You know, Manhattan Project-style efforts have their uses, but I don't know that they're the solution to everything. (Hilariously, you can read a Time article from 1958 making some of the same criticisms we're seeing in this discussion.) As Von Braun said, crash programs are based on the assumption that if you put nine women on the job, you can make a baby in one month. In certain cases, this is so, but heavily applied research isn't the right tool for every job.
For instance, a good solution for growing fuel would be a rolling prize in the style of the Methuselah Mouse Prize for the greatest net energy extracted from one acre of land, taking all inputs (equipment fuel, fertilizers, etc) into account. If the problems to be solved are vague and the methods unknown, might prize incentives work better than crash programs?
Now, that method doesn't really apply to the problem of orphan drugs, or drugs which may not be commercially viable but nevertheless might have strongly beneficial effects. The FDA has an orphan-drugs program (which, incidentally, did safety research on dichloroacetate a few years ago to treat some rare diseases) which does that kind of thing. An entirely new plan of attack against a disease (like this one, for instance) is far more valuable medically than yet another COX-2 inhibitor. If you want more drugs which might not be commercially viable, I'd start there; while the orphan drugs program funds only clinical trials for drugs to treat rare diseases, you might look into developing vaccines (expensive and unprofitable), or cures, rather than temporary treatments, for common conditions.
I suppose I'm nitpicking, as a "Manhattan Project" generally refers to a large, concerted effort of any kind, not just a crash research program. John Edwards's ending-poverty proposal isn't a crash research program, but it is a large and concerted effort. At least someone's talking about that sort of thing.
You don't need efficacy studies, either. You can get a doctor to prescribe it to you off-label, right now. It's common practice with, for instance, gabapentin. It's already known to be safe; that's all that's required for doctors to prescribe it.
The drug can be put in human-consumable form using nothing but a reasonably priced bottle of reagent, a graduated cylinder and some water. (It's corrosize when undiluted.) All of those are freely available. How exactly are pharma companies going to convince people to pay them umpty-jillion dollars for the same substance in pill form?
Except that the pioneering work was done in Canada.
That's arguable, seeing as how the initial studies on the drug (for lactic acidosis) were performed on an FDA grant program for drugs to treat rare diseases. On the plus side, the drug is indeed not patented and not patentable. I'm sure pharma companies will be happy to patent variants, but so long as we can get the original stuff on the cheap, who cares?
The efficacy of dichloroacetate was studied in the FDA's orphan product research program. Two clinical trials were performed on the drug; here's the complete list. The Canadians did a good thing, but they are standing on the Americans' shoulders.
Not really. Botox is approved for muscle spasms, and gabapentin for seizures. The vast majority of uses are off-label; it doesn't seem to have stopped doctors from prescribing the drugs. While I'm sure there are liability concerns, I don't think they're the barrier you make them out to be for prescribing drugs off-label.
Indeedy. Remember, the specific gravity is 1.57, and the effective dose is 12.5 mg/kg, twice daily. Also, it's corrosive, so dilute it heavily with water. Probably best to mix up a large batch to ensure uniform dosage.
Of course, you could drop dead from this, and long-term (meaning years) use is associated with toxic peripheral neuropathy in at least one study. But hey, if you've got cancer, it's probably not your biggest concern. Might want to at least ask your doctor first.
There is a 'grey' solution of "off label" prescribing but I'm not sure you'd want to do that with a cancer drug.
Why on earth not? It's safer than a lot of drugs--the side effects appear to be pain, numbness and gait disturbance, though problems appear at higher dosages and longer timelines (patients were unable to complete three years of treatment in one instance; on the other hand, the drug in rodent trials was effective in a matter of weeks). Cancer patients put up with hair loss, immunosuppression, and a panoply of other side effects from their drugs. I would think that the severity of cancer would make this option more attractive, not less.
The FDA has an orphan products grant program, which conducts clinical trials on drugs which would be overlooked by for-profit companies. Interestingly, two grants were given for researching dichloroacetate (see the "Previous Grants" page).
