An Idea for information cooperation between Drug companies

This is the dilemma:

there’s a troubling paradox: while successes are widely publicized, and while the results of clinical trials are usually published, the research from projects that fail before that stage is usually kept hidden. “A result,” [...] companies waste many millions going down experimental paths that their competitors have already found to be dead ends.”

I’ve an Idea:
Why can’t drug companies come together and create a unique database as explained below. First of all, we will assume A, B, and C are THREE different DRUG companies. Ex will represent a experiment FAILED and Ex1 will represent an experiment which has already been conducted by A but FAILED, and is kept secret by A and, Ex1B will represent the duplicate experiment Ex1 which is just going to started by B as well. Lastly, we’ll call the proposed central database as Q.

The problem with creating a Q is that A, B and C won’t cooperate because each member(A,B and C) think the profit made out of its preexisting portfolio (medicine) is going to offset any loss occurred by a failed Ex. A solution would be to create a Q, where each member(A, B and C) will deposit some money as well as input any experiments which is going to be conducted as well as input Ex, and in this case, A inputed the result of Ex1 into the Q. Then, B is just going to start experimenting that same experiment (which is denoted as Ex1B) and has just registered that experiment to Q. But, Q notifies A (NOT B) that a failed experiment (previously conducted by them) is also going to start being conducted by an anonymous Drug company. it also says (to A) that, it (A) can make some money by warning or notifying that anonymous company the results of that failed Ex1. So, A creates a contract with Q and, Q adds some money inside A’s deposit from B’s deposit money. Then, Q notifies B about the impending failed experiment it has just started conducting, and it also says it(Q) has taken some of its(B’s) deposit money for giving this warning.

One way for A, B and C to abuse Q is to input a lot of false information which haven’t yet been attempted by the drug companies. A way to curb this behavior among A, B and C is to put a clause in the contract between Q and A, B,C that, each company(A,B and C) can at maximum, derive 25% of its profits from Q and the rest of the profit has to come from its medicine portfolio.

Why dont they make the letters on a laptop keyboards out of glow-in-the-dark paint?

There are the pricier option of outfitting your laptop with led back lit keyboard. Though, a cheaper alternative would be for laptop manufacturers, by default, install the keyboard with the letters on with glow-in-the-dark paint. It would be an excellent avatar of the poor man’s back lit keyboard. Though other cheaper alternatives exists like buying a USB powered bendy LED light, like this.

Have you ever microwaved Paapad ?

….. If not, go do it. To microwave paapad, simply place the raw paapad inside the microwave, and set it to 30 – 40 seconds of maximum microwave power. Once finished, just take them out, and enjoy Oil-Free paapad. This trick works with either varieties of paapad, including, the traditional flat round paapad and also the pipe paapad variety.

An Idea To Curb Labour Strikes

Imagine in a factory — over a pay dispute, 80 percent or 100 laborers go on strike. Out of those striking people, The Manager can threaten to randomly fire 10 percent of those striking. The benefit (from The Manager’s perspective) is, even though he will eventually fire those 10 percent of the striking employees, compared to the traditional scenario, wherein, the striking employees are substituted by temporary workers, where, there productivity level won’t be up to the mark relative to the striking.

Now, from the striking people’s perspective, even though in total they represent 100, each one is deterred to strike, believing themselves be in those 10 percent.

Why Choose SkyDrive Over Picasa or Flickr

When thinking about online image storage, Google’s Picasa and Yahoo’s Flickr comes to mind. However users tend to ignore Microsoft’s offering. Its SkyDrive, though it doesn’t have features like facial recognition, and any decent tagging system like Picasa does. It does however, have a lot of free storage.

SkyDrive offers free 25GB of storage compared to Picasa’s 1GB. The service is also capable of mass uploads while retaining original photo quality, similar to Picasa’s , though, for the mass upload browser plugin to work, you need to use Internet Explorer. SkyDrive, in my opinion, is better meant to be a secondary photo storage service, while the primary being Google’s Picasa, because of its superior features like facial recognition, but its very easy to run out of storage there, and hence, would recommend Windows Live SkyDrive.

Are Sports News In The Same Level With Entertainment News?

One of the things I can’t stand while watching BBC World News is the inturreption on the main news bulletin to give way to sports news. The BBC gives sports news the same standing as there main news bulletin, unlike entertainment or tech news, which, have there own 30 mins show on the channel, except for the occasional tech or entertainment stories appearing on the main news bulletin. However it should be mentioned that the channel also has its dedicated 30 min sports show entitled Sports Today.

Last year in the Mumbai attacks, when the England Cricket Team aborted the cricket touring in India, the BBC, instead of exclusively mentioning the news in there dedicated ‘Sports Today’ Program, they also mentioned it in the main news segment. However the year before that, in 2007, the wedding of Liz Hurley and Arun Nayar (as I remember from memory), weren’t given coverage in there news channel and was only mentioned in there website.

