<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Bioethics International &#187; Biotechnology</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/category/biotechnology/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog</link>
	<description>Where Healthcare, Life Science &#38; Ethics Meet</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:00:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Merely Human? That’s So Yesterday</title>
		<link>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/06/14/merely-human-that%e2%80%99s-so-yesterday/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/06/14/merely-human-that%e2%80%99s-so-yesterday/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 05:03:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Miller, Bioethicist</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Risk Exposure & Bioethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World News - Home]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World News - News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/?p=1796</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[NYT] ON a Tuesday evening this spring, Sergey Brin, the co-founder of Google, became part man and part machine. About 40 people, all gathered here at a NASA campus for a nine-day, $15,000 course at Singularity University, saw it happen.

While the flesh-and-blood version of Mr. Brin sat miles away at a computer capable of remotely steering [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/06/13/business/13sing_cover/13sing_cover-articleInline.jpg" alt="" width="190" height="238" />[<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/business/13sing.html?hpw=&amp;pagewanted=all">NYT</a>] ON a Tuesday evening this spring, Sergey Brin, the co-founder of Google, became part man and part machine. About 40 people, all gathered here at a NASA campus for a nine-day, $15,000 course at Singularity University, saw it happen.</p>
<div>
<p>While the flesh-and-blood version of Mr. Brin sat miles away at a computer capable of remotely steering a robot, the gizmo rolling around here consisted of a printer-size base with wheels attached to a boxy, head-height screen glowing with an image of Mr. Brin’s face. The BrinBot obeyed its human commander and sputtered around from group to group, talking to attendees about Google and other topics via a videoconferencing system.</p>
<p>The BrinBot was hardly something out of “Star Trek.” It had a rudimentary, no-frills design and was a hodgepodge of loosely integrated technologies. Yet it also smacked of a future that the <a title="The school’s Web site." href="http://singularityu.org/">Singularity University</a> founders hold dear and often discuss with a techno-utopian bravado: the arrival of the Singularity — a time, possibly just a couple decades from now, when a superior intelligence will dominate and life will take on an altered form that we can’t predict or comprehend in our current, limited state.</p>
<p>At that point, the Singularity holds, human beings and machines will so effortlessly and elegantly merge that poor health, the ravages of old age and even death itself will all be things of the past.</p>
<p>Some of Silicon Valley’s smartest and wealthiest people have embraced the Singularity. They believe that technology may be the only way to solve the world’s ills, while also allowing people to seize control of the evolutionary process. For those who haven’t noticed, the Valley’s most-celebrated company — Google — works daily on building a giant brain that harnesses the thinking power of humans in order to surpass the thinking power of humans.</p>
<p>Larry Page, Google’s other co-founder, helped set up Singularity University in 2008, and the company has supported it with more than $250,000 in donations. Some of Google’s earliest employees are, thanks to personal donations of $100,000 each, among the university’s “founding circle.” (Mr. Page did not respond to interview requests.)</p>
<p>The university represents the more concrete side of the Singularity, and focuses on introducing entrepreneurs to promising technologies. Hundreds of students worldwide apply to snare one of 80 available spots in a separate 10-week “graduate” course that costs $25,000. Chief executives, inventors, doctors and investors jockey for admission to the more intimate, nine-day courses called executive programs.</p>
<p>Both courses include face time with leading thinkers in the areas of nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, energy, biotech, robotics and computing.</p>
<p>On a more millennialist and provocative note, the Singularity also offers a modern-day, quasi-religious answer to the Fountain of Youth by affirming the notion that, yes indeed, humans — or at least something derived from them — can have it all.</p>
<p>“We will transcend all of the limitations of our biology,” says <a title="His Web site." href="http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.html?flash=1">Raymond Kurzweil</a>, the inventor and businessman who is the Singularity’s most ubiquitous spokesman and boasts that he intends to live for hundreds of years and resurrect the dead, including his own father. “That is what it means to be human — to extend who we are.”</p>
