May 09, 2007
*Cough* *Cough*Health and Medicine
Most of you have heard about the tainted pet food, right? A simple Google search yields more than 7,800 stories about the Chinese rice and wheat gluten that contained melamine to increase the apparent protein content of the food. While American pets may have died, the risk to humans posed by this, even if used as feed for chickens or fish, is pretty low.
Contrast that with the tainted cough syrup that has probably killed thousands children in the Third World. What? You haven’t heard about this? Of course not. It’s not as sexy a story. There are over 40 times as many stories about the tainted pet food in America than about tainted cough syrup overseas.
Toxic syrup has figured in at least eight mass poisonings around the world … Researchers estimate that thousands have died… Beyond Panama and China, toxic syrup has caused mass poisonings in Haiti, Bangladesh, Argentina, Nigeria and twice in India. [Link]
The Bangladesh incident happened 15 years ago, yet this kind of mass poisoning continues to happen in different parts of the world, most recently in Panama:
In Bangladesh, investigators found poison in seven brands of fever medication in 1992, but only after countless children died. A Massachusetts laboratory detected the contamination after Dr. Michael L. Bennish, a pediatrician who works in developing countries, smuggled samples of the tainted syrup out of the country in a suitcase. Dr. Bennish … said that given the amount of medication distributed, deaths “must be in the thousands or tens of thousands…” [Link]
The bones of the story are the same in both cases. FDA issues recent warnings after a Chinese manufacturer cuts corners and substitutes a cheaper lethal ingredient for a more expensive one. With the cough syrup it was diethylene glycol for glycerine.
The counterfeit glycerin passed through three trading companies on three continents, yet not one of them tested the syrup to confirm what was on the label. Along the way, a certificate falsely attesting to the purity of the shipment was repeatedly altered, eliminating the name of the manufacturer and previous owner. As a result, traders bought the syrup without knowing where it came from, or who made it. With this information, the traders might have discovered — as The Times did — that the manufacturer was not certified to make pharmaceutical ingredients. [Link]
Those who consumed drugs made with diethylene glycol died a horrible death:
The kidneys fail first. Then the central nervous system begins to misfire. Paralysis spreads, making breathing difficult, then often impossible without assistance. In the end, most victims die. Many of them are children, poisoned at the hands of their unsuspecting parents. [Link]
Deaths due to diethylene glycol poisoning in the USA led to the creation of the FDA in 1938.
The sad thing is that manufacturers aren’t bothering to even do spot checks on the compounds they are using, even though they know they are being produced in countries (like China) with very poor domestic controls. Worse yet, they don’t maintain a chain of possession so that any incidents of poisoning that are detected can be traced back. To me, that’s both lazy and greedy. Sadly, without institutions in place to oblige companies to keep complete records and spot check their ingredients, the companies will not do so on their own.
ennis on May 9, 2007 12:06 AM in Business, Health and Medicine, Science and Technology · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
sad sad sad
This is awful - thanks for the post, Ennis.
What kind of monsters are prepared to poison children for a fast buck? (Heck, even ordinary cough syrup can be unsafe for kids. The sweeteners can make children take too much and OD.)
Thanks for posting about this.
I read about this from newyorktimes.com.. Yeah, it is a shame that people are dying, I think China should be punished in some way for letting this happen..
This post reminded me of the coca-cola scandal
How horrible..
I think this is disgusting. While not belittling the seriousness of this issue, I am also thinking - with the Chinese under fire for scandals recently, is this a business opportunity for India to step in and start becoming a supplier of such low end medicines and pet food and such things? Low end manufacturing is very very important for a having a 'feed all' less pyramidal economy and while in recent times India has indeed seen a growth in such industries, it's still not enough.
India is a big supplier to the third world for cheaply manufactured low end medicines because of a current local law which allows India to knock off essential low cost drugs without worrying too much about patents. In recent times Big Pharma is trying to get India to sign something that will no longer allow it to do so.
But it seems like the Chinese are doing it to themselves with some regularity too. I am not suggesting that there isn't a need for punishments. This chinese company, if they really did add melamine to boost nitrogen levels, should be shut down and the decision makers put in jail.
THIS is why I read sepiamutiny, not for all that crap about successful desis, caste-corruption-and-dalits, or what Anna had for dinner. Excellent find, Ennis!
A.R.Yngve,
It's not about monsters, it's about apathy/negligence. I don't remember whose book it's from, but I remember a passage about the holocaust and Nazis that laid a considerable amount of the blame on the paper-pushing 'middlemen'. The men with guns who go and shoot knelt, blindfolded, oldfolk are clearly monsters, but the non-supporters of the Third Reich who stamp what needs to be stamp, file what needs to be filed, and approve what needs to be approved are the real enablers.
