Eventhough India has a large, huge, out of control population, in business that is not the only concern. Businesses need to assess the purchasing power of this group. I know that this is short-sighted, but India doesn't have the purchasing power as of yet, and therefore they do not have the power to press these internet company.
You need to realize that it is typically the physicians who are scared before the patient is. Typically the symptoms listed in the drug information are on studies of less than three people. However this is considered by physicians as statistically relevant!!! If you don't believe me read the number of case reports which result in a listing of contraindications on Micromedex!
Unfortunately you are demonstrating the common fault of physicians today. At the turn of the century 2 out of 3 health care workers were physicians. Now it is 1 in 12. Instead of being the captain of the ship your field has become a small part of a large repetoire of personal. It is difficult for physicians to realize this information, but physicians usually serve one of two purposes 1) the diagnosis (all the other functions that you list are typically not done by the physician, but the nurses, the physical therapists, the pharmacist, the nurse anaethesists, and everyone else), or 2) most typically the püatients knows the diagnosis and needs the physicians agreement before they can receive the proper treatment.
Unfortunately (for physicians) more and more patients are becoming educated through other means, which results with the doctor being necessary for even less than what they were needed for before!
Legalize most prescription drugs and you will reduce the need for physicians!! Or more logically separate the power of diagnosising and prescribing. The physician should only diagnosis, and leave the prescribing for the knowledgeable ones, the pharmicists!
Using the figures for population and land mass estimates from the CIA World Fact Book, the average person per square km in the USA is 30.35, while the United Kingdom is 246.89. Comparing this with the amount of hectares that are needed for the consumption rate, one can easily deduce that while the US requires roughly 6 hectares per person, England requires 2. Therefore England consumes less than one third the USA per person, however the available land mass to support England is far less, so while the US consumes more, we have more land to support ourselves than every Western European country. While consumption should be reduced overall, just keep in mind that the US consumes more, but also has more resources to support that consumption.
You are wrong about the United States Government only funding research for classifiable trade secrets. All reserach that is funded is expected, and required if you want to renew a grant, to be presented in a publically accessible and peer reviewed journal. This is one example where the government of the United States truly has It's interest in an altruistic nature. The government realizes, as the rest of the world is starting to, that what sets our country ahead of the rest of the world is our education and funding of science and technology.
I disagree completely with your stance. Most of the funds for scientific research is funded by the NIH or NSF or other government bodies. This research has been paid for by the public and the public should receive the benefits for this research. Even private companies use and build upon the research done by government funded scientists. The only reason that a person should create a patent is to prevent these upstart cloning companies from preventing the real scientists to continue in their research by patenting a gene before a company does. I have several scientist friends who patented several genes and allow free access and use by any public reserach group, but charge the companies for the use of the gene. I hope the public becomes aware that these companies/or scientists are patenting genes that the public has paid for to research. Science should be free access for all. To belive that the commercial development can speed up the drive for research is ludicrous. Look at how far molecular biology has developed in the last twenty years. Patenting will only make matters more complicated.
Typically the genes that receive patents are new formulations of existing genes. They are not,nor will they ever be naturally occurring. They have been modified to increase expression, reduce redundancy, and have excised non-important segments for the final product. These have similarities to natural genes, but are usually chimeras of several genes or gene segments.
The recording industry is finally being forced to face their own music. The revenue that is lost with "free samples" of the albums by file sharing requires a better value of songs for the consumer. I know that in the past I have been suckered into purchasing a CD because I liked one or two songs, and then find that the rest is crap! Never again. The albums that are done well will continue to be purchased after the free previews.
I believe that the RIAA are the real thieves. They have made money from the artists by claiming that they take the greatest risks by promoting them as a newly signed band, and make all of the profits by fircing compliance by requiring certain style songs and certain beats per minutes for the more saleable album. They can no longer continue to claim that the risk is that high, when they can promote and distribute the albums virtually for free. The artists deserve the money, and most of their income is from live concerts as the RIAA takes all of their proceeds for the first few albums.
I believe that file-sharing will require the RIAA to make a better product, or "Lord Help Them", a better quality storage system!!!