<p>But, of course, one person’s utopia is another person’s dystopia.<span id="more-1796"></span></p>
<p>In the years since the Unabomber, Theodore J. Kaczynski, violently inveighed against the predations of technology, plenty of other more sober and sophisticated warnings have arrived. There are camps of environmentalists who decry efforts to manipulate nature, challenges from religious groups that see the Singularity as a version of “Frankenstein” in which people play at being gods, and technologists who fear a runaway artificial intelligence that subjugates humans.</p>
<p>A popular network television show, <a title="The show’s Web site." href="http://www.fox.com/fringe/">“Fringe,”</a> playfully explores some of these concerns by featuring a mad scientist and a team of federal agents investigating crimes related to the Pattern — an influx of threatening events caused by out-of-control technology like computer programs that melt brains and genetically engineered chimeras that go on killing sprees.</p>
<p>Some of the Singularity’s adherents portray a future where humans break off into two species: the Haves, who have superior intelligence and can live for hundreds of years, and the Have-Nots, who are hampered by their antiquated, corporeal forms and beliefs.</p>
<p>Of course, some people will opt for inadequacy, while others will have inadequacy thrust upon them. Critics find such scenarios unnerving because the keys to the next phase of evolution may be beyond the grasp of most people.</p>
<p>“The Singularity is not the great vision for society that Lenin had or Milton Friedman might have,” says Andrew Orlowski, a British journalist who has <a title="His writings." href="http://www.badpress.net/stories/utopians.html">written extensively on techno-utopianism</a>. “It is rich people building a lifeboat and getting off the ship.”</p>
<p>Peter A. Thiel, a co-founder of PayPal and a major investor in Facebook, is a Singularity devotee who offers a “Singularity or bust” scenario.</p>
<p>“It may not happen, but there are a lot of technologies that need to be developed for a whole series of problems to be solved,” he says. “I think there is no good future in which it doesn’t happen.”</p>
<p><strong>‘Transcendent Man’</strong></p>
<p>In late August, Mr. Kurzweil will begin a cross-country multimedia road show to promote “<a title="The film’s Web site." href="http://transcendentman.com/">Transcendent Man</a>,” a documentary about his life and beliefs. Another of his projects, “<a title="The film’s Web site." href="http://www.singularity.com/themovie/index.php">The Singularity Is Near</a>: A True Story About the Future,” has also started to make its way around the film festival circuit.</p>
<p>Throughout “Transcendent Man,” Mr. Kurzweil is presented almost as a mystic, sitting in a chair with a shimmering, circular light floating around his head as he explains his philosophy’s basic tenets. During one scene at a beach, he is asked what he’s thinking as he stares out at a beautiful sunset with waves rolling in and wind tussling his hair.</p>
<p>“Well, I was thinking about how much computation is represented by the ocean,” he replies. “I mean, it’s all these water molecules interacting with each other. That’s computation.”</p>
<p>Mr. Kurzweil is the writer, producer and co-director of “The Singularity Is Near,” the tale of Ramona, a virtual being he builds that gradually becomes more human, battles hordes of microscopic robots and taps the lawyer Alan M. Dershowitz for legal advice and the motivational guru Tony Robbins for guidance on personal interactions.</p>
<p>With his glasses, receding hairline and lecturer’s ease, Mr. Kurzweil, 62, seems more professor than thespian. His films are just another facet of the Kurzweil franchise, which includes best-selling books, lucrative speaking engagements, blockbuster inventions and a line of health supplements called <a title="The storefront." href="http://www.rayandterry.com/index.asp">Ray &amp; Terry’s</a> (developed with the physician Terry Grossman).</p>
<p>Mr. Kurzweil credits a low-fat, vegetable-rich diet and regular exercise for his trim frame, and says he conquered diabetes decades ago by changing what he ate and later reprogramming his body with supplements. He currently takes about 150 pills a day and has regular intravenous procedures. He is also co-writer of a pair of health books, “<a title="The book’s Web site." href="http://www.fantastic-voyage.net/">Fantastic Voyage</a>: Live Long Enough to Live Forever” and “<a title="The book’s Web site." href="http://www.rayandterry.com/transcend/">Transcend</a>: Nine Steps to Living Well Forever.”</p>
<p>Mr. Kurzweil routinely taps into early memories that explain his lifelong passion for inventing. “My parents gave me all these construction toys, and sometimes I would put things together, and they would do something cool,” he says. “I got the idea that you could change the world for the better with invention — that you could put things together in just the right way, and they would have transcendent effects.</p>