Monsters are chaotic, and like lions and other beasts, they are without direction, uncoordinated, predictable, and ancient enough that the ecosystem has accepted them. The true menace are not these monsters that, while harmful, are in equilibrium. The true menace are amplifiers in the form of modern processes, be it a bureaucratic machine or chemical factory. Accordingly, the FDA isn't out to get the speck of rat feces in your cereal (they approve something like 0.5% - 4% foreign matter depending on the process), such things are chalked up as undesirable but in benign in the grand scheme. The FDA focuses on unnatural, modern-concoctions that unleashes a monster our ecosystem is unready for. To do so, they also nitpick on things like whether allergens such as peanuts exist in compounds that do not document it. Why? Because there exists the hope that if minor traffic laws are obeyed then major traffic laws will be.
The peeps in Bangladesh are always getting effed. This is just horrible. I can imagine the parents buying medicine for their kids hoping it'll help them and it does so much more worse damage. Very sad.
Sic Semper - thanks. I like writing policy geek posts too, but honestly, I wonder how much they appeal to our audience at large. They're certainly not very accessible. This is why we write on a variety of different topics, so that we can appeal to different people. Also because we each like a broad spectrum of issues.
>>India is a big supplier to the third world for cheaply manufactured low end medicines because of a current local law which allows India to knock off essential low cost drugs without worrying too much about patents
This is precisely why such incidents happen resulting in deaths of innocent children.
Step 1: A US biotech/drug company gets venture capital/uses its cash reserves to conduct research into a specific disease (cancer/aids/cough etc).
Step 2: After years of failure and hundreds of millions of dollars later, trials show some promise. A report is filed with the FDA for approval.
Step 3: FDA declines approval and asks for more testing. Company stock crashes. It spends hundreds of millions more and after a few more years, sends another report to FDA.
Step 4: FDA gives conditional approval to test only in certain markets. Company literally gives away the drug for free to thousands of Americans who participate in the trial.
Step 5: Of the thousands of Americans, 99.7% get cured. The other 0.3% get some side effects that are fatal. FDA orders withdrawal and more testing. Company stock crashes again.
Step 6: After hundreds of millions of dollars and years more of research, the drug is perfected. FDA gives approval. Company stock soars. Most companies don't make it to this stage and declare bankruptcy.
Step 7: Company prices product in order to get back what it spent on research as well as for future profits to fund cure for more diseases. Prices are affordable only by rich who have the best insurace.
Step 8: The company breaks even and reduces prices that are affordable to more Americans (and other developed countries). Rich from emerging markets also afford the drug and use it to save lives. Politicians from emerging markets beg the company to sell the drug in their countries with market prices. American company obliges, and keeps strict control over quality. Copiers are identified and punished without mercy by local politicians.
Step 9: After a few years, politicians from EM countries make deals with local manufacturers in order to copy the drug without respecting patents. Phrases like "For the poor people" and "children's welfare" and "blood sucking American capitalists" are thrown around to rabble-rouse.
Step 10: While the WTO looks the other way, local manufacterers copy and sell the drug. The American company cries foul and threatens to withdraw drug from country. They are castigated as "putting profits over children's lives".
Step 11: American company withdraws drug and exits the country. Politicians rejoice.
Step 12: Local politicians (state/district level) smell money in the process. They make deals with local fly-by-night chemists to make copies of the copies. The local companies cry foul, but they are silenced with the logic : "Hey you copied without respecting patents. Who the hell are you to stop us now?"
Step 13: Sub-local manufacturers make the drug and their sales exceed that of the original copiers. But they lack quality controls. More and more middlemen muscle in. Copies of copies of copies are made. All with the original label. Nobody cares. The original politicians have moved on to some other scam.
Step 14: Someone messes up big. Innocent children die. Calls for someone to do something are made. But it's too late because the controls to identify what comes from where disappeared when the American company exited the market.
Moral: When someone wants something for nothing, death is the ultimate outcome. And it's usually well deserved.
M. Nam
I think its called filtering. You filter the bad/not-so-good/seriously-ethically-questionable stories to enable N. Americans to keep living thier cushy lives.
Besides little pets look more cute than a crying fly infested brown child!
You know the interesting part is that - the very fact that media did not pick up this story (cough syrup poisoning) makes pets' lives in NA more important than the kids in 'South Asia' (I hate that term!).
While I agree in principal that pharma must be rewarded for their immense R&D expenditures, are you telling me that poor people who are trying to save loved ones with low cost generics deserve what they get ? This is where you lose people who might otherwise agree with you Moor Nam.
Moral: When someone wants something for nothing, death is the ultimate outcome. And it's usually well deserved.
So if the ceiling falls down on the Soup Kitchen/homeless shelter and kills everybody, the deaths would be well deserved?
I
MoorNam -- interesting point, but the counterpoint is easy: how many people would have died if the non-regulated drug was not even available at that price? Obviously, the equation changes depending on whether you're talking about cough syrup or tuberculosis medication, but (like everything else) this is a balancing act.