Why would anyone buy the patented combination when the unpatented one is as safe and effective? Remember, DCA is FDA-approved for safety, and can be prescribed "off-label" to just about anyone. There may be instances in which that sort of thing will fly--the shameful listing of Marinol on DEA schedule III, while the same drug without the inactive ingredient of sesame oil is schedule I--but the cat's out of the bag on this one, I think.
Research grants all too often turn into corporate welfare programs. While the research is publically funded, the results are privately owned, and milked for every last possible cent. Read about the Bayh-Dole Act; there's some good commentary here which says what I'd say if I were more eloquent.
The FDA awards grants for "Orphan Product Research", research on "drugs and devices for small patient populations". Dichloroacetate was one of the drugs thus studied, in this case for congenital lactic acidosis, which while I'm sure it's unpleasant, isn't the sort of thing major pharma companies throw heaps of money after. Thanks for this development should also go to P.W. Stacpoole, who (according the the bibliography in the Cancer Cell article) has been publishing papers on the pharmacology, safety and effectiveness of DCA since 1988.
So, the system, in this instance, worked. Should anyone ever consider dissolving the program, you can roll up a copy of that list and bash them over the head with it like a naughty puppy.
Yes, but the benefit of this particular research is that it's actual science, while "BarleyGreen" is quackery. And while some argue that it's essentially harmless and might give people hope, quackery kills people. Take that shit somewhere else.
Also note the 2% overhead (I've seen it quoted as anywhere from 1% to "under 4%") for Medicare. Insurance programs don't need to be that bloated; it's just that we have a grotesquely parasitic industry here. Of course, we'd rather pay half again what our healthcare should cost so that at least we're not socialists. Grump, grump, etc.
Off-label use is quite legal. Botox is actually approved for treating muscle spasms, and gabapentin for seizures, but they're mostly used for treatment of wrinkliness and neuropathy. The only restrictions appear to be (a) the drug company can't market it for off-label use, and (b) you can't prescribe opiates off-label. Both of which seem pretty reasonable to me.
The corporations are kings (they're corporate persons, after all); the executive class are their viziers and viceroys. While some of the staff might be replaced, the corporation itself is regarded as perfect and infallible.
The point I was trying to make is that recent (eg in the last 20-50 years) changes to the schooling system have already disadvantaged boys, certainly here in Australia. One example off the top of my head; smarter boys are picked on by their peers, with no threat of discipline. By doing little to address this, the school yard environment passively encourages stupidity in males.
I'm curious as to what sort of changes you're talking about. I remember that middle school and high school sucked for me because I was a geek, and when I talked to my father about his formative years, he told me that middle school and high school sucked for him because he was a geek. I'm all for addressing these problems; we make life miserable for some kids we ought to be nurturing, and it's a wonder more of them don't turn out warped. If you haven't seen it, I wonder what you'd think of Why Nerds are Unpopular; it lays out an explanation for why people with a passion for something other than being popular get slapped down in middle school and high school. It seems like more of a systemic problem than something that could be addressed with reforms, but I'm certainly all ears.
I'm a bit confused about what this has to do with schools being made friendlier to girls, and how addressing the problem of pervasive anti-intellectualism and bullying in schools would hurt girls' chances. (Girls have problems with bullying too, though it's expressed differently.) I'm quite interested in your thoughts on the issues you've brought up, though.
It's not a diversionary tactic, it's pointing out rank hypocrisy. In your examples: Larry David's wife is a hypocrite. This does not mean that her causes are without merit; it's a statement on how much these principles really mean to her. Scott Adams' unwillingness to piss off his corporate overlords by limiting his critiques to local annoyances of office life and remaining mum on the larger structural injustices doesn't mean his observations aren't valid; it does mean he's not a clear-eyed, serious critic of our society.
