Sports

Claims to “objectivity” or “being objective” carry a rhetorical power in their insinuation that the person or institution in question is acting outside of the realm of subjectivity, values or ulterior agendas - and instead, guided by reason or evidence alone. People across the political spectrum lay claim to this word as part of their various campaigns of persuasion.As one author noted, "people try to portray their needs as being objective, and policymakers seek to portray their program criteria as objective, in order to put programs beyond political dispute.”

Starting with philosophical hermeneutic philosophers in the European continent, the idea of an “objective” realm separable from the “subjective” realm has been called into question. The alternative claim is that it is fundamentally impossible to “escape” one’s own values, emotions and interests. From this perspective, it’s impossible to be completely objective or unbiased or neutral - with the role of various convictions something that can and should be acknowledged by academics, therapists and researchers.  

Rather than having a conversation about who is more “objective,” this invites a transparent exploration about the various competing hopes, desires, interests, values and agenda that form the human context in which all human activity (including scientific activity) takes place.  

The FDA is seen by many as a safe and legitimate arbiter of the safety and quality of our food supply - as well as medical treatments available to the general public.  

For others, however, the FDA has come to be so heavily influenced by corporate interests that it no longer puts the public well-being first (even when it thinks it does). When the FDA makes decisions on treatment outcomes for psychiatric drugs, for instance, it has often yielded to the influence of corporate advisory committees.

The general public criticizes the FDA for reducing American health in two different ways. Some see the FDA as causing more deaths than it prevents due to unreasonable delays and restrictions in approvals. Otherssee the FDA as cooperating too much with business - with a need to better represent American interests as an independent watchdog organization.

QUESTIONS TO PLAY WITH:

-Is the FDA doing a good job? If it isn’t, how would you do its job better? If it is doing a good job, how would you defend it to people who think it is failing?

-What do people not know about the FDA that they should know?

-If we lived in a world in which the FDA was not necessary, what would that world look like?