Still, we do know the names and identities of these low-cost manufacturers. I wonder if WTO could make it possible to sue manufacturers for wrongful death in exchange for the patent loophole or something. Rich countries might get on board because this rule change would provide a disincentive to these low-cost providers while still letting Pfizer avoid the "evil bloodsucking corporation keeps Bangladeshi street urchins from getting AIDS drugs" headlines. I dunno, maybe that's all a little too non-zero-sum ("must get every. paisa. possible."), but I think it would be a step in the right direction.
Man... that was supposed to say "I 'heart' policy geek posts"
So if I am born poor, I deserve to die - either I use a copy and die or die anyways for lack of medicine.
If I understand correctly, you are saying the current system is fine as long as countries are stopped from making knock offs. I agree with you that companies should be rewarded for their efforts and investment, no two ways about that. Also, your point is valid that alienating the developer of the drug when making copies increases the risks of something going terribly wrong. However in the current system in the absence of copies the following scenarios can happen -
1. The company keeps selling drugs at high rates to maximize its profits. People in the 3rd world cant afford it and die though the drug is available for consumption.
2. The company sees it can still make good revenues by selling the drug cheaper based off the strength of numbers and size of the market, and so it can sell at a lower price point. But then it also knows that medicine is a necessity and so decides not to since people will have to buy it anyways in their not so humble opinion.
3. The company is actually benevolent and does indeed sell it at a lower price point. I am not convinced this happens as often.
I am not sure whats the best way to make a drug affordable and still reward the company developing it. Maybe force the Govt. of the developing country to take some of the burden of the royalty - but this has been tried many times where the Govt. subsidizes the drug but Govt. supplied drugs are always found to be short supply thanks to corruption, inefficiency etc. Maybe reduce the time of patent validity in the developing world, the Govt. subsidizes for this period and then stops. It also depends on the market for the drug etc etc.
Since some folks seem to have mistakenly deduced that I'm a "rabbit-in-pressure-cooker" kind of heartless person, I will make no attempt to dispel such notions because that would be tangential to the topic and it would not be fair to Ennis's post. What you think of me is your own business. Succinctly put, which death is deserved and which is not is largely the grand total of the karmas of all related parties in question. Any more elaboration will have to be in the form of an article which I may write someday, but for now let me address the posts which talked about the topic.
How should EM countries make drugs affordable to their poorest of poor?
1: Invite the original manufacterer to set up shop in their country. High costs for American drugs are usually a by-product of high employee, business and transportation costs. Have a rock-solid contract with the American company that they would be allowed to pay whatever they choose to the employees, and that the government will not disturb anything while the contract is in force. Keep the contract period high, like 10-15 years so that the company feels comfortable and confident. The company is not stupid to keep prices beyond the reach of the target market. There will always be some people who cannot afford it, and they have to throw themselves at the mercy of charity. The vast bulk of the population will benefit.
2: Strictly enforce compliance with patents. Any illicit manufacter needs to be caught and punished swiftly.
3: Create a climate of innovativeness and creativity by having a sound product patent law, along with tax incentives to bring new drugs to market that will benefit local companies.
4: Free up the education system so that more bio-tech courses and medical colleges are opened. (Presently the only two states that are doing this are Andhra and Karnatak.)
M. Nam
India is a big supplier to the third world for cheaply manufactured low end medicines because of a current local law which allows India to knock off essential low cost drugs without worrying too much about patents
Not entirely true any more. Since January 2005, when Parliament passed an act bringing the Indian law into harmony with WTO/PCT regulations on patenting, it's much harder to make "on patent" drugs in India. The big money now is for generic manufacturers to make bulk pharmaceuticals when the patent on the pioneer drug runs out.
Also, most of the bulk drug manufacturers want to market their products in non-third world countries as well (Dr. Reddy's, Sun and Lupin Pharma all come to mind), and therefore, their procedures are far more stringent than what is actually required under Indian law.
4: Free up the education system so that more bio-tech courses and medical colleges are opened.
I think that's something of a red herring. First of all, medical colleges in India are not focused on research. They're focused (IMO correctly) on training doctors. Second of all, the pharma industry is driven by drug discovery technology, which requires a background in chemistry (particularly organic synthesis) and not in biotechnology.
Organic synthesis is one are where Indian chemists are very well-trained, and one of the reasons Indian generic pharma manufacturers are doing so well. A paucity of proper education is not really the problem.
Did you people read the article? It has nothing to do with patented drugs being subverted. It was cough syrup. I guarantee you that there is no patent out on cough syrup.
>>It has nothing to do with patented drugs being subverted.
Saheli,
What I'm pointing out is that the effect(poisonous cough syrup) has its root cause in lack of respect for other people's intellectual property. Those who violate other's right to the proceeds of their work almost always end of violating others' right to live. The rest is just means: how it happens, who are involved, who gets away with what etc etc.
