BSL stands for Biosafety Level. What the OP was pointing out is, that especially at level 4 (Ebola type critters) there are very few facilities with that sort of capability and they ain't cheap. Even with Level 3 facilities, the numbers are small. I would wager a guess that any interested researcher who has access to a level 4 lab and many people with access to level 3 labs already have a copy of the sequence. They probably read the preprint.
If they haven't seen the data and are interested, they could have a conversation with the researchers. And likely a visit from DHS unless they're well known. All this does is prevent some random nasty from trying to engineer the toxin. Very unlikely, as there are significant hurdles to doing so. But the downsides are so great that it's worth the extra caution.
The only problem here, as has been pointed out, is whether or not this sets up a 'slippery slope' and the system tries to routinely prevent dissemination of this kind of data. Given the tendency towards paranoia and control (or control and paranoia), this is definitely a concern. I'm happy that these incidents are getting some press so it's on the radar. The system has been pretty much self policing so far and these concerns go way back to the 1950's.
While not arguing with your general premise, the standard myth of Galileo vs. the Church turns out to be fundamentally incomplete. This long winded treatise does it justice.
Sorry, being lazy. Here is a nice recent overview:
Plausibility and evidence: the case of homeopathy.
Link to the abstract in some sort of fourth tier journal
Sorry, that abstract is garbage. They looked at a bunch of homeopathic studies and found 'evidence of an effect'. Without careful statistical analysis, that's just... nothing. They even point out that most of the studies are garbage. I don't think that review would pass screening in any sort of reputable journal.
I'd like to see a single, statistically valid, study that does show an real effect of homeopathy. It's certainly possible to do.
If all clinical trials were viewed with such a critical eye as those supporting homeopathic treatment many fewer drugs would be approved.
The FDA actually approves very few drugs. It's Congressionally forced mandate is to prove the drugs 'safe' and 'effective', the latter meaning statistically equivalent to another drug or statistically better than a placebo arm.
So we have drugs that are 2% better than the old ones. While that may be statistically correct, it's not clinically meaningful - so we get lots of 'me too' drugs with clever advertising campaigns. OK, fine, what about safety? The new FDA requirements are crazy-strict. There are a number of older, grandfathered drugs that would never pass muster today. The FDA institutionally has gone full out on safety. That's a valid approach, but it leaves promising but potentially dangerous drugs unavailable. There is no real right or wrong here, just shades of gray.
But a homeopathic drug would never pass the efficacy portion of the testing since they've never demonstrated even statistically valid improvements over placebo.
In short, it's possible to show efficacy of a homeopathic drug using standard Double Blind Placebo Controlled Randomized Clinical Trials (DBPCRCT in the parlance). But no one really has, just vague handwaving.
Actually, I initially read that as 'particularly high in boredom, which I thinks works as well.
It's not very exciting to reproduce somebody's results. That's something often given to undergrads / med students or the Really Slow Guy. And that's only if the Primary Investigator wants to spend the money. Biochem reagents and tools are damned expensive these days.
But none of that proves that you can selectively (or otherwise) breed flies until they become spiders or butterflies. That would be actual proof of evolution creating a new species of an organism more complex than bacteria.
No, speciation isn't required for evolution. Species are an indistinct human derived concept that is wrong, but useful. Likewise, increasing complexity isn't required for evolutionary change. It turns out that it happens much of the time, but it's not central to the argument.
Jeez. This. First Class / Business Class / Whatever they call it in your neck of the woods solves lots of the annoying problems of modern aircraft flight. You just pay for it. At the very least, I would suggest that you pretend to sign up for first class, look at the price, then book economy and gloat over how much you've saved.
It makes those hours in purgatory go buy faster. Such a deal.
No surprise, really. Medical care is something hard to avoid - everyone will get sick / aged / infirm sooner or later and few will opt not to try and at least feel better, if not lengthen or improve their lives. Western medicine is simultaneously very powerful and pretty pathetic. We've gone after much of the low hanging fruit - the newer interventions are going to center on complex molecular biology and that stuff doesn't come cheap. On top of that the population is simultaneously increasing and aging. Not good for controlling medical costs.
