Goldilocks’ Project
Exploring the relationship of innovation and regulation
Innovation is often portrayed as solely beneficial while carrying risks. Regulation is often perceived as a roadblock while ensuring safety. Too rapid innovation may result in harm to patients – whereas too stringent regulation also harms patients by stalling access to innovative technologies. Coordinating innovation and regulation is a balancing act. In this project we aim to explore the concept of "just the right amount" of innovation and regulation to optimize patient outcomes.
The concrete regulatory aims are
To provide a resource online to outline this concept
To draft a manuscript for peer-reviewed publication
To outline the concept for addition to Wikipedia (Goldilocks principle in regulation)
We seek participation from all stakeholders interested in the topic
We plan to host 3 open discussion sessions (scoping, outlining, finalization). Dates & times to be determined, links to join the sessions will be found here once available.
Resources
Knut Blind. The influence of regulations on innovation: A quantitative assessment for OECD countries (download PDF)
Meeting 1: February 13, 2023
Innovation vs. Regulation. Drastic position. Traditional regulation=protect innovation=always good. Emphasize counterpoints regulation=enabling and innovation=hidden risks+harm
regulation => might cause delays (time) => assumption that outcome is improved
both sides share values => economic aspect "greed" must be regulated?
perception: mutually exclusive
actual: harmonization improves outcomes
accountability
What are the concepts governing innovation vs. regulation
Evidence creation for regulatory decision making
to do: build evidence to support assumptions
identify practical examples
timeline of concept —> added value —> clinical utility —> widely used —> improved patient care/outcomes
innovative breakthroughs: what regulation existed