Government – Page 40 – artdiamondblog.com

Cancer Will Likely Be Cured by “Lone Wolves, Awkward Individualists, Nonconformists”

Morton Meyers quotes Ernst Chain, who received the Nobel Prize in 1945, along with Fleming and Florey, for developing penicillin:

(p. 81) But do not let us fall victims of the naive illusion that problems like cancer, mental illness, degeneration or old age… can be solved by bulldozer organizational methods, such as were used in the Manhattan Project. In the latter, we had the geniuses whose basic discoveries made its development possible, the Curies, the Rutherfords, the Einsteins, the Niels Bohrs and many others; in the biologic field… these geniuses have not yet appeared…. No mass attack will replace them…. When they do appear, it is our job to recognize them and give them the opportunities to develop their talents, which is not an easy task, for they are bound to be lone wolves, awkward individualists, nonconformists, and they will not very well fit into any established organization.

Source:
Meyers, Morton A. Happy Accidents: Serendipity in Modern Medical Breakthroughs. New York: Arcade Publishing, 2007.
(Note: ellipses in original.)

Brazil Libertarian Uses Laser Vision to Privatize Trains

“In campaign ads, Paulo Batista, who is running for a seat in the São Paulo state legislature, is a superhero looking for old commuter trains to blast into privatization with his laser vision.” Source of caption: print version of the NYT article quoted and cited below. Source of photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. A4) RIO DE JANEIRO — An auditor flies through the air like Superman, shooting laser beams from his eyes.
. . .
“The neutral, generic method of appealing to voters is a mediocre and failed way of doing politics,” said Paulo Batista, 34, a real estate auditor and self-described libertarian who is running for a seat in São Paulo’s state legislature.
Mr. Batista’s ads, depicting him as a superhero using his laser vision to privatize dilapidated commuter trains, are popular on YouTube.

For the full story, see:
SIMON ROMERO. “Brazil’s Politicians Often Play the Clown in Ads.” The New York Times (Weds., SEPT. 3, 2014): A4.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date SEPT. 2, 2014.)

For Health Entrepreneurs “the Regulatory Burden in the U.S. Is So High”

(p. A11) Yo is a smartphone app. MelaFind is a medical device. Yo sends one meaningless message: “Yo!” MelaFind tells you: “biopsy this and don’t biopsy that.” MelaFind saves lives. Yo does not. Guess which firm found it easier to put their product in consumers hands?
. . .
In January 2010, Jeffrey Shuren, a veteran FDA official, was appointed director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, the division responsible for evaluating MelaFind. Dr. Shuren, Dr. Gulfo writes, had “a reputation for being somewhat anti-industry” and “an aggressive agenda to completely revamp the device approval process.” Thus in March MELA Sciences was issued something called a “Not Approvable letter” raising various questions about MelaFind.
. . .
The letter sent the author into survival mode. He battled the FDA, calmed investors, and defended against the lawsuit all while trying to keep the company afloat. Under stress, Dr. Gulfo’s health began to decline: He lost 29 pounds, his hair began to fall out, and the pain in his gut became so intense he needed an endoscopy.
. . .
The climax to this medical thriller comes when, in “the greatest 15 minutes of [his] life,” Dr. Gulfo delivers an impassioned speech, à la “Twelve Angry Men,” to the FDA’s advisory committee. The committee voted for approval, 8 to 7, and, perhaps with the congressional hearing in mind, the FDA approved MelaFind in September 2011.
It was a major triumph for the company, but Dr. Gulfo was beat. He retired from the company in June 2013– . . .
. . .
Google’s Sergey Brin recently said that he didn’t want to be a health entrepreneur because “It’s just a painful business to be in . . . the regulatory burden in the U.S. is so high that I think it would dissuade a lot of entrepreneurs.” Mr. Brin won’t find anything in Dr. Gulfo’s book to persuade him otherwise. Until we get our regulatory system in order, expect a lot more Yo’s and not enough life-saving innovations.

For the full review, see:
ALEX TABARROK. “BOOKSHELF; It’s Broke. Fix It. MelaFind’s breakthrough optical technology promised earlier, more accurate detection of melanoma. Then the FDA got involved.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., Aug. 12, 2014): A11.
(Note: ellipses added, except for the one internal to the final paragraph, which is in the original.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date Aug. 11, 2014, and has the title “BOOKSHELF; Book Review: ‘Innovation Breakdown’ by Joseph V. Gulfo; MelaFind’s breakthrough optical technology promised earlier, more accurate detection of melanoma. Then the FDA got involved.”)

