RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Do they or Don't they?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,17:43   

I saw a commercial on CNN today from drug maker GlaxoSmithKline.  I can only remember the last line of the commercial but the gist of it was about all the work that has to go into making new drugs.  One line exemplified this by saying something like "We examine one million new chemicals a year and only find one that works."  It was the last line that got me.  What word is missing?
Quote
Because bacteria develop resistance and new viruses appear all the time.

Granted GSK is a British owned company but I'm pretty certain that an American ad agency probably prepared this commercial, as it was for an American audience.  Did they consciously choose to use the words 'develop' and 'appear' instead of 'evolve'?  Semantically there is no difference and some ad writer probably couldn't care less, so I may be seeing something that is really nothing.  But politically there is a difference and 'evolve' may have deliberately avoided.
I am just curious, does anyone know of corporate America making statements or otherwise doing anything else to combat the anti-science movement.  I have seen any number of news reports over the last few years of businesses lamenting the poor quality of new hires (even college graduates who can't put a coherent thought on paper), and subsequently need remedial training, but what are they doing besides lamenting and retraining their own hires?

Does the corporate world support good science openly or not?

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,23:13   

I dont know if this statement has much to do with evolution, drug discovery is a pretty inefficient process, so most of the failures wont have anything to do with the evolution of pathogens. Its simply a way of saying why the drugs are so exprensive. I think it costs about $800 million in total to get a drug onto the market, and many get most of the way there to fail in clinical trials. I dont think it has yet got to the point where it is worth the companies spending the money fighting the anti-science movement, although i wouldnt rule it out in the future.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2006,10:56   

Read "The $800million pill"

(Shiver)

It's a pretty jaded world out there. Lots of opportunity for someone young and ambitious :0

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2006,11:54   

Young and ambitious?  Well, more like with lots of money to burn.  There are several reasons it costs that much to get a drug to amrket.  

For starters, you have to do basic research into the molecular actions, to make sure it works properly, and with all the simple stuff like Penicillin known about and used up, your left getting into complex stuff with unknown mechanisms.  Then you need to work out how to make it cheaply, which isnt easy, let me tell you.  Then you have to test it to make sure it has few side effects and actually works in the body, which means using animals at first, then, eventually humans.  In order to do this it takes time and money, and experienced, intelligent people, who seem to want to earn enough money to have a life.  

And it all has to be checked.  There may well be an unreasonably high level of expectation and risk avoidance placed upon new drugs these days, but on the other hand there might not.  You also have to do multiple placebo blinded trials to help prove your new drug works, and that also takes time and money.  Disclosing all the data from said trials doesnt do any harm either...

So, essentially, theres a heck of a lot of work go's into making sure new drugs are both effective and safe, which makes your comment about youth and ambition a little, uumm, small?  Sure, with youth abnd ambition you might invent a better way of testing some drugs, or streamline the process of approval.  But I doubt you could do much more.

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,07:02   

I think you guys have missed my point.(As an aside, yes it takes many millions of dollars to develop drugs but I have also read that since the advertising ban was dropped in the nineties drug companies now spend more on advertising than they do on research.)

Quote
Chris Hyland wrote: Feb. 22 2006,05:13  
I dont know if this statement has much to do with evolution, drug discovery is a pretty inefficient process, so most of the failures wont have anything to do with the evolution of pathogens......I dont think it has yet got to the point where it is worth the companies spending the money fighting the anti-science movement, although i wouldnt rule it out in the future.

Agreed, most failures don't have anything to do with evolution, but the immense scope of the task of developing new drugs is partly justified in the commercial by the evolution of new pathogens.  My gripe is with the fact that the commercial chose not to use the word 'evolve' in the place of the words 'develop' and 'appear'. It would not have taken any extra money to have used that word and it would have been a small support of good science to have done so.  Even so small a support would have been a good thing.  The whole 'republican war on science' thing is, in part, at the behest of corporate america.  Can they be counted upon to support good science if they can't even make small, no cost, concessions in the language they choose to use, for, perhaps, the purpose of avoiding entry into any rhetorical controversy?
Sincerely,

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,07:11   

Quote
but the immense scope of the task of developing new drugs is partly justified in the commercial by the evolution of new pathogens.
You don't have to tell me I work with malaria(although to paraphrase the EU 'A disease that primarily affect the poorer parts of Africa is not suitable for funding because it is not vommerically viable' ). You might be right about corporate pressure, but I get the impression that in America not using the word evolution will score some points with the general public as well. Its different in Britain becuase its illegal to advertise prescription drugs, so I dont know what drug company commericals are like. But GSK seems perfectly willing to force known dangerous antdepressants on healty kids, so I wouldnt put anything past them.

  
edmund



Posts: 37
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,07:36   

Hi Paul,

IIRC, there's a big traveling exhibition on Darwin out right now that could not find any big corporate sponsors. There was a short piece about this in the New York Times-- I apologize for not being able to cite specifics.