Likewise, I never said he had no right to complain. I stated that it seemed unlikely that Lord Ender has, as he claims, a pure desire for a meritocratic society which is informing his position against these programs. Rather, I hypothesized that he might be acting out of prejudices he himself was unaware of, and might be indulging in a sort of hypocrisy. Of course, this says nothing at all about whether affirmative action is good; my point is only that under his purported system of morality, both should be equally offensive. I asked if he agreed with me because I wanted to know if he really did hold the morals he claimed, or was using them as a fig leaf to cover something more distasteful.
This is a study? It's an opinion poll! Unless it's a longitudinal study comparing workers who elected to telecommute against those in similar positions who didn't, it's not an answer to the question posed in the article's title. Since when have executives been a reliable source for hard data of this kind? I know we sort of canonize the executive class in this country, but this is ridiculous...
Only idiots and trolls are capable of such a misinterpretation.
Riiight. So when you said...
Women are more emotional than men. Men are more rational
... you meant that the respective spheres of men and women in the job market should be separate... but, you wish to add, equal?
What the feminist movement wants is to get rid of the natural differences and go against milions of years of evolution. Think about it.
Millions of years of evolution lead the way toward dying from violence, illness or infection before thirty, toward falling apart after fifty and toward forming in-groups and out-groups for the purpose of dehumanizing the latter, and committing atrocities on them. Also toward women spending most of their time pregnant, with a truly staggering infant mortality rate. These things "are natural", as you say. If you're going to argue for biology implying destiny, you're going to have to start complaining about the unnatural distortions of our true human nature induced by antibiotics, birth control, clothing, and democracy.
Either that, or you're using biology as a thinly-veiled excuse for misogyny. Hmm, I wonder which it is. Given that you're not off nakedly eating roots and rabbits in the forest, I'm going to stick with the misogyny thing.
What the hell are you talking about? I am not the descendant of an alumnus of any university. What privilege do you think I have?
Wild, wild guess here--you're male? Not black or hispanic? You're going to tell me you don't have any particular privilege? You've never read one of those "unpacking the invisible knapsack" articles, I take it?
I would be surprised if it were legal for public unis to do this. It is immoral to discriminate against people in the workplace and in the educational system based on who their parents are.
Legal or not, are you or are you not of the opinion that it's equally immoral to give preference to legacy applicants as it is to give preference to women or minorities?
Like I just said: I'm a proponent of a meritocratic society. What is your major malfunction?
My "major malfunction" is that your definition of meritocratic seems to be offended solely by offenses against your (I'll eat my hat if you're not) male privilege. The idea that a fellow man might get a leg up through no merit of his own doesn't seem to bother you at all. If the idea of the skirts taking up all the spaces at college gives you the vapors, then say that, but don't dress it up in this nonsense about being a prejudice-free paragon of equality.
Do you think all white people get free rides to Harvard because all their parents went there?
Well, no, because not all white people are offspring of Harvard alumni. What does that have to do with anything? There are female and non-white legacy applicants to Harvard. Do you understand how the legacy system works? Legacy status, like minority status, does not provide anyone with guaranteed admission and a free ride; it simply moves them up the line, putting them ahead of people who scored higher on purely meritocratic metrics.
You must be retarded, and I have no problem discriminating against you because of that.
You're not employing me, reviewing my college application or selling me a house; do you even know what discrimination means in this context? But if you're going to namecall, you could at least have the courtesy to address my points. Legacy admissions are, in your system of reckoning, exactly as immoral as lowering admissions requirements for women or racial minorities. You're dodging the question here; do you or do you not oppose the legacy system, and if so, could you point out where you've inveighed against it in the past?
So, discrimination in hiring should be prosecuted. Ah, but how do you fight something like this? Evidence of discrimination, right? But how could that be shown without doing the sort of controlled survey that the researchers did? How could you counter that? What's your solution?
It's because of interest, which can easily be checked. Watch girls and boys play. Girls will have "Mommy and baby trucks" and boys will have Barbie fights even if you switch their favorite toys around.
Since when did switching toys undo the effects of persistent social conditioning from the earliest age? "Hey, look, I threw a housewife into a National Laboratory, and she didn't start doing physics. Women are inherently sock-picker-uppers!"
