One of the greatest obstacles to entrepreneurship can be government regulation. Entrepreneurial and governmental attitudes toward risk are almost diametrically opposed.

Government regulators gain no career benefit if a new product succeeds, but may get fired if something goes wrong. So it isn't a great surprise that most government regulators are reluctant to allow any new product that poses even the slightest risk.

Imagine yourself as a government regulator and an entrepreneur comes to you with the idea to deliver an odorless, colorless, highly explosive gas into people's homes. Would you allow it? Probably not.

On the other hand, some people like to use natural gas to cook or heat their homes.

Suppose someone came to you with the idea of putting people in large metallic tubes and propelling them from one location to another at very high rates of speed and at heights of thousands of feet over populated areas.

You probably wouldn't allow that either.

But some people prefer to use airplanes rather than drive thousands of miles.

Or try this one. An entrepreneur proposes selling heavy metallic products weighing hundreds or thousands of pounds, navigated by people as young as 16 within feet or inches of pedestrians walking nearby.

No way could you allow that product to be sold.

But some people really like driving cars.

The point is that people should be allowed to assess risks and make a decision about whether the benefits outweigh the risks.

In my opinion, the role of government is to insist that full and complete information is available to consumers so they can assess the trade-offs. The government also has a role to protect third parties who are not part of the transaction but who may be affected through product use.

But not allowing a product that may pose a risk destroys innovation.

Take, for example, the development of new drugs. Every time I hear the Food and Drug Administration announce its approval of a new drug after eight years of testing, indicating that it will save lives or reduce pain and suffering, I cringe. I think, "People have been dying and suffering for years because the FDA took so long to approve it."

Even worse, the tests the FDA requires now require nearly $1 billion testing costs over the several years needed to get a new drug approved. Only the very largest pharmaceutical companies can afford that cost and absorb the losses on the drugs that don't get approved. Only drugs that will benefit millions of people will even get clearance for trials. Drugs that will only save the lives or reduce the suffering of thousands will never even get tested, because the drug companies could never make enough money to pay for the required FDA trials.

Couldn't we allow people who may be faced with severe problems to agree to accept the risks without FDA approval? Isn't there a way to allow entrepreneurs in small labs to work on new drugs without facing the staggering cost of bringing a new drug to market?

Sometimes people are willing to take the risk of getting in heavy metal tubes or vehicles rather than do the safe thing and walk. The government should allow individuals to assess the risk/benefit trade-off with required full disclosure and decide for themselves.