The upshot is that companies are not willing to buck popular opinion. They hate controversy.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,03:19   

For the American market :
Quote
Because bacteria develop resistance and new viruses appear all the time.


should be

Quote
Because bacteria is constantly redesigned with new resistance and new viruses appear all the time, since the pesky intelligent designer cannot make up his friggin mind.


It just occured to me. Humans are actually fighting the so called "intelligent designer" when they make new drugs, are they not? Does Dembski teach this to his Sunday School class?

Also, I am a computer programmer. If the Vitamin C gene in humans are not working any more, why is it not fixed, or why is the cra_ppy code not deleted? "Sloppy Designer". Also, mutation should be prevented in the code, at all cost. Most mutations are "bad mutations". Data corruption / malfunction is not a sign if "intelligence" at all. Surely, no Christian can worship their God and the intelligent designer at the same time. Could it be the devil then????

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,04:45   

They'll tell you it is all because of the fall of man. Apparently before the fall all bacteria, snakes, spiders, sharks, lions dinosaurs and all the other dangerous critters were in fact vegetarian, and what we see now is all a result of the fall. Im just waiting for a fundementalist to tell me that God destoryed the vitamin C gene so we'd have to eat lots of fruit as a kind of ironic punishment for eating from the tree of knowledge.

Someone at uncommon descent, I think it was Salvador Cordova, told me that it would be better if we treated antibiotic resistance as a planned germ warfare attack. I didnt ask him about the implications for god but I imagine he would have said it was satan.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,05:29   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Mar. 20 2006,10:45)
They''ll tell you it is all because of the fall of man. Apparently before the fall all bacteria, snakes, spiders, sharks, lions dinosaurs and all the other dangerous critters were in fact vegetarian, and what we see now is all a result of the fall.

So no burgers in the Garden of Eden?

Dang.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,08:05   

Quote
It just occured to me. Humans are actually fighting the so called "intelligent designer" when they make new drugs, are they not?


there are several major religious sects (like Jehova's Witnesses) in the US that believe this.

They fervently believe that sickness is the will of God, and curing it by artificial means thwarts the will of God.

at least they're more consistent than the IDiots.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,18:55   

Quote
Someone at uncommon descent, I think it was Salvador Cordova, told me that it would be better if we treated antibiotic resistance as a planned germ warfare attack. I didnt ask him about the implications for god but I imagine he would have said it was satan.


So... Satan might just be the "intelligent designer"... how ironic. Satan must have tinkered with human DNA to make people so curious, thus they munched the apple.

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,19:20   

Renier wrote:

   "It just occured to me. Humans are actually fighting the so called "intelligent designer" when they make new drugs, are they not?"

In creating humankind in 'the creator's image', the creator invites and encourages humans to become partners in the act of creation. The creator took the universe only so far. It is unfinished and defective and was so intended to be. It is our assignment to employ our free will and superior intelligence to finish and improve upon the act of creation, thereby becoming partners with the creator. One of the most important aspects of this assignment is to improve upon the defective condition and nature of humankind itself.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,19:24   

does that partnership come with a 401k?

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2006,02:39   

The partnership comes with lots of fringe benefits and shares in the business.

It is what makes science the great and noble undertaking that it is. Quite literally, scientists are doing God's work "on earth".

Judaism has recognized this for thousands of years. The Talmud states, "he who is able to study nature and does not do so, for him it is written (in the Bible), 'my (God's) work they do not see and the efforts of my arms they do not look at."

Sorry, but I cannot at the moment provide the precise references. I am doing this from memory right now, but you can depend on it. As a matter of fact, you can take it to the bank.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2006,03:20   

Quote
Carol wrote about the universe : It is unfinished and defective and was so intended to be.


So, when God said "It is good", he was... uhm... joking... or dishonest? And, what's all the nonsence of everything was perfect in the Garden of Eden then? Anyway, doing half a job and not completing it is not a good thing, even for a god. And, if you don't give it your best...

No Carol, find another excuse. I don't buy this one. And you really cannot expect me to.

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2006,03:25   

Ah yes, but if you buy Judah Landah's book "My Translation is Teh Bomb", you will see that the English phrase, "it is good," actually says, "Holy smokes, I forgot to set the timer!"

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2006,06:03   

Renier,

What do you suppose "good" means? It means that it was just what He wanted.

I don't recall the garden (in Eden) being described as "perfect" (MITZOOYAN in Hebrew) in the Real Bible (as opposed to the hijacked mistranslations). It was a limited area with fertile soil, lots of trees and beauty.

What I wrote above is not my own invention. It comes from the ancient sages of Israel who are the only authoritative experts on that anceint Hebrew document and the oral tradition that came with it.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2006,10:24   

Quote
The partnership comes with lots of fringe benefits and shares in the business.


No way!

that's the exact same scam i fell for when i went to work for an internet media company during the dot.com boom.

fool me once...

I think I'll stick to doing science because it satisfies my curiosity and provides useable information.

Feel free, if you ever decide to actually DO any science, to sacrifice your results on the altar.


Quote
"Holy smokes, I forgot to set the timer!"


that made my day.

  
  18 replies since Feb. 21 2006,17:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]