The book under review is:
Gulfo, Joseph V. Innovation Breakdown: How the FDA and Wall Street Cripple Medical Advances. Franklin, TN: Post Hill Press, 2014.

French Government Wastes $68.5 Million Ordering Trains Too Wide for Many Platforms

(p. B3) PARIS–France’s state-run railway system on Wednesday admitted failing to mind the gap, after realizing that a fleet of new trains it has ordered are too wide to fit many of the country’s stations.
Confirming a report in satirical weekly Le Canard Enchaîné, train operator Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer and network owner Réseau Ferré de France said about 1,300 of France’s 8,700 railway platforms must be trimmed to make way for the wider rolling stock.
It will cost about €50 million ($68.5 million) to alter the platforms to fit the new trains by 2016, when they are delivered, SNCF and RFF said.

For the full story, see:
WILLIAM HOROBIN. “French in Uproar Over Train Snafu.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., May 22, 2014): B3.
(Note: the online version of the story has the date May 21, 2014, and has the title “Mind the Gap: New French Trains Too Wide for Many Platforms.”)

Modelers Can Often Obtain the Desired Result

(p. A13) After earning a master’s degree in environmental engineering in 1982, I spent most of the next 10 years building large-scale environmental computer models. My first job was as a consultant to the Environmental Protection Agency. I was hired to build a model to assess the impact of its Construction Grants Program, a nationwide effort in the 1970s and 1980s to upgrade sewer-treatment plants.
The computer model was huge–it analyzed every river, sewer treatment plant and drinking-water intake (the places in rivers where municipalities draw their water) in the country. I’ll spare you the details, but the model showed huge gains from the program as water quality improved dramatically. By the late 1980s, however, any gains from upgrading sewer treatments would be offset by the additional pollution load coming from people who moved from on-site septic tanks to public sewers, which dump the waste into rivers. Basically the model said we had hit the point of diminishing returns.
When I presented the results to the EPA official in charge, he said that I should go back and “sharpen my pencil.” I did. I reviewed assumptions, tweaked coefficients and recalibrated data. But when I reran everything the numbers didn’t change much. At our next meeting he told me to run the numbers again.
After three iterations I finally blurted out, “What number are you looking for?” He didn’t miss a beat: He told me that he needed to show $2 billion of benefits to get the program renewed. I finally turned enough knobs to get the answer he wanted, and everyone was happy.
. . .
There are no exact values for the coefficients in models such as these. There are only ranges of potential values. By moving a bunch of these parameters to one side or the other you can usually get very different results, often (surprise) in line with your initial beliefs.

For the full commentary, see:
ROBERT J. CAPRARA. “OPINION; Confessions of a Computer Modeler; Any model, including those predicting climate doom, can be tweaked to yield a desired result. I should know.” The Wall Street Journal (Weds., July 9, 2014): A13.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date July 8, 2014.)

Feds Threaten 14,000 Dead Men with Prison, if They Fail to Register for Draft

(p. A3) . . . the Selective Service System mistakenly sent notices to more than 14,000 Pennsylvania men born between 1893 and 1897, ordering them to register for the nation’s military draft and warning that failure to do so is “punishable by a fine and imprisonment.”
. . .
Chuck Huey, 73, of Kingston, said he got a notice addressed to his late grandfather Bert Huey, a World War I veteran who was born in 1894 and died in 1995 at age 100.
. . .
Huey said he tried calling the Selective Service but couldn’t get a live person on the line.
. . .
“You just never know. You don’t want to mess around with the federal government,” he said.

For the full story, see:
The Associated Press. “14,000 men sent draft reminders 100 years too late.” Omaha World-Herald (Fri., July 11, 2014): 3A.
(Note: ellipses added.)

Structural Reforms Needed to Increase Innovation

(p. A13) . . . , a lack of “demand” is no longer the problem.
. . .
Where, instead, are the problems? John Taylor, Stanford’s Nick Bloom and Chicago Booth’s Steve Davis see the uncertainty induced by seat-of-the-pants policy at fault. Who wants to hire, lend or invest when the next stroke of the presidential pen or Justice Department witch hunt can undo all the hard work? Ed Prescott emphasizes large distorting taxes and intrusive regulations. The University of Chicago’s Casey Mulligan deconstructs the unintended disincentives of social programs. And so forth. These problems did not cause the recession. But they are worse now, and they can impede recovery and retard growth.
These views are a lot less sexy than a unicausal “demand,” fixable by simple, magic-bullet policies. They require us to do the hard work of fixing the things we all agree need fixing: our tax code, our cronyist regulatory state, our welter of anticompetitive and anti-innovative protections, education, immigration, social program disincentives, and so on. They require “structural reform,” not “stimulus,” in policy lingo.