We could limit costs. Remember the 80 / 20 rule (actually closer to 90 / 10) - a few patients consume most of the resources. Limit those folks and you've saved quite a bit of money. Of course, that's rather a large change in our social contract and I expect one that would not be palatable to the vast majority of people.
Barring that, there are still some options to reduce costs. Carefully evaluate the cost / benefit ratios of expensive therapies (bye bye dialysis). Basically freeze drug research (it's not like they have come up with any great new therapies) and essentially force generics. Get rid of Big Pharma's advertising budget (bigger than their research budget). Get rid of insurance companies and simplify the byzantine American medical system (one time savings, but a big one, basically kicks the can down the road). Limit reimbursement. Shoot the lawyers. Ration. Ration. Ration.
But people really want good health care which means somebody has to pay for it (preferably someone else). Now, IMHO, in the US at least, we could come up with all the money we needed if we restrained our military from trying to outspend the rest of the world by orders of magnitude. We don't need 11 carrier battle groups. We don't need the F-35. And so on - the money is there, we just have to figure out what our priorities are.
Unfortunately, given the partisan nature of US politics nothing substantive will happen. The ACA was likely the best political compromise available and it sucks big time (basically doesn't change the issues noted above). In the UK, obviously they have fewer levers to pull so they may, again, have to have that difficult 'social contract' conversation.
Just exactly what do you want society and government to do? (And don't give me any free market drivel, even the highly modified 'free market' in the US hasn't worked out so well in terms of patient safety. Just what do you think would happen if the government regulators went on permanent holiday. Do you think any consumer can rationally evaluate treatments? Who has the club in that scenario?)
Yep, probably in her head. Like in her hypothalamus.
And, more to the point, it might help the OP's GF's rash. Although some icy hot or an ice cube might be a good trial device and quite a bit smaller than the prototype.
[President] Obama and Congressional Democrats... have been waiting for a chance to humiliate Boehner
You're confused. Statesmen do not ever have a childish agenda as you've just described. You can be assured that Speaker Boehner has the respect of President Obama and Democratic members of Congress. The hyperbole of editorialists aside, Congress is not a playground, but a government institution of serious and careful business.
No, the idea behind the medical device tax is that the medical device manufacturers didn't give the politicians enough money last go around. You pay now, or you pay later - but you pay.
If you think that the ACA is going to lead to a single payor system, you're a tad delusional (maybe you should see a doctor, or maybe you shouldn't). The ACA entrenches the insurance companies even further than before. That's it's big failing (and it's a big one).
That was the Faustian bargain that Obama created when it became clear what the ACA would look like (OK, sort of clear). With the insurance companies firmly entrenched (and newly profitable) anything resembling the current single payor systems in the rest of the world will never fly*.
* Modern single payer systems in Australia, New Zealand, Europe, GB, etc are actually 'single payer plus' systems with the option for additional, privately controlled insurance products. But the insurers do not carry anywhere near the clout they do in the US and they don't make nearly as much money.
The Daily Mail is one of those newspapers where the default assumption should be that the entire story is a lie or so grossly distorted that the headline and the actual facts are in severe disagreement.
Slashdot is one of those websites where the default assumption should be that the entire story is a lie or so grossly distorted that the headline and the actual facts are in severe disagreement.
Slashdot Mirror
Which 'they'?
Cheney has managed to make quite a number of enemies over the years. No all of them live in the Middle East.
Censorship never is.
Neither are knee jerk reactions to complex issues.
BSL stands for Biosafety Level. What the OP was pointing out is, that especially at level 4 (Ebola type critters) there are very few facilities with that sort of capability and they ain't cheap. Even with Level 3 facilities, the numbers are small. I would wager a guess that any interested researcher who has access to a level 4 lab and many people with access to level 3 labs already have a copy of the sequence. They probably read the preprint.