Men follow tech as a rule because the rewards of abstruse, isolated, individual problem solving give them positive feedback. "I solved it! I rule!" Which is far different from "I hang out with my friends, and do good things for people by finding out what's wrong with them."
Did you just never go to public school, or did you block out all memories of studiousness labeling you as a geek, a nerd, and probably a faggot too? Honestly, where are you getting this shit from? The meritocracy you describe only exists in very few social circles; "I hang out with my friends, drink and watch the game" is far more socially rewarded for men. You seem to be forgetting that while most women aren't geeks, most men aren't either.
[Reality check -- how many young men customize their MySpace pages, and how many young women want the latest Linux Distro?]
(a) You'd be dismayed. (b) Not much smaller a proportion than the number of young men who do.
And at my university, of the women who WERE engineers, it looked like someone had come through the department with the ugly stick...
From my memories of the engineering department, they were a pretty good match for the men there as well. Oh, wait, I forgot, we only judge women by their appearance. Right. I must have lost the memo.
Maybe a metaphor will help you understand the implications of what you're saying.
Here, let's pretend that instead of saying that women are inherently nurturing (and by implication suck at high-paying, prestigious jobs outside the high-end call girl industry), you said that black people are inherently inclined to hilarity, musically talented, and athletic (and by implication suck at high-paying, prestigious jobs outside the entertainment industry).
Black people are more entertaining than whites are, it is their nature. This is not a problem, it is how we are, and it doesn't need fixing. It is one thing to get the same jobs whites have (and a good thing), it is another thing to want to be like whites. Anyone who thinks blacks and whites are the same is foolish. Neither is greater, just different. I would like to see more black engineers, but because they would be different and have unique view points.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, Manhattan Project-style efforts have their uses, but I don't know that they're the solution to everything. (Hilariously, you can read a Time article from 1958 making some of the same criticisms we're seeing in this discussion.) As Von Braun said, crash programs are based on the assumption that if you put nine women on the job, you can make a baby in one month. In certain cases, this is so, but heavily applied research isn't the right tool for every job.
For instance, a good solution for growing fuel would be a rolling prize in the style of the Methuselah Mouse Prize for the greatest net energy extracted from one acre of land, taking all inputs (equipment fuel, fertilizers, etc) into account. If the problems to be solved are vague and the methods unknown, might prize incentives work better than crash programs?
Now, that method doesn't really apply to the problem of orphan drugs, or drugs which may not be commercially viable but nevertheless might have strongly beneficial effects. The FDA has an orphan-drugs program (which, incidentally, did safety research on dichloroacetate a few years ago to treat some rare diseases) which does that kind of thing. An entirely new plan of attack against a disease (like this one, for instance) is far more valuable medically than yet another COX-2 inhibitor. If you want more drugs which might not be commercially viable, I'd start there; while the orphan drugs program funds only clinical trials for drugs to treat rare diseases, you might look into developing vaccines (expensive and unprofitable), or cures, rather than temporary treatments, for common conditions.
I suppose I'm nitpicking, as a "Manhattan Project" generally refers to a large, concerted effort of any kind, not just a crash research program. John Edwards's ending-poverty proposal isn't a crash research program, but it is a large and concerted effort. At least someone's talking about that sort of thing.
You don't need efficacy studies, either. You can get a doctor to prescribe it to you off-label, right now. It's common practice with, for instance, gabapentin. It's already known to be safe; that's all that's required for doctors to prescribe it.
The drug can be put in human-consumable form using nothing but a reasonably priced bottle of reagent, a graduated cylinder and some water. (It's corrosize when undiluted.) All of those are freely available. How exactly are pharma companies going to convince people to pay them umpty-jillion dollars for the same substance in pill form?
The efficacy of dichloroacetate was studied in the FDA's orphan product research program. Two clinical trials were performed on the drug; here's the complete list. The Canadians did a good thing, but they are standing on the Americans' shoulders.
