Scott Alexander defends his criticism of the FDA's approval process in the infant fish oil case, arguing that systemic issues cause harmful delays even when the FDA follows its mandate. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Kevin Drum's criticism of his interpretation of the infant fish oil story. He maintains that his account was substantially correct, despite some minor errors. Scott argues that the FDA's approval process, while following its mandate, causes unnecessary delays in life-saving treatments. He uses analogies to illustrate how the FDA's structure can be problematic even when individual employees perform well. Scott emphasizes that his criticism is not about the FDA failing its mandate, but about the design of the system itself causing delays in implementing known beneficial treatments. He concludes by addressing Drum's skepticism of FDA critics, arguing that anger towards the FDA often comes from personal experiences with its shortcomings. Shorter summary