M. Nam
>>almost always end of violating others' right to live.
should read: almost always end up violating others' right to live.
M. Nam
Why does everyone keep saying the media did not pick up the story? I heard about it on TV as well as on NPR--of course pet food in the US is going to be a bigger deal in the US because it directly affects the people the news is aimed at. And as a dog owner I'm not ashamed to admit that I do care more about what happens to my dog than about a person I don't know in another country, even though I do care very much about the deaths of unknown people in other countries. The dog food story has a huge emotional impact on Americans, as well as having very real consumer awareness ramifications. So while I wholeheartedly agree that the media ignores the plight of the world, I don't think it's fair to compare the two stories.
Regarding MoorNam's post, the process works great, except that largely due to pharma lobbying, medicines come off of patent and into the generic world far more slowly than would be expected. Pharmaceutical companies constantly play games with capsule coatings, dosage sizes, and even bottle colors (this has been done!) to extend the life of their patents.
The best performing sector in the stock market in the 1990s? Not high tech. It was pharma, earning outsized returns because of a lack of competition. Credit generics manufacturers here, in India, and elsewhere for balancing the playing field a bit, and ensuring that medicines eventually become cheap enough (and still safe) for the masses.
With regard to the Times article Ennis sourced for this post:
That's both sad and darkly amusing.
Chinese authorities have a firm hand when they do decide to regulate something; hopefully they'll catch up on this front.
India, which generally does a better job of regulating drug manufacture, would do well to make sure its pharmaceutical industry doesn't get lumped in here.
Pharmaceutical companies constantly play games with capsule coatings, dosage sizes, and even bottle colors (this has been done!) to extend the life of their patents.
This is true to some extent, but changes in the patent laws over the past decade or so have made it almost impossible to extend the term of a composition simply by varying an excipient, or something like that. Generic manufacturers are behaving more strategically as well, often moving to invalidate patents rather than wait out the term.
Whatever affects America will be written about most in American papers.
I would expect that the cough syrup thing would gain more publicity in those countries than articles about the pet food scare, and vice versa.
I wanna know first and foremost of dangers in the country I happen to be in at the time.
Regarding MoorNam's post, the process works great, except that largely due to pharma lobbying, medicines come off of patent and into the generic world far more slowly than would be expected
That's also not entirely true. A drug goes off patent when it's patent expires, which is 20 years from the date of filing...which is a completely predictable event. So I don't see how drugs become generic "far more slowly than would be expected."
Patents are not the problem with the pharma world. Blame direct-to-consumer marketing for the increased price of drugs.
Also regarding my comment #26, I don't think this is a uniquely American phenomenon. The human-domesticated animal relationship is an ancient one. I'm sure a shepherd in Morocco cares more about his sheep than about humans in Eritrea. It's not about valuing animal life about human life, but about a responsibility you have directly taken on for another life. You could argue that a cow's life in India often appears more sacred than a human's, but that doesn't mean Hindus don't care about human lives.
I mean to type "valuing animal life above human life"
That's a dubious connection since all of this happened in an arena without any IP.
There are 40 times as many stories about the pet food issue than about the poisoned cough syrup issue, even though we're talking about a story where young children died a horrible death.
I do think that people prioritize American pets over foreign children. That said, the syrup story is a long slow one over several decades with little in the way of smoking gun. If this was happening all at once, with a clear angle, like in Bhopal, I think it would get more attention, although still perhaps less than the pet food story.
Yes, but isn't it natural to prioritize YOUR pet, that you love and take care of, that loves you back, over someone you don't even know? I don't think it's surprising. Most Americans own pets. The ones that don't probably didn't care much about the pet food contamination. My dog doesn't eat a mass-produced brand of dog food, but if he didn't I would have been quite upset and wanted a lot of news about what was safe and what wasn't. Because I'm responsible for my dog directly, while I am only indirectly responsible for the world's children. I guess my point is, for most Americans the pet food story had a personal angle. It's not that American pets are more important than foreign children, but that you are more likely to feel emotionally involved with something that directly impacts your life. I think the media should write more about the cough syrup story but I don't think it should be compared to the dog food story. They are two very different things. There are more stories in the media about the price of gas going up than about the cough syrup, but no one made that comparison.
The other issue with the dog food story is that it involved American consumers failing to be protected, and let's face it, we expect to be protected.
Leaving aside how many people don't read SM for this type of story and how their interests are just as valid as yours, I guess it wasn't possible to compliment a blogger without insulting another.
That is correct. It's not necessary to disparage one kind of post to let us know that you enjoy another. I spend plenty of time on posts about "caste-corruption-and-dalits" and also on lighter posts. If you wish to encourage us to write on a subject, that's appreciated, but I am most responsive to constructive feedback and less so to attacks on myself or my friends.