<p>“That was kind of the religion of my family: the power of human ideas.”</p>
<p>A child prodigy, he <a title="His game show appearance." href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4Neivqp2K4">stunned television audiences</a> in 1965, when he was 17, with a computer he had built that composed music. A couple of years later, in college, he developed a computer program that would seek the best college fit for high school students. A New York publishing house bought the company for $100,000, plus royalties.</p>
<p>“Most of us were going to school to get knowledge and a degree,” says Aaron Kleiner, who studied with Mr. Kurzweil at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and later became his business partner. “He saw school as a tool that let him do what he needed to do.”</p>
<p>Some of Mr. Kurzweil’s better-known inventions include the first print-scanning systems that converted text to speech and allowed the blind to read standard texts, as well as sophisticated electronic keyboards and voice-recognition software. He has made millions selling his inventions, and his companies continue developing other products, like software for securities traders and e-readers for digital publications.</p>
<p>He began his march toward the Singularity around 1980, when he started plotting things like the speed of chips and memory capacity inside computers and realized that some elements of information technology improved at predictable — and exponential — rates.</p>
<p>“With 30 linear steps, you get to 30,” he often says in speeches. “With 30 steps exponentially, you get to one billion. The price-performance of computers has improved one billion times since I was a student. In 25 years, a computer as powerful as today’s smartphones will be the size of a blood cell.”</p>
<p>His fascination with exponential trends eventually led him to construct an elaborate philosophy, illustrated in charts, that provided an analytical backbone for the Singularity and other ideas that had been floating around science-fiction circles for decades.</p>
<p>As far back as the 1950s, John von Neumann, the mathematician, is said to have talked about a “singularity” — an event in which the always-accelerating pace of technology would alter the course of human affairs. And, in 1993, Vernor Vinge, a science fiction writer, computer scientist and math professor, wrote a research paper called “<a title="The paper." href="http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html">The Coming Technological Singularity</a>: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era.”</p>
<p>“Within 30 years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence,” Mr. Vinge wrote. “Shortly after, the human era will be ended.”</p>
<p>In “The Singularity Is Near,” Mr. Kurzweil posits that technological progress in this century will be 1,000 times greater than that of the last century. He writes about humans trumping biology by filling their bodies with nanoscale creatures that can repair cells and by allowing their minds to tap into super-intelligent computers.</p>
<p>Mr. Kurzweil writes: “Once nonbiological intelligence gets a foothold in the human brain (this has already started with computerized neural implants), the machine intelligence in our brains will grow exponentially (as it has been doing all along), at least doubling in power each year.</p>
<p>“Ultimately, the entire universe will become saturated with our intelligence,” he continues. “This is the destiny of the universe.”</p>
<p>The underlying premise of the Singularity responds to people’s insecurity about the speed of social and technological change in the computer era. Mr. Kurzweil posits that the computer and the Internet have changed society much faster than electricity, phones or television, and that the next great leap will occur when industries like medicine and energy start moving at the same exponential pace as I.T.</p>
<p>He believes that this latter stage will occur when we learn to manipulate DNA more effectively and arrange atoms and have readily available computers that surpass the human brain.</p>
<p>In 1970, well before the era of nanobot doctors, Mr. Kurzweil’s father, Fredric, died of a heart attack at his home in Queens. Fredric was 58, and Ray was 22. Since then, Mr. Kurzweil has filled a storage space with his father’s effects — photographs, letters, bills and newspaper clippings. In a world where computers and humans merge, Mr. Kurzweil expects that these documents can be combined with memories harvested from his own brain, and then possibly with Fredric’s DNA, to effect a partial resurrection of his father.</p>
<p>By the 2030s, most people will be able to achieve mental immortality by similarly backing up their brains, Mr. Kurzweil predicts, as the Singularity starts to come into full flower.</p>
<p>Despite such optimism, some Singularitarians aren’t all that fond of Mr. Kurzweil.</p>