If they haven't seen the data and are interested, they could have a conversation with the researchers. And likely a visit from DHS unless they're well known. All this does is prevent some random nasty from trying to engineer the toxin. Very unlikely, as there are significant hurdles to doing so. But the downsides are so great that it's worth the extra caution.
The only problem here, as has been pointed out, is whether or not this sets up a 'slippery slope' and the system tries to routinely prevent dissemination of this kind of data. Given the tendency towards paranoia and control (or control and paranoia), this is definitely a concern. I'm happy that these incidents are getting some press so it's on the radar. The system has been pretty much self policing so far and these concerns go way back to the 1950's.
While not arguing with your general premise, the standard myth of Galileo vs. the Church turns out to be fundamentally incomplete. This long winded treatise does it justice.
Sorry, being lazy. Here is a nice recent overview:
Plausibility and evidence: the case of homeopathy.
Link to the abstract in some sort of fourth tier journal
Sorry, that abstract is garbage. They looked at a bunch of homeopathic studies and found 'evidence of an effect'. Without careful statistical analysis, that's just ... nothing. They even point out that most of the studies are garbage. I don't think that review would pass screening in any sort of reputable journal.
I'd like to see a single, statistically valid, study that does show an real effect of homeopathy. It's certainly possible to do.
If all clinical trials were viewed with such a critical eye as those supporting homeopathic treatment many fewer drugs would be approved.
The FDA actually approves very few drugs. It's Congressionally forced mandate is to prove the drugs 'safe' and 'effective', the latter meaning statistically equivalent to another drug or statistically better than a placebo arm.
So we have drugs that are 2% better than the old ones. While that may be statistically correct, it's not clinically meaningful - so we get lots of 'me too' drugs with clever advertising campaigns. OK, fine, what about safety? The new FDA requirements are crazy-strict. There are a number of older, grandfathered drugs that would never pass muster today. The FDA institutionally has gone full out on safety. That's a valid approach, but it leaves promising but potentially dangerous drugs unavailable. There is no real right or wrong here, just shades of gray.
But a homeopathic drug would never pass the efficacy portion of the testing since they've never demonstrated even statistically valid improvements over placebo.
In short, it's possible to show efficacy of a homeopathic drug using standard Double Blind Placebo Controlled Randomized Clinical Trials (DBPCRCT in the parlance). But no one really has, just vague handwaving.
Actually, I initially read that as 'particularly high in boredom, which I thinks works as well.
It's not very exciting to reproduce somebody's results. That's something often given to undergrads / med students or the Really Slow Guy. And that's only if the Primary Investigator wants to spend the money. Biochem reagents and tools are damned expensive these days.
But none of that proves that you can selectively (or otherwise) breed flies until they become spiders or butterflies. That would be actual proof of evolution creating a new species of an organism more complex than bacteria.
No, speciation isn't required for evolution. Species are an indistinct human derived concept that is wrong, but useful. Likewise, increasing complexity isn't required for evolutionary change. It turns out that it happens much of the time, but it's not central to the argument.
No you don't understand. Americans add padding, so seat designers remove it. Zero sum game!
Jeez. This. First Class / Business Class / Whatever they call it in your neck of the woods solves lots of the annoying problems of modern aircraft flight. You just pay for it. At the very least, I would suggest that you pretend to sign up for first class, look at the price, then book economy and gloat over how much you've saved.
It makes those hours in purgatory go buy faster. Such a deal.
Nah, that's just your allergies kicking in.
No surprise, really. Medical care is something hard to avoid - everyone will get sick / aged / infirm sooner or later and few will opt not to try and at least feel better, if not lengthen or improve their lives. Western medicine is simultaneously very powerful and pretty pathetic. We've gone after much of the low hanging fruit - the newer interventions are going to center on complex molecular biology and that stuff doesn't come cheap. On top of that the population is simultaneously increasing and aging. Not good for controlling medical costs.