I love the attitude of MoorNam's post -- if only everyone understood basic principles of Economics 101, all of these problems would simply go away! Never mind that top-level Econ PhD's spend time researching and writing papers on the market failures on the pharmaceutical industry (e.g., big pharma spends an unbelievable percentage of revenue not on furthering more research like they would have you believe but on advertising and making payments to doctors to have more of their medication prescribed. Usually bribes aren't considered part of the market-clearning condition). Or that the pharmaceutical industry is one of the most successful at lobbying our government to implement many of those market failures (look at prices the VA pays for prescription drugs because they use their bargaining power versus the Bush Prescription Drug Plan, where the government is statutorily prohibited from using its bargaining power to lower prices).
Moor's argument also misunderstands the underlying purposes of IP law, its not to create strict property rights for the creators of new and useful technology/processes/expressions but rather to balance those legitimate interests against the public's interest in having new products become available. Its not all about protecting inventors, whatever the cost to the public. The fact that other countries may reach a different conclusion on how to strike that balance than the US does not indictate some deep moral failure on their parts.
There is a good reason for the pet food story to have received a lot of coverage, yes. The question is why it got 40 times the attention of this other story, when they were so similar. Part of it has to do with a moral calculus that bothers me.
It's the same story - two FDA warnings close together about tainted additives from China that cause deaths. They are very similar. The differences are about the victims and the time frames involved. If you just focus on the recent deaths, it's pet deaths in the USA versus human deaths in Panama.
I understand that the deaths of American pets will get a lot of attention, for the reason you said:
But should have increased the attention to the other story too. The fact that it didn't is disturbing.
I have a friend, who in the aftermath of Katrina, was very disturbed by the plight of the abandoned dogs. She's a real caring person and organized a big shipment of toys and blankets for these animals. However, that was the entire focus of the group, pets only. I've seen that sort of reaction from people before - they respond to the plight of other peoples' pets, but not to that of other peoples' children. There is a failure of empathy in that case. I find that really puzzling. It's more pronounced when the children are foreign.
However, that was the entire focus of the group, pets only. I've seen that sort of reaction from people before - they respond to the plight of other peoples' pets, but not to that of other peoples' children. There is a failure of empathy in that case. I find that really puzzling. It's more pronounced when the children are foreign.
I wonder if your friend is using the logic that there were legions of people worrying about the humans in Katrina and the dogs were being completely neglected.
She may have been. She's a good and caring person towards people, which is why it struck me at the time. Still, given the magnitude of the needs, I was puzzled by her response. She was deeply moved by the plight of the abandoned animals.
On a personal level, I would be utterly devastated if my cat died and get consumed immediately with litigious rage. On the other hand, I read this SM story in the morning and I just moved on.
Speaking of dead pets, under the state law in most states, pets are considered livestock and you cant really recover anything beyond medical expenses. Federal law does provide more protection.
She was deeply moved by the plight of the abandoned animals.
You know, I think people have more empathy for animals, because they don't have the ability to voice their concerns in public. Animals don't vote, so the usual sources of care after a natural disaster will not be directed their way.
Someone's got to look out for the animals too. Personally, I think it's improper to compare concern for animals with concern for human beings, because most people don't equate one sort of concern with the other. They're not meant to be analogous.
It's not that the local media or Americans in general care more about pets than about children. It's that the concern over contaminated pet food is immediate, because it is happening to your pet, and therefore the story gets more media coverage.
actually, moornam's comment described the process that small biotech--not big pharma--go thru. the two, of course, are not mutually exclusive, as big pharma often finances small biotech ventures thru licensing agrreements or traditional investments, but the distinction is still important.
there are about 700 small public and private biotech companies working on cutting edge tech like cell therapy for example, most of whom will fail after burning huge amounts of cash (look at DNDN today), usually from venture capitalists. these people are taking huge risks with their time and money, so when they succeed they need to make enough $$ to offset their losses and make the risks worthwhile. if we kill this industry by not respecting their IP, many more people will die from the lack of innovation.
these people are taking huge risks with their time and money, so when they succeed they need to make enough $$ to offset their losses and make the risks worthwhile
But if they're being underwritten (as you seem to suggest) by big pharma anyway, what's the real risk to the little guy?
Besides, as I pointed out earlier, it's really not true that patent rights are not enforceable in India. It's just that, until recently, India was not a very lucrative market for big pharma, and the drug companies were willing to overlook what they saw as "small time" infringement. They had bigger fish to fry with infringers in the US anyway.
The generic manufacturers in India are much more savvy than some comments here suggest. They want to be players in the US's growing generics market, and if they want to play the game, then they have to demonstrate some respect for IP. Nobody is infringing patents willy-nilly in India. That's really not the source of the problem.
Why? Resources are limited. If somebody spends time and money on stray pets, but not on humans, that tells me something about their priorities.
I know people, yes Americans, who have openly told me that they care more for pets (not just their pets, but pets in general) than humans because pets are so much purer. And I've seen situations where pets are pampered more than humans in the same family.