Not really. Botox is approved for muscle spasms, and gabapentin for seizures. The vast majority of uses are off-label; it doesn't seem to have stopped doctors from prescribing the drugs. While I'm sure there are liability concerns, I don't think they're the barrier you make them out to be for prescribing drugs off-label.
Indeedy. Remember, the specific gravity is 1.57, and the effective dose is 12.5 mg/kg, twice daily. Also, it's corrosive, so dilute it heavily with water. Probably best to mix up a large batch to ensure uniform dosage.
Of course, you could drop dead from this, and long-term (meaning years) use is associated with toxic peripheral neuropathy in at least one study. But hey, if you've got cancer, it's probably not your biggest concern. Might want to at least ask your doctor first.
The FDA has an orphan products grant program, which conducts clinical trials on drugs which would be overlooked by for-profit companies. Interestingly, two grants were given for researching dichloroacetate (see the "Previous Grants" page).
Why would anyone buy the patented combination when the unpatented one is as safe and effective? Remember, DCA is FDA-approved for safety, and can be prescribed "off-label" to just about anyone. There may be instances in which that sort of thing will fly--the shameful listing of Marinol on DEA schedule III, while the same drug without the inactive ingredient of sesame oil is schedule I--but the cat's out of the bag on this one, I think.
Research grants all too often turn into corporate welfare programs. While the research is publically funded, the results are privately owned, and milked for every last possible cent. Read about the Bayh-Dole Act; there's some good commentary here which says what I'd say if I were more eloquent.
The FDA awards grants for "Orphan Product Research", research on "drugs and devices for small patient populations". Dichloroacetate was one of the drugs thus studied, in this case for congenital lactic acidosis, which while I'm sure it's unpleasant, isn't the sort of thing major pharma companies throw heaps of money after. Thanks for this development should also go to P.W. Stacpoole, who (according the the bibliography in the Cancer Cell article) has been publishing papers on the pharmacology, safety and effectiveness of DCA since 1988.
The Orphan Product Research Program has, according to the website, approved 40 new products for rare diseases. It's sponsored a staggering list of clinical trials, on an annual budget of around $13 million.
So, the system, in this instance, worked. Should anyone ever consider dissolving the program, you can roll up a copy of that list and bash them over the head with it like a naughty puppy.
Yes, but the benefit of this particular research is that it's actual science, while "BarleyGreen" is quackery. And while some argue that it's essentially harmless and might give people hope, quackery kills people. Take that shit somewhere else.
Also note the 2% overhead (I've seen it quoted as anywhere from 1% to "under 4%") for Medicare. Insurance programs don't need to be that bloated; it's just that we have a grotesquely parasitic industry here. Of course, we'd rather pay half again what our healthcare should cost so that at least we're not socialists. Grump, grump, etc.
Off-label use is quite legal. Botox is actually approved for treating muscle spasms, and gabapentin for seizures, but they're mostly used for treatment of wrinkliness and neuropathy. The only restrictions appear to be (a) the drug company can't market it for off-label use, and (b) you can't prescribe opiates off-label. Both of which seem pretty reasonable to me.
The corporations are kings (they're corporate persons, after all); the executive class are their viziers and viceroys. While some of the staff might be replaced, the corporation itself is regarded as perfect and infallible.
I'm a bit confused about what this has to do with schools being made friendlier to girls, and how addressing the problem of pervasive anti-intellectualism and bullying in schools would hurt girls' chances. (Girls have problems with bullying too, though it's expressed differently.) I'm quite interested in your thoughts on the issues you've brought up, though.
It's not a diversionary tactic, it's pointing out rank hypocrisy. In your examples: Larry David's wife is a hypocrite. This does not mean that her causes are without merit; it's a statement on how much these principles really mean to her. Scott Adams' unwillingness to piss off his corporate overlords by limiting his critiques to local annoyances of office life and remaining mum on the larger structural injustices doesn't mean his observations aren't valid; it does mean he's not a clear-eyed, serious critic of our society.
