Bush logic: pick a veterinarian to head the FDA

[Vickers]

:eyes:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050214/us_nm/bush_fda_dc

Maybe it's his personal doctor? :shrug:

[htuttle]

1. That would make perfect sense...

IF WE WERE ALL HORSES!

:eyes:

[Mr.Green93]

2. There are a lot of Asses

[T Bone]

3. Well at least he will be knowledgable about the correct DOG FOOD

that baby boomer seniors should eat when the Bush plans decimate their Social Security. :shrug: One would think.

[hlthe2b]

4. While I in no way want to defend Lester Crawford, some of the most

prominent Human AIDS researchers are veterinarians, after all. Veterinarians are trained in comparative medicine, which includes human medicine-- as well. Veterinary medicine, (while individual pet/companion medicine is an important aspect), emphasizes the principles of "herd health," which is the essential component of public health. As for Crawford, who I personally dislike, he is qualified, with a PhD in pharmacology in addition to his DVM. He has worked for FDA for many years. Unfortunately, I think he aligns himself readily with Bush* policies, so he would certainly not be my choice. However, he is certainly qualified.

[Sgent]

5. I don't know the candidate in question

but I see nothing wrong with appointing a DVM/PhD as head of the FDA. Since animal research makes up the majority of FDA studies at an early term, and human studies (sorry) are not significantly different in many ways, I just don't see the difference.

In fact, at many schools, Vets and MD's have the same curriculum with the same professors for the first two years of schooling (the hard science years). It is only in clinical areas that they differ. They use a lot of the same drugs, etc.