Read this article by Gladwell about the Dog Whisperer. Here's the key passage, where Cesar speaks about a spoiled dog:
That was about a dog that would attack somebody's grandchildren, yet the grandmother would comfort the raging dog rather than the scared and often bitten grandchild. I don't understand that.
All of this is a digression from the topic of the post. I'm saying this in support of the argument that a non-fringe group of Americans might well care more for pets than humans, and very well might care for other American pets than foreign children.
Why? Resources are limited. If somebody spends time and money on stray pets, but not on humans, that tells me something about their priorities.
I'm not really disagreeing with you, Ennis. Just trying to offer a different perspective. I think it's fair to say the cough syrup issue has been under-reported. Certainly, it's been significantly less reported than the E. coli in spinach outbreak of a few months ago. However, I don't thik the pet food comparison is apposite.
Your Dog Whisperer example notwithstanding, most people who express empathy for pets are not thinking "which one should I pick, pet or human?" Usually, they're focused completely on the animal problem (and therefore not really thinking about how those resources could be used for human benefit), or they assume (often correctly) that someone else is already assessing the human issue.
That's a moral choice, a very clear one.
As when the French evacuated Rwanda (a mess they made, a genocidal government they armed before during and after), they took pets with them, but refused to evacuate the staff or their children.
I know somebody in India who collects fancy cars. I mean, really expensive fancy cars. He's not thinking about the kids on the street when he buys them. But owning a large number of antique fancy cars when there are starving children right in front of you, that's a clear moral choice. In this case, this person does not donate to charity.
The point with pets is the same. Caring for the pets of others over the children of others is a clear choice, it reveals somebody's priorities, what is important to them.
Incidentally, your description is accurate for the DogWhisperer's situations too - some people choose their pets even when there are human needs in front of them, because they only see the animal's needs.
Caring for the pets of others over the children of others is a clear choice
I guess I object to "over the children of others", because it suggests that a person makes the comparison consciously, and then deliberately chooses pets over children. I just don't think that's what's happening in most cases. I don't think most people are making a conscious value judgment of the sort you're ascribing to them.
After all, there are lots of well-meaning pet lovers out there who would balk at the notion of caring for pets before children.
small biotech is usually underwritten by venture capital and to a much lesser extent big pharma (or if the company IPOs, the investment community in general, ie, you and i). they expect to lose $$ thru most of these ventures so they need to make a huge profit on any drug thst makes it to approval. a ph III trial can cost like 30-50 million.
w/o this reward, they'd be no little guy left.
w/o this reward, they'd be no little guy left.
I don't really buy that, even as a patent practitioner. The real money made by pharma (big or little) comes in the first 5 years that a drug is marketed, and while it's very nice to have the market all to yourself, too often the little guy is faced with a bunch of blocking patents that make it impossible to make serious profit off the exclusivity, without paying to cross-license, or just licensing the drug away to big pharma.
@43
Patent infringement is not really that big a problem for biotech drugs (IIRC, Teva got shot down for a biogeneric). It's more the organic small molecule drugs that get hit by this. Biotech drugs are way too hard to produce and are really hard to get FDA approval for.
Personally I'm with Big Pharma mostly because there's little incentive to spend upwards of $700MM on a small molecule target to see your revenue streams pissed away in a few years. More of an issue when you are going through the blockbuster drought that pharma has right now, hard to justify any multiples when you're losing 30-40% of your revenue in a few years.
More of an issue when you are going through the blockbuster drought that pharma has right now, hard to justify any multiples when you're losing 30-40% of your revenue in a few years.
Exactly.
Ennis:
Ah, I didn't know there was a name for the phenomenon, but I should have guessed the economists would have come up with something. Not being an econ wonk myself, I'll let you win. This time. Heh. ;)
hema:
i don't see how your description of a small biotech having to maneuver around the IP landscape changes the fact that their financiers need to make up for all the millions lost from failed ventures. tech start up is the riskiest end of the investment world, so the returns need to justify the risk, lest the invesors in the VC funds themselves will put their money elsewhere. after all, a risky dollar is worth less than a safe one.
i don't see how your description of a small biotech having to maneuver around the IP landscape changes the fact that their financiers need to make up for all the millions lost from failed ventures
I'm saying that owning a patent doesn't necessarily make up for the millions of lost dollars, especially if there has to be more money spent on cross-licensing, etc. This is especially true for small molecule chemical or biomimetics, which is where the little guy is most heavily involved. Patents don't help the little guy stay afloat.
ok. i see what you mean. you're right in the sense that the existing predatory IP landscape has scared away high risk investors. in fact the majority of venure capital firms do not even invest in start-ups! but you can't solve this problem by loosening the patent protection small biotech already has.