0.02
Slashdot Mirror
Eventhough India has a large, huge, out of control population, in business that is not the only concern. Businesses need to assess the purchasing power of this group. I know that this is short-sighted, but India doesn't have the purchasing power as of yet, and therefore they do not have the power to press these internet company.
You need to realize that it is typically the physicians who are scared before the patient is. Typically the symptoms listed in the drug information are on studies of less than three people. However this is considered by physicians as statistically relevant!!! If you don't believe me read the number of case reports which result in a listing of contraindications on Micromedex!
Unfortunately you are demonstrating the common fault of physicians today. At the turn of the century 2 out of 3 health care workers were physicians. Now it is 1 in 12. Instead of being the captain of the ship your field has become a small part of a large repetoire of personal. It is difficult for physicians to realize this information, but physicians usually serve one of two purposes 1) the diagnosis (all the other functions that you list are typically not done by the physician, but the nurses, the physical therapists, the pharmacist, the nurse anaethesists, and everyone else), or 2) most typically the püatients knows the diagnosis and needs the physicians agreement before they can receive the proper treatment. Unfortunately (for physicians) more and more patients are becoming educated through other means, which results with the doctor being necessary for even less than what they were needed for before! Legalize most prescription drugs and you will reduce the need for physicians!! Or more logically separate the power of diagnosising and prescribing. The physician should only diagnosis, and leave the prescribing for the knowledgeable ones, the pharmicists!
Using the figures for population and land mass estimates from the CIA World Fact Book, the average person per square km in the USA is 30.35, while the United Kingdom is 246.89. Comparing this with the amount of hectares that are needed for the consumption rate, one can easily deduce that while the US requires roughly 6 hectares per person, England requires 2. Therefore England consumes less than one third the USA per person, however the available land mass to support England is far less, so while the US consumes more, we have more land to support ourselves than every Western European country. While consumption should be reduced overall, just keep in mind that the US consumes more, but also has more resources to support that consumption.
You are wrong about the United States Government only funding research for classifiable trade secrets. All reserach that is funded is expected, and required if you want to renew a grant, to be presented in a publically accessible and peer reviewed journal. This is one example where the government of the United States truly has It's interest in an altruistic nature. The government realizes, as the rest of the world is starting to, that what sets our country ahead of the rest of the world is our education and funding of science and technology.
AMEN
I disagree completely with your stance. Most of the funds for scientific research is funded by the NIH or NSF or other government bodies. This research has been paid for by the public and the public should receive the benefits for this research. Even private companies use and build upon the research done by government funded scientists. The only reason that a person should create a patent is to prevent these upstart cloning companies from preventing the real scientists to continue in their research by patenting a gene before a company does. I have several scientist friends who patented several genes and allow free access and use by any public reserach group, but charge the companies for the use of the gene. I hope the public becomes aware that these companies/or scientists are patenting genes that the public has paid for to research. Science should be free access for all. To belive that the commercial development can speed up the drive for research is ludicrous. Look at how far molecular biology has developed in the last twenty years. Patenting will only make matters more complicated.
Typically the genes that receive patents are new formulations of existing genes. They are not,nor will they ever be naturally occurring. They have been modified to increase expression, reduce redundancy, and have excised non-important segments for the final product. These have similarities to natural genes, but are usually chimeras of several genes or gene segments.
The recording industry is finally being forced to face their own music. The revenue that is lost with "free samples" of the albums by file sharing requires a better value of songs for the consumer. I know that in the past I have been suckered into purchasing a CD because I liked one or two songs, and then find that the rest is crap! Never again. The albums that are done well will continue to be purchased after the free previews. I believe that the RIAA are the real thieves. They have made money from the artists by claiming that they take the greatest risks by promoting them as a newly signed band, and make all of the profits by fircing compliance by requiring certain style songs and certain beats per minutes for the more saleable album. They can no longer continue to claim that the risk is that high, when they can promote and distribute the albums virtually for free. The artists deserve the money, and most of their income is from live concerts as the RIAA takes all of their proceeds for the first few albums. I believe that file-sharing will require the RIAA to make a better product, or "Lord Help Them", a better quality storage system!!! 0.02