Likewise, I never said he had no right to complain. I stated that it seemed unlikely that Lord Ender has, as he claims, a pure desire for a meritocratic society which is informing his position against these programs. Rather, I hypothesized that he might be acting out of prejudices he himself was unaware of, and might be indulging in a sort of hypocrisy. Of course, this says nothing at all about whether affirmative action is good; my point is only that under his purported system of morality, both should be equally offensive. I asked if he agreed with me because I wanted to know if he really did hold the morals he claimed, or was using them as a fig leaf to cover something more distasteful.
This is a study? It's an opinion poll! Unless it's a longitudinal study comparing workers who elected to telecommute against those in similar positions who didn't, it's not an answer to the question posed in the article's title. Since when have executives been a reliable source for hard data of this kind? I know we sort of canonize the executive class in this country, but this is ridiculous...
Millions of years of evolution lead the way toward dying from violence, illness or infection before thirty, toward falling apart after fifty and toward forming in-groups and out-groups for the purpose of dehumanizing the latter, and committing atrocities on them. Also toward women spending most of their time pregnant, with a truly staggering infant mortality rate. These things "are natural", as you say. If you're going to argue for biology implying destiny, you're going to have to start complaining about the unnatural distortions of our true human nature induced by antibiotics, birth control, clothing, and democracy.
Either that, or you're using biology as a thinly-veiled excuse for misogyny. Hmm, I wonder which it is. Given that you're not off nakedly eating roots and rabbits in the forest, I'm going to stick with the misogyny thing.
Legal or not, are you or are you not of the opinion that it's equally immoral to give preference to legacy applicants as it is to give preference to women or minorities?
My "major malfunction" is that your definition of meritocratic seems to be offended solely by offenses against your (I'll eat my hat if you're not) male privilege. The idea that a fellow man might get a leg up through no merit of his own doesn't seem to bother you at all. If the idea of the skirts taking up all the spaces at college gives you the vapors, then say that, but don't dress it up in this nonsense about being a prejudice-free paragon of equality.
Well, no, because not all white people are offspring of Harvard alumni. What does that have to do with anything? There are female and non-white legacy applicants to Harvard. Do you understand how the legacy system works? Legacy status, like minority status, does not provide anyone with guaranteed admission and a free ride; it simply moves them up the line, putting them ahead of people who scored higher on purely meritocratic metrics.
You're not employing me, reviewing my college application or selling me a house; do you even know what discrimination means in this context? But if you're going to namecall, you could at least have the courtesy to address my points. Legacy admissions are, in your system of reckoning, exactly as immoral as lowering admissions requirements for women or racial minorities. You're dodging the question here; do you or do you not oppose the legacy system, and if so, could you point out where you've inveighed against it in the past?
So, discrimination in hiring should be prosecuted. Ah, but how do you fight something like this? Evidence of discrimination, right? But how could that be shown without doing the sort of controlled survey that the researchers did? How could you counter that? What's your solution?
Did you just never go to public school, or did you block out all memories of studiousness labeling you as a geek, a nerd, and probably a faggot too? Honestly, where are you getting this shit from? The meritocracy you describe only exists in very few social circles; "I hang out with my friends, drink and watch the game" is far more socially rewarded for men. You seem to be forgetting that while most women aren't geeks, most men aren't either.
(a) You'd be dismayed. (b) Not much smaller a proportion than the number of young men who do.
Maybe a metaphor will help you understand the implications of what you're saying.
Here, let's pretend that instead of saying that women are inherently nurturing (and by implication suck at high-paying, prestigious jobs outside the high-end call girl industry), you said that black people are inherently inclined to hilarity, musically talented, and athletic (and by implication suck at high-paying, prestigious jobs outside the entertainment industry).
Black people are more entertaining than whites are, it is their nature. This is not a problem, it is how we are, and it doesn't need fixing. It is one thing to get the same jobs whites have (and a good thing), it is another thing to want to be like whites. Anyone who thinks blacks and whites are the same is foolish. Neither is greater, just different. I would like to see more black engineers, but because they would be different and have unique view points.