Instead, criticism of FDA actions...

[GoodTaste]

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

 

[Tarheel]

Re: is off to a shameless start

They are doing that rather than something else.

 

[GoodTaste]

The question here is how the logic works. We usually use "instead" this way:

You are an adviser of this committee. You should offer your advice to it. Instead, you've gone to media to complain about the committee without offering any advice or your expertise to it. So your action is inappropriate.

Here, the word instead is used smoothly in its logic. The situation in the OP is very different.

 

[Tarheel]

The question here is how the logic works. We usually use "instead" this way:

You are an adviser of this committee. You should offer your advice to it. Instead, you've gone to the media to complain about the committee without offering any advice or your expertise to it. So your action is inappropriate.

Here, the word instead is used smoothly in its logic. The situation in the OP is very different.

Apparently, you disapprove of what that person did.

 

[GoodTaste]

The question remains unresolved as it Is.

 

[Tarheel]

What's the logic of "instead" here?

That's an original question--so original it's hard to know how to answer it. In my opinion, the word is used the way it's always used. (I don't see how logic enters into it.)

 

[GoodTaste]

Let's see what other contributors will offer about the logic.

 

[GoesStation]

The word instead in the quote distinguishes one course of action from another. This is a normal use of the word. Your assertion that we usually use it differently has no basis in fact.

You should not make assertions like that about a language you're still learning.

 

[GoodTaste]

The example I offered about the use of the word "instead" is de facto a combination of English knowledge learned by me in years:

You are an adviser of this committee. You should offer your advice to it. Instead, you've gone to media to complain about the committee without offering any advice or your expertise to it. So your action is inappropriate.

It certainly has basis in fact.

The question in the OP appears to boil down to the fact that those scientists traditionally indeed often serve in such advisory committees of the FDA. If so, the use of "instead" is as usual as the example above.

Your comment will be appreciated.

 

[Tarheel]

It seems that the only reason you post things lately is to start an argument. Forget it!

 

[jutfrank]

I don't really see the problem here, GoodTaste. The logic is pretty clear: X should have happened but instead Y happened.