But it seems like the Chinese are doing it to themselves with some regularity too. I am not suggesting that there isn't a need for punishments. This chinese company, if they really did add melamine to boost nitrogen levels, should be shut down and the decision makers put in jail.
skepmod, if i went to an aunties house that spit in her husbands food before serving it to him, and she spit in my food before serving it to me, i would not excuse her on the logic that she treats me like family.
by the way moornam, major trolling right now.
moornam,
what i think you're missing is that you have to create ideologies to preach about so that "most people" don't break the law. the unethical 20% of people that don't believe in your ideology find a way around it. this basically rewards the belief that ideologies are not to be followed.
it is easier to do this then to say "only 20% of you are getting around this and we will pick randomly". and really, the reason we need the 'cheaters' in the first place is so that people won't die.
in other words, we are taking money from merck and pfizer and giving it to the poor of India, Bangladesh, Africa, Haiti etc. this money, in turn, comes from us in the form of copays and healthcare plans, and the US government. and the stockholders of eli lilly, merck, pfizer, etc.
as i look at it, the average american, health care official, and pharmaceutical stockholder all have generally better lives than the average third world kid. if those three have to pay for it, i don't really mind. if some acne covered teenager has to pay $20 for his co-pay so that merck and pfizer can recover their losses on anti-retrovirals with markups on acne medication, i don't mind. if i have to pay an extra 5 bucks for my allergy medication, i consider that a donation. it's better than the most realistic alternative.
if, say, the major pharmaceuticals go bankrupt because of third world generics, that is a loss and i hope they're tough enough to survive it (lee iacocca, anyone?). but even if they go bankrupt, they're still better off than my 3rd world nieces and nephews.
i can see how your argument could seem compelling in a rapid fire real world debate. but stepping back and looking at what you're really saying in writing, unfortunately i think it boils down to a: "i'm first world, screw everyone else" attitude. i'm not sure if you're eastern brown, but if you are, you owe it to yourself to look past that. and if you're not, you still owe it to yourself.
The reason pets are pampered more than humans is not because people love their pets more. It's because in many cases, people don't feel ambivalent towards their pets. However, it's impossible to love a human without some ambivalence. If my dog misbehaves, it's my fault, because I didn't train him right. You can't reason with him, or expect him to be reasonable, and therefore, it's much easier to treat him well constantly. On the other hand, if my husband behaves unreasonably, well, I expect him to know better, so I'm not going to pet him on the head 2 minutes after fighting with him.
I don't believe that there is a dichotomous moral choice between animals and humans, or between giving to charity and having fancy cars. The case of the person you know in India is obviously an extreme, but by that argument, one should by the cheapest car that is practical and donate one's excess income to charity. Humans created domesticated animals--they are not part of nature--and as something we created, we have a huge responsibility towards them. Caring for animals teaches patience and understanding, qualities that can be well used in interactions with humans.
In the dog whisperer example you gave, the woman isn't putting her pet's needs before her human family's needs, she's putting her own needs before her family's needs. The dog does not need to be coddled when it bites a human, it needs to be taught not to do that. That's not an example of someone valuing animals more than humans--it's an example of someone being stupid.
I think that's using a different meaning of valuing. You're right, it's not good for the dog. At the same time, if I spoil one child more than I spoil the other, it is legitimate to say that I am preferring one to the other, even if my actions are harmful to the spoiled child.
In this case she is choosing who to hug - hug the dog, not the child. She's also choosing whose disapproval is less important - she's choosing the disapproval of the child (less important) over that of the dog (more important).
It's not just me - Cesar describes the situation by saying that the woman loves the dog more than the child, even if such love involves "spoiling" the dog.
Sometimes. And sometimes it just leads to more self-indulgence.
Do you believe the opposite? That meat eaters are indifferent to the suffering of fellow humans?
That's a bit unfair. I don't argue that people have to drive the cheapest car or wear the crappiest clothing and give everything else to charity. But there are choices that people make about their money, and these do have moral consequences. Your argument goes the other way too - you can never call anybody selfish, even if they are encrusted in diamonds in the middle of starving children, because they can say "What, I should wear underwear and live under a tree?" I think we recognize a common-sense morality here.
The fact remains that we have limited resources, and how we spend them reveals what our priorities are.
Returning to this case - there are two stories that are very similar. One involves the death of a few US pets, the other involves the death of many more foreign children. That the few US pets receives 40 times the attention of the much larger number of foreign children is noteworthy. I'm not saying that people shouldn't care about their pets at all, but I am saying that it is striking that the interest in their pets doesn't actually translate into more compassion for others dying horrible deaths from a similar problem.
No, because I eat meat.
I'm beating a dead horse (perhaps a poor choice of words!) at this point, but I think the difference between the two cases stems not from a moral dichotomy but from the fact that people were upset about their own pets possibly getting sick. I don't think all the attention had to do with a general American love for animals. If that were the case, shelters wouldn't be full off thousands of unwanted and often abused cats and dogs.
My last response here, feel free to have the last word.