For the commentary, see:
JOHN H. COCHRANE. “OPINION; The Failure of Macroeconomics; When models don’t yield the spending policies they want, some Keynesians abandon models–but not the spending.” The Wall Street Journal (Thur., July 3, 2014): A13.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date July 2, 2014.)

3.2 Million Waiting for Care Under England’s Single-Payer Socialized Medicine

(p. A13) . . . even as the single-payer system remains the ideal for many on the left, it’s worth examining how Britain’s NHS, established in 1948, is faring. The answer: badly. NHS England–a government body that receives about £100 billion a year from the Department of Health to run England’s health-care system–reported this month that its hospital waiting lists soared to their highest point since 2006, with 3.2 million patients waiting for treatment after diagnosis. NHS England figures for July 2013 show that 508,555 people in London alone were waiting for operations or other treatments–the highest total for at least five years.
Even cancer patients have to wait: According to a June report by NHS England, more than 15% of patients referred by their general practitioner for “urgent” treatment after being diagnosed with suspected cancer waited more than 62 days–two full months–to begin their first definitive treatment.
. . .
The socialized-medicine model is struggling elsewhere in Europe as well. Even in Sweden, often heralded as the paradigm of a successful welfare state, months-long wait times for treatment routinely available in the U.S. have been widely documented.
To fix the problem, the Swedish government has aggressively introduced private-market forces into health care to improve access, quality and choices. Municipal governments have increased spending on private-care contracts by 50% in the past decade, according to Näringslivets Ekonomifakta, part of the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise, a Swedish employers’ association.

For the commentary, see:
SCOTT W. ATLAS. “OPINION; Where ObamaCare Is Going; The government single-payer model that liberals aspire to for the U.S. is increasingly in trouble around the world.” The Wall Street Journal (Thur., Aug. 14, 2014): A13.
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Aug. 13, 2014.)

The Health Hazards of Government Guidelines on Salt

Source of graphic: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A1) A long-running debate over the merits of eating less salt escalated Wednesday when one of the most comprehensive studies yet suggested cutting back on sodium too much actually poses health hazards.

Current guidelines from U.S. government agencies, the World Health Organization, the American Heart Association and other groups set daily dietary sodium targets between 1,500 and 2,300 milligrams or lower, well below the average U.S. daily consumption of about 3,400 milligrams.
The new study, which tracked more than 100,000 people from 17 countries over an average of more than three years, found that those who consumed fewer than 3,000 milligrams of sodium a day had a 27% higher risk of death or a serious event such as a heart attack or stroke in that period than those whose intake was estimated at 3,000 to 6,000 milligrams. Risk of death or other major events increased with intake above 6,000 milligrams.
The findings, published in the (p. A2) New England Journal of Medicine, are the latest to challenge the benefit of aggressively low sodium targets–especially for generally healthy people. Last year, a report from the Institute of Medicine, which advises Congress on health issues, didn’t find evidence that cutting sodium intake below 2,300 milligrams reduced risk of cardiovascular disease.

For the story, see:
RON WINSLOW. “Low-Salt Diets May Pose Health Risks, Study Finds.” The Wall Street Journal (Thur., Aug. 14, 2014): A1-A2.
(Note: the online version of the story has the date Aug. 13, 2014, an has the title “Low-Salt Diets May Pose Health Risks, Study Finds.”)

Cardinal Explained to Emperor that It Is OK to Lie to Heretics

Notwithstanding the assurances that the pope, the council, and the emperor had given him, Hus was almost immediately vilified and denied the opportunity to speak in public. On November 28, barely three weeks after he arrived, he was arrested on order of the cardinals and taken to the prison of a Dominican monastery on the banks of the Rhine. There he was thrown into an underground cell through which all the filth of the monastery was discharged. When he fell seriously ill, he asked that an advocate be appointed to defend his cause, but he was told that, according to canon law, no one could plead the cause of a man charged with heresy. In the face of protests from Hus and his Bohemian supporters about the apparent violation of his safe-conduct, the emperor chose not to intervene. He was, it was said, uncomfortable about what seemed a violation of his word, but an English cardinal had reportedly reassured him that “no faith need be kept with heretics.”

Source:
Greenblatt, Stephen. The Swerve: How the World Became Modern. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2011.
(Note: this quote is from somewhere on pp. 167-168; I bought the Kindle version which does not give page numbers correctly and I can’t recover pages on this one from Google books; I would guess it is all on p. 168.)