<p>“I think he’s a genius and has certainly brought a lot of these ideas into the public discourse,” says James J. Hughes, the executive director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, a nonprofit that studies the implications of advancing technology. “But there are plenty of people that say he has hijacked the Singularity term.”</p>
<p>Mr. Kurzweil says that he is simply trying to put analytical clothing on the concept so that people can think more clearly about the future. And regardless of any debate about his intentions, if you’re encountering the Singularity in the business world and elsewhere today, it’s most likely his take.</p>
<p><strong>Bursts of Innovation</strong></p>
<p>Peter H. Diamandis, 49, is a small man with a wide, bright smile and a thick mound of dark hair. He routinely holds meetings by cellphone and can usually be found typing away on his laptop. He went to medical school to make his mother happy but has always dreamed of heading to outer space.</p>
<p>He is also a firm believer in the Singularity and is a technocelebrity in his own right, primarily through his role in commercializing space travel. At a recent Singularity University lunch, he hopped up to make a speech peppered with passion and conviction.</p>
<p>“My target is to live 700 years,” he declared.</p>
<p>The students chuckled.</p>
<p>“I say that seriously,” he retorted.</p>
<p>The NASA site, the <a title="NASA’s page for the center." href="http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/home/index.html">Ames Research Center</a>, houses an odd collection of unusual buildings, including a giant wind tunnel, a huge supercomputing center and a flight simulator facility with equipment capable throwing people 60 feet into the air.</p>
<p>Today, the government operates NASA Ames as a bustling, public-sector-meets-private-sector technology bazaar. Start-ups, universities and corporations have set up shop here, and Google plans to build a new campus here over the next few years that will include housing for workers.</p>
<p>A nondescript structure, Building 20, is the Singularity University headquarters, and most students stay in nearby apartments on the NASA land. Mr. Kurzweil set up the school with Mr. Diamandis, who, as chief executive of the <a title="Its Web site." href="http://www.xprize.org/">X Prize Foundation</a>, doled out $10 million in 2004 to a team that sent a private spacecraft 100 kilometers above the earth. Google has offered $30 million in rewards for an X Prize project intended to inspire a private team to send a robot to the moon. And a $10 million prize will go to the first team that can sequence 100 human genomes in 10 days at a cost of $10,000 or less each — which, in theory, would turn an expensive, complex lab exercise into an ordinary affair.</p>
<p>Mr. Diamandis champions the idea that large prizes inspire rapid bursts of innovation and may pave a path to that 700-year lifetime.</p>
<p>“I don’t think it’s a matter of if,” he says. “I think it’s a matter of how. You and I have a decent shot, and for kids being born today, I think it will be a matter of choice.”</p>
<p>For the most part, Mr. Kurzweil serves as a figurehead of Singularity University, while Mr. Diamandis steers the institution. He pitches the graduate student program as a way to train young, inspired people to think exponentially and solve the world’s biggest problems — to develop projects that will “change the lives of one billion people,” as the in-house mantra goes.</p>
<p>Mr. Diamandis hopes that the university can create an unrivaled network of graduates and bold thinkers — a Harvard Business School for the future — who can put its ideas into action. Along with that goal, he’s considering creating a venture capital fund to help turn the university’s big ideas into big businesses. As some of their favored student creations, school leaders point to a rapid disaster alert-and-response system and a venture that lets individuals rent their cars to other people via cellphone.</p>
<p><a title="A profile of Mr. Fidler." href="http://singularityu.org/programs/graduate-studies-program/gsp-09/students/devin-fidler/">Devin Fidler</a>, a former student, is in the midst of securing funding for a company that will build a portable machine that squirts out a cement-like goop that allows builders to erect an entire house, layer by layer. Such technology could almost eliminate labor costs and bring better housing to low-income areas.</p>
<p>Mr. Diamandis has certainly built a selective institution. More than 1,600 people applied for just 40 spots in the inaugural graduate program held last year. A second, 10-week graduate program will kick off this month with 80 students, culled from 1,200 applicants.</p>
<p>One incoming student, <a title="A profile of Mr. Dalrymple." href="http://esp.mit.edu/learn/teachers/davidad/bio.html">David Dalrymple</a>, is an 18-year-old working on his doctorate from M.I.T.. He says he plans to start a research institute someday to explore artificial intelligence, medicine, space systems and energy. (He met Mr. Kurzweil at a White House dinner, and at the age of 8 accepted the offer to have Mr. Kurzweil serve as his mentor.)</p>