Obviously different news organisations have various standards for what is considered news worthy. But certain news channels have an innate urge to treat sports news, with the same status as main news. Or, in other cases, place, sports news over entertainment or tech news. I disagree with this prioritization, after all whats so special about the Deccan Chargers winning the IPL tournament versus some contestant winning the final episode of Indian Idol. Both of the events command equal influence. Yet, are treated differently by the media.

Will Ads Ever Learn?

These days people don’t click on online ads, whether its text or graphic. They get quite numb to the text ads there, whose tag lines are quite generic. Quite contradictally, I feel more reassured to click on Graphic ads than text ones. Even though text ads were something hailed by Google from the beginning, and, even now, the ads appearing on there search pages are its main cash cow. I’m skeptical about them, and feel that online ads need to get a newer meaning.

I think people forgot the intention of Advertising. It was meant to give publicity to products and services (among other things). But, the web advertisers took a wrong angle at it. There were text ads, which persuaded users to click on relevant urls, which turned out not to be relevant enough for the user. And hence, after a few tries the users were numb at them and, the ad columns appeared as blind spots to the user.

I think the ads appearing on the web must be meant for the web. Go look at YouTube, these days — on the right column on there search page, are some ads. But, these are different, unlike other text ads, they are sponsored videos. Yes, they link to videos within the youtube network. And more importantly the users feel reassured clicking them, because, unlike in other places, where the ads link entirely to a different website which the users feel unsure about. With the YouTube’s sponsored videos, users know what they are clicking, and, they are clicking a video.

Likewise, instead of throwing users advertising “Urls” on the right column. Instead, when a user is searching for a news event, why not give preference to a specific sponsored news source over a news website which turns out to be just a bit more relevant that the sponsored one. The same could be said for users searching for social networking profiles on Google search engine. Why can’t Google, instead of placing ad “Urls” on the right column, place some sponsored profiles pulled in social networking websites?

The theory could be stretched further — when a user searches on Google, only the first 10 results are displayed on the first page. So — why can’t Google persuade the adminstrators of websites appearing beyond the 11th search result, to advertise on the front page, on the Ad column, besides from appearing beyond the 11th result? Obviously, here, the sponsoring websites will pay Google much less (or Google has to give heavy discounts), than what Google already is getting from those ad columns. But, I think certain in some curcamstances, in certain search terms, the higher click-through rates of ads appearing on the right column (simply because they are search results beyond 11th), will offset any loss derived from Google’s heavy discounting per click.

I also think as a whole, the focus should be on the objective rather than the means of advertising. Different forms of products and services fair better in certain means of advertising. When selling a lifestyle product, maybe, why not go the route, where placing products in daily television soaps operas and, persuading celebrities to use and talk about them. There is evidence in rural villages in India, where, since the increased penetration of television there, the mostly illiterate woman also watch TV soap operas. A study authored by Robert Jensen, (from the good ol’ University of Chicago) found that television soaps, which predominantly (eventhought) feature the rich in the cityside, changed the norms and attitudes of the villages there. Over a 3-year period there were:

significant increases in reported autonomy [of woman], decreases in the reported acceptability of beating and decreases in reported son preference. We also find increases in female school enrollment and decreases in fertility (primarily via increased birth spacing).

And, if soaps can influnce rural comunnities, why can’t they influnce the cityside, who could consume those lifestyle products.

My final advice is, (paradoxically) to cut down on advertising! Go look at Hulu.com, in a single page, you will find that there is only one product or services being advertised. Mainly because, even though, Hulu is selling a smaller portion of Ad space per page, the user gets a greater exposure towards every ad and hence, unlike the current norm, doesn’t get overwhelmed and pays attention towards that single ad. Hulu realizes, the user either pays attention to that ad, or else, there is no point throwing more ads at him.

Maybe, The Solution Is Free Enterprise

The issue that got Al Gore a noble prize is also supported by groups which initially were — on there establishment — more in tuned to the objective of preserving bio-diversity and wild life than — preventing climate change. A lot of people who support the environmental cause these days, also support animal conservation and vice-versa. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) regularly campaigns for the preservation of rain forests and near-extinction species. The arguments behind preserving wild life are more philosophical and, about ethics, than (as opposed to) anything practical, like preventing climate change which might come to bite back humans in the future. I’m assuming that only certain demographics is keen with environmentalism or other such issues.

The coral reefs these days which are bleaching in significant numbers in the Indian ocean and Great Barrier Reef is been argued for further protection of those species. But maybe — they don’t need conservation and might just be offset by the creation of corals in the man made islands like “The World” and “Palm Islands” of Dubai. Recent monitoring by marine biologists there has found — contrary to initial criticism by environmentalists — that they might actually generate new coral reefs underneath the water there. The design of the islands makes them an ideal place to grow corals, where water currents are low, yet, stale water is circulated out of the islands into the sea preventing a swamp from growing inside. Now hey, really big corals take hundreds of years to grow, but — can’t they be substituted by artificial ones? After all, what would the difference be, between an earth — where, unlike now, since its beginning — had no corals, and later on, after the arrival of humans, was the creation of 28000 sq km of artificial reefs by some Dubai developers. The fact is, that figure there actually represents the current amount of natural corals on earth. If you were to agree that the corals created by the Dubai Developers there, were worth protecting, wouldn’t every creation by humans be worth protecting? Or maybe its the uniqueness of the corals in Great Barrier Reef and Indian Ocean for which it needs preservation, and, anything generic don’t. And for that argument to succeed, you have to accept that different people have different opinions about “uniqueness”.

