Do we really need to be using up government resources doing drug approvals for dogs? It takes so long to get human drugs approved. Let's use the resources there and let the market sort out what works for animals.
People love their dogs and are willing to spend large amounts of money on them - how do you prevent people from selling them snake oil?
On top of that, we're talking about the first-ever drug approved solely for the purpose of life extension - yes it's in dogs, but it's a topic being heavily pursued in humans as well. While the approach taken here isn't directly relevant to people, one can imagine that developing this class of drugs in animals could lead to useful information on how to do so in humans, but only if there's actual evidence to prove their validitiy.
And given the fact that people have the legal authority to euthanize their pets on demand, it seems pretty silly that we are spending millions of dollars in taxpayer money ensuring they don't get fed snake oil.
Disagree. Public money is subject to the public process, which includes debating about and voting on how resources are spent. Don't shout down people who are participating in the process.
Wouldn’t we learn a lot more about the effects of these experimental treatments if we allowed the willing to take them voluntarily?
In the case of life-extension treatments, no - we would learn much less if we allowed people to give them to their pets voluntarily.
The problem is that what you're testing for is very difficult to measure, so you need a well-run study like the one that Loyal has done here. If people just give them to their dogs without the structure of a trial, you'll never get the kind of data you need to conclusive prove life-extending effects, and because companies can now sell without such a trial, you eliminate the incentives to invest the time, money and effort into that kind of a trial.
Let’s leave aside the fact that humans value companion animals such that they might want to spend government resources on keeping them healthy for longer. And also the fact that certain other animals are important food sources which make up a sizable chunk of the economy.
Do you think that if the government no longer had to spend resources on animal drugs that all of those resources would stay at the FDA and be diverted to human drugs?
The cynic in me thinks that the speed of the process is the independent variable here. And that resources will be added or subtracted to maintain roughly that same speed and/or rigor.