<p>During the spring executive program, about 30 people — almost all of them men — showed up for the course, which is something of a mental endurance test. Days begin at dawn with group exercise sessions. Coursework runs until about 9 p.m.; then philosophizing over wine and popcorn goes until midnight or later. A former Google chef prepares special meals — all of which are billed as “life extending” — for the executives.</p>
<p>The meat of the executive program is lectures, company tours and group thought exercises.</p>
<p>Day 4 includes test drives of Tesla Motors electric sports cars and a group genetic test, thanks to a company called <a title="Its site." href="http://www.decodeme.com/">deCODEme</a>. By Day 6, people are annoyed by the BrinBot, which is interrupting lectures with its whirs and sputters. Someone tapes a pair of paper ears on it to try to humanize it. One executive sullenly declines to participate in another robot design exercise because no one in his group will consider making a sexbot.</p>
<p>However much the Singularity informs the environment here, a majority of the executives attending the spring course expressed less interest in living forever and more in figuring out their next business venture or where they wanted to invest.</p>
<p>Robin Tedder, a Scottish baron who lives in Australia and divides his time among managing a personal fortune, racing a yacht and running a vineyard, says he read about Singularity University in an investor newsletter and checked out the Web site.</p>
<p>“What really convinced me to pay the 15 grand was that I didn’t think it was some kind of hoax,” Mr. Tedder said in an interview after he completed the executive program. “I looked at the people involved and thought it was the real deal. In retrospect, I think it’s a very good value.”</p>
<p>Like a number of other participants, Mr. Tedder is contemplating business ventures with his classmates and points to high-octane networking as the school’s major benefit.</p>
<p>Attendees at the spring session came from all over the globe and included John Mauldin, a best-selling author who writes an investment newsletter; Stephen Long, a research director at the Defense Department; Fernando A. de la Viesca, C.E.O. of the Argentinean investment firm TPCG Financial; Eitan Eliram, the new-media director for the prime minister’s office in Israel; and Guy Fraker, the director of trends and foresight at State Farm Insurance.</p>
<p>“We end up cleaning up the mess of unintended consequences,” says Mr. Fraker of his company’s work. He says it makes sense for him to gauge technological trends in case humans can one day gain new tools for averting catastrophes. For example, he’s confident that in the future people will have the ability to steer hurricanes away from populated areas.</p>
<p>Executives in the spring program also heard that some young people had started leaving college to set up their own synthetic biology labs on the cheap. Such people resemble computer tinkerers from a generation earlier, attendees note, except now they’re fiddling with the genetic code of organisms rather than software.</p>
<p>“Biology is moving outside of the traditional education sphere,” says Andrew Hessel, a former research operations manager at Amgen, during a lecture here. “The students are teaching their professors. This is happening faster than the computer evolved. These students don’t have newsletters. They have Web sites.”</p>
<p><a title="The school’s profile of him." href="http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/barry.html">Daniel T. Barry</a>, a Singularity University professor, gives a lecture about the falling cost of robotics technology and how these types of systems are close to entering the home. Dr. Barry, a former astronaut and “Survivor” contestant with an M.D. and a Ph. D., has put his ideas into action. He has a robot at home that can take a pizza from the delivery person, pay for it and carry it into the kitchen.</p>
<p>“You have the robot say, ‘Take the 20 and leave the pizza on top of me,’ ” Dr. Barry says. “I get the pizza about a third of the time.”</p>
<p>Other lecturers talk about a coming onslaught of biomedical advances as thousands of people have their genomes decoded. Jason Bobe, who works on <a title="The project’s Web site." href="http://thepersonalgenome.com/">the Personal Genome Project</a>, an effort backed by the Harvard Medical School to establish a huge database of genetic information, points to forecasts that a million people will have their genomes decoded by 2014.</p>
<p>“The machines for doing this will be in your kitchen next to the toaster,” Mr. Bobe says.</p>
<p>Mr. Hessel describes an even more dramatic future in which people create hybrid pets based on the body parts of different animals and tweak the genetic makeup of plants so they resemble things like chairs and tables, allowing us to grow fields of everyday objects for home and work. Mr. Hessel, like Mr. Kurzweil, thinks that people will use genetic engineering techniques to grow meat in factories rather than harvesting it from dead animals.</p>
