID-19. Instead, criticism of FDA actions from non-agency scientists, including the leaders of the US National Institutes of Health, has filtered into news reports, sowing doubts about whether potential risks and unintended consequences have been properly considered.
Source: Nature Sep.9, 2020
How the FDA should protect its integrity from politics
Last edited: