I agree that there are some issues regarding the version of the policy that would actually be implemented. This is a large factor for requiring insurance rather than direct state regulation, and I think this offers a robustness which goes some way towards defusing your concerns.
For example:
Politically unpopular research is crushed by being deemed dangerous. Obvious targets include research into nuclear power, racial differences, or GMOs.
If there’s just an insurance requirement, it’s hard for extra costs to swell much above the true expected externalities (if it’s safe, they should be able to find someone willing to insure it cheaply).
I agree that there are some issues regarding the version of the policy that would actually be implemented. This is a large factor for requiring insurance rather than direct state regulation, and I think this offers a robustness which goes some way towards defusing your concerns.
For example:
If there’s just an insurance requirement, it’s hard for extra costs to swell much above the true expected externalities (if it’s safe, they should be able to find someone willing to insure it cheaply).
Yup, I agree again. Though there is still the risk that the political system might manufacture externalities to accuse the researchers of.