Imagine that I'm an American pet lover. I read about the danger to pets which concerns me. Afterwards do I say:
(a) OMG! This is sooo tragic! My having a pet has filled me with compassion for all living things and this other story here, about children dying in almost the same circumstances is freaking me out! If I feel this way about my pet getting poisoned, I can imagine how horrible people might feel about their kids dying from a similar problem!
or
(b) OMG! These dying American pets are so tragic! Hey, here's some other article about kids, but I'm not really engaged since they're far away and not mine.
The media responds to audience demand. I think the 39:1 ratio of stories argues for (b) rather than (a), i.e. that people care about "own pets possibly getting sick" and nothing else, even though the stories are so similar that you would think that concern from one would naturally flow into the other.
This also argues that concern with pets does not lead to a broader concern for all living things, or a greater sense of humanitarianism.
This is btw, foolish and short sighted on the part of consumers. If there is glycerin floating around with a false certificate and nobody is checking it, there is some risk here as well. And if not with this product, with another.
i just wanted to make sure to ask you this. maybe it's the wrong time, but i don't want to forget.
desishiksa, do you have shiksappeal?
Manju#43,
DNDN tanked yesterday and today as the approval for their cancer vaccine is contingent upon more data, to categorize it as a failure is shortsighted.
ok. didn't mean to clasify dndn as a complete failure. i used them to show how so much time and money can still amount to very little. dndn missed their primary endpoint (killing the cancer) but prolonged the life of patients. they've been at this for almost a decade (i think) and they are in fact a late stage biotech close to market as opposed to a small biotech startup. if the waters are so treacherous for them, imangine how life is for the smaller guys.
I sure do.
I'm with Ennis, there's something perverse about the lopsided coverage. I think at some level people can rationalize the deaths of 3rd world kids..."life's cheap for them folks you know". People should be alerted about threats to their pet's safety, desishiksa is right that people have a responsibility to care for companion animals but I would think human deaths are newsworthy too.
I'm used to dogs in India as "working animals" on farms protecting livestock & homes. They are cherished members of the family with a job to do and those of us who are Hindu/Jain believe them to be ensouled. It's not unusual to have a picture of your deceased farm dog in the shrine room. But ridiculous lap dogs, dog sweaters, doggie spas, and dog yoga...I just don't get it. I doubt the dogs even enjoy that crap, it's more about the owner feeling good about him/herself
i had a pet cockroach called gerald. he died this morning. i am so sad. i am also american.
in other news, there was a news article on yahoo that said that a fake disneyland was found in china. how about it?
Actually, don't knock it, I have been to doggie yoga and my dog happens to enjoy it quite a bit. Plenty of American dogs, especially where I live, are working dogs on farms. And many urban Indians have pets that are lap dogs. I agree it's silly to dress up your dog in an outfit and paint its nails pink, but what's the harm in it? Most Americans I know are quite sensible about their dogs.
That is an interesting factoid about putting the family dog's picture in a shrine room. I had no idea that was ever done. There is a touching story in the Mahabharata where a dog follows the Pandavas to the gates of heaven (I have variously heard it was their dog, or the dog befriends them along the way). When they arrive, the dog, being a dog, is turned away as unworthy. Yudhisthra refuses to enter heaven without the dog, and the dog is finally allowed to enter. (In one version, the dog turns out the be Dharma, and it's all a test, but either way I think it is a story that would only have resonated with a population that loves dogs)
Dog's are "in the moment" as long as they are well fed, that's what humans find engaging about them. They don't need us to teach them techniques for stress reduction. And they are limber enough to do things that embarass us when we have friends over...no need to encourage them in their gloriously unreflective debauchery. I'm pretty sure your dog would be just as close to nirvana getting his/her belly rubbed without bringing Patanjali into it. These types of questions used to be beyond science, but I am sure Razib can rig up some device to measure the neural correlates of "dog bliss" and then see whether yoga or belly rubs delivers a bigger response.
I don't disagree with the amount of affection people show towards animals. But it's not a zero sum game between dogs & humanity when it comes to journalists who are no longer constrained by limited space in a newspaper. I guess I am surprised/saddened that I didn't know of this until Ennis brought it up.
I don't really give a crap about the scientific evidence --not everything needs to be evidence driven. My dog doesn't like yoga because he has "stress", he likes it because it's a bonding activity with his human, like obedience training or agility or herding competitions. Dogs need more than just being well fed. Many of them enjoy a challenge and also need to have a role in the family, whether it's as a protector or a daily walker. They appreciate routine. And I rarely have time to spend an hour dedicated entirely to my dog without any distractions--he appreciates the hour of undivided attention. And it has no downside at all. And frankly, I don't see why anyone else should have a problem with it. It's my dog, my money, and my time.
Sorry to hear about Gerald, hippiefob.
hippiefob, May gerald's soul rest in peace. I'm sure he must've been a good roach.