We could limit costs. Remember the 80 / 20 rule (actually closer to 90 / 10) - a few patients consume most of the resources. Limit those folks and you've saved quite a bit of money. Of course, that's rather a large change in our social contract and I expect one that would not be palatable to the vast majority of people.
Barring that, there are still some options to reduce costs. Carefully evaluate the cost / benefit ratios of expensive therapies (bye bye dialysis). Basically freeze drug research (it's not like they have come up with any great new therapies) and essentially force generics. Get rid of Big Pharma's advertising budget (bigger than their research budget). Get rid of insurance companies and simplify the byzantine American medical system (one time savings, but a big one, basically kicks the can down the road). Limit reimbursement. Shoot the lawyers. Ration. Ration. Ration.
But people really want good health care which means somebody has to pay for it (preferably someone else). Now, IMHO, in the US at least, we could come up with all the money we needed if we restrained our military from trying to outspend the rest of the world by orders of magnitude. We don't need 11 carrier battle groups. We don't need the F-35. And so on - the money is there, we just have to figure out what our priorities are.
Unfortunately, given the partisan nature of US politics nothing substantive will happen. The ACA was likely the best political compromise available and it sucks big time (basically doesn't change the issues noted above). In the UK, obviously they have fewer levers to pull so they may, again, have to have that difficult 'social contract' conversation.
Just exactly what do you want society and government to do? (And don't give me any free market drivel, even the highly modified 'free market' in the US hasn't worked out so well in terms of patient safety. Just what do you think would happen if the government regulators went on permanent holiday. Do you think any consumer can rationally evaluate treatments? Who has the club in that scenario?)
Don't quit your day job just yet.
And you should come up with a new panacea. Both Vitamin D and Vitamin C have both been deprecated.
Yep, probably in her head. Like in her hypothalamus.
And, more to the point, it might help the OP's GF's rash. Although some icy hot or an ice cube might be a good trial device and quite a bit smaller than the prototype.
Well, if I can trick my wife into thinking she is 'hotter' than she is, then we could well be on to something big.
Slashdot hates everything.
Bear in mind.
Clever.
You missed it. God is now using Linux.
Screw the desktop. This is really big.
[President] Obama and Congressional Democrats... have been waiting for a chance to humiliate Boehner
You're confused. Statesmen do not ever have a childish agenda as you've just described. You can be assured that Speaker Boehner has the respect of President Obama and Democratic members of Congress. The hyperbole of editorialists aside, Congress is not a playground, but a government institution of serious and careful business.
New keyboard time!
No, not quite. Public / Private partnerships are the very best worst. See, for example, the Military Industrial Complex.
No, the idea behind the medical device tax is that the medical device manufacturers didn't give the politicians enough money last go around. You pay now, or you pay later - but you pay.
Must be the fluoride in the water.
As opposed to my expensive employer supported plan that has ... wait for it... a deductible of several thousand dollars a year?
If you think that the ACA is going to lead to a single payor system, you're a tad delusional (maybe you should see a doctor, or maybe you shouldn't). The ACA entrenches the insurance companies even further than before. That's it's big failing (and it's a big one).
That was the Faustian bargain that Obama created when it became clear what the ACA would look like (OK, sort of clear). With the insurance companies firmly entrenched (and newly profitable) anything resembling the current single payor systems in the rest of the world will never fly*.
* Modern single payer systems in Australia, New Zealand, Europe, GB, etc are actually 'single payer plus' systems with the option for additional, privately controlled insurance products. But the insurers do not carry anywhere near the clout they do in the US and they don't make nearly as much money.
Sort of cheaper. 10-30% on average. Something, but hardly panaceas. That's the rub.
The Daily Mail is one of those newspapers where the default assumption should be that the entire story is a lie or so grossly distorted that the headline and the actual facts are in severe disagreement.
Slashdot is one of those websites where the default assumption should be that the entire story is a lie or so grossly distorted that the headline and the actual facts are in severe disagreement.
See what I did there?
Hey man, he's a Star Trek fan. He's got better taste than that.