And hence, we could come to the opinion that the funding of coral restoration and other similar projects should preferably come from private hands and not from government’s. But still — there is an opacity with that conclusion. You have to keep in mind, the loss of local tourism business and the amount of local unemployment which could create because of non-funding of the conservation efforts. Especially where, (as some would have the opinion of, that) the government’s “job is to do something”. So, the answer might lie somewhere in the middle.

Or — the solution can be a thing called Free-Enterprise.

Take a look at the Rhinoceros in Africa. Both, the White and the Black Rhinoceros were critically endangered and — still are now. From an estimated 100,000 in the 60s to about 2,410 in the 90s. Then, on 2007 it was 17,480. The rise has been attributed to a program where the landlords, where the rhinos roamed, had the right to breed them which in turn led to a greater number of tourists visiting them. Initially, because they didn’t have any incentive to protect them, hence, were on the side of the poachers.

The story reiterates, when you give fisherman fishing permits which last over a long duration as opposed to, various quotas like the length of the fishing season, and the limit of fishes caught in that one season. A fishing town in Canada tried the ‘fishing permits solution’ or Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQ). Before they were introduced (which were a decade ago), the fisherman there, acted just like any fisherman everywhere. A fishing season in that town declared by the government lasted only a few weeks and despite that, the waters there were still over fished, and was unsustainable. These days a season last for eight months, because they can be sold in specific times of the year for more lucrative prices. And, since fishes stay fresh best in water, the fisherman only fish intermittently over the year and if they go beyond there quotas, they buy more permits from fellow fisherman.

Hey, maybe the corals are the exception, even with all the effort put forward, they might just happen to be too fragile to water temperature shifts. The ones off the cost of Maldives, Sri Lanka, Kenya and Tanzania already has lost up to 90 percent of it. Maybe the solution to them are the Dubai Developers and not Nature.

My Comment Regarding Comparisons in Health Care

I recently made a comment in the New Scientist Website in a video comparing the life expectancy across various countries:

The reason why i dislike these kinds of comparisons is that they don’t take into account any pre-existing differences between the humans in the comparison countries.

Americans generally tend to be fatter/obese and hence have a shorter lifespan, because they choose to be — and not necessarily because of there health care system. They even have greater murder rates; all of these factors can influence the life expectancy of Americans AND Europeans AND The Canadians. The latter two places — as data shows — has LOWER obesity rates than the US.

I would recommend checking out the life expectancy of certain medical conditions across those countries/places. If you look at cancer survival rates, the US generally precedes over the other two places — Canada and Europe. Its been reported (here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html) that the UK — despite having a public health care system — has the lowest Cancer survival rate in the whole of Europe. In terms of longest life expectancy of people with Cancer, which that lists contains, the US tops that list.

Mind you, comparing cancer rates is just one of the many ways of gauging health care effictiveness. Americans can also increase there life expectancy by eating less(or being less obese) and exercising more.

Having said that, I share the doubtfulness expressed by the author here: (http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2009/07/american_health.html) regarding the US health Care System.

Overview of The Healthcare Proposals in US

The health care system in the US — since the release of Michale Moore’s documentary movie “Sicko” in 2007 — has been receiving intense coverage in media. Its been questioned weather the predominantly capitalistic style system is efficient enough when, statics uncovered that the US spent more on healthcare per person yet, had a shorter life-expectancy than most developed countries.

And, in the past few months, President Obama or — more appropriately — the Democratic Party began its initiative at reforms which were earlier suggested in the Presidential Campaign of Obama. There were multiple reform proposals coming from the Democrats, which included The “Healthy Americans Act” and “United States National Health Care Act” both of which, would create a universal single payer health care system similar to Canada’s. However the leadership of the Democratic Party (and Obama) is skeptical of the passing those bills through congress. The reforms currently suggested by the Democratic Party — contrary to popular wisdom — doesn’t include any universalization of health care. The US website Factcheck.org best summarized the misrepresentation:

We’ve written before about conservatives claiming that Congress, or Obama, or Washington, or Democrats in general want the U.S. to have a Canadian-style, government-run health care system. The truth of the matter is that the president has repeatedly said he doesn’t. In fact, since being sworn in as president, Obama has riled advocates of such single-payer systems by largely excluding them from the health care debate. He has answered several questions from members of the public who asked at town hall events: “why not” have such a system. Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and one of the leaders in drafting legislation, has said bluntly: “single-payer is not going to get even to first base in Congress.” Yet, the Canada claims continue.[...]

The proposals by Obama detail the earmarking of a Health Insurance Exchange whereby, government backed insurance plans compete with private ones. The general objective being is to cover the currently 46 million uninsured Americans. However its been criticized by the goverment run Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for not being fiscally prudent enough. CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf said:

“In the legislation that has been reported, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.”