<p>“I know in 10 years it will be a junior-high project to build a bacteria,” says Mr. Hessel. “This is what happens when we get control over the code of life. We are just on the cusp of that.”</p>
<p>Christopher deCharms, another Singularity University speaker, runs <a title="The company’s Web site." href="http://www.omneuron.com/">Omneuron</a>, a start-up in Menlo Park, Calif., that <a title="A past Times article about the company." href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/business/yourmoney/26stream.html">pushes the limits</a> of brain imaging technology. He’s trying to pull information out of the brain via sensing systems, so that there can be some quantification of people’s levels of depression and pain.</p>
<p>“We are at the forefront today of being able to read out real information from the human brain of single individuals,” he tells the executives.</p>
<p><strong>Preparing to Evolve</strong></p>
<p>Richard A. Clarke, former head of counterterrorism at the National Security Council, has followed Mr. Kurzweil’s work and written a science-fiction thriller, “<a title="The book on Google Books." href="http://books.google.com/books?id=fZtd6lG0H3sC&amp;lpg=PP1&amp;ots=etjPBbxqGf&amp;dq=RICHARD%20A.%20CLARKE%20breakpoint&amp;pg=PP1#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false">Breakpoint</a>,” in which a group of terrorists try to halt the advance of technology. He sees major conflicts coming as the government and citizens try to wrap their heads around technology that’s just beginning to appear.</p>
<p>“There are enormous social and political issues that will arise,” Mr. Clarke says. “There are vast groups of people in society who believe the earth is 5,000 years old. If they want to slow down progress and prevent the world from changing around them and they engaged in political action or violence, then there will have to be some sort of decision point.”</p>
<p>Mr. Clarke says the government has a contingency plan for just about everything — including an attack by Canada — but has yet to think through the implications of techno-philosophies like the Singularity. (If it’s any consolation, Mr. Long of the Defense Department asked a flood of questions while attending Singularity University.)</p>
<p>Mr. Kurzweil himself acknowledges the possibility of grim outcomes from rapidly advancing technology but prefers to think positively. “Technological evolution is a continuation of biological evolution,” he says. “That is very much a natural process.”</p>
<p>To prepare for any rocky transitions from our benighted present to the techno-utopia of 2030 or so, a number of people tied to the Singularity movement have begun to build what they call “an education and protection framework.”</p>
<p>Among them is Keith Kleiner, who joined Google in its early days and walked away as a wealthy man in 2005. During a period of personal reflection after his departure, he read “The Singularity Is Near.” He admires Mr. Kurzweil’s vision.</p>
<p>“What he taught me was ‘Wake up, man,’ ” Mr. Kleiner says. “Yeah, computers will get faster so you can do more things and store more data, but it’s bigger than that. It starts to permeate every industry.”</p>
<p>Mr. Kleiner, 32, founded a Web site, <a href="http://singularityhub.com/" target="_">SingularityHub.com</a>, with <a title="The site’s staff." href="http://singularityhub.com/about/">a writing staff</a> that reports on radical advances in technology. He has also given $100,000 to Singularity University.</p>
<p>Sonia Arrison, <a title="The school’s profile of her." href="http://singularityu.org/people/board-of-trustees/sonia-arrison/">a founder</a> of Singularity University and the wife of one of Google’s first employees, spends her days writing a book about longevity, tentatively titled “100 Plus.” It outlines changes that people can expect as life expectancies increase, like 20-year marriages with sunset clauses.</p>
<p>She says the book and the university are her attempts to ready people for the inevitable.</p>
<p>“One day we will wake up and say, ‘Wow, we can regenerate a new liver,’ ” Ms. Arrison says. “It will happen so fast, and the role of Singularity University is to prepare people in advance.”</p>
<p>Despite all of the zeal behind the movement, there are those who look askance at its promises and prospects.</p>
<p>Jonathan Huebner, for example, is often held up as Mr. Kurzweil’s foil. A physicist who works at the Naval Air Warfare Center as a weapons designer, he, like Mr. Kurzweil, has compiled his own cathedral of graphs and lists of important inventions. <a title="An article on his “new dark age.“" href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7616">He is unimpressed</a> with the state of progress and, in 2005, published in a scientific journal a paper called “<a title="The paper (PDF)." href="http://accelerating.org/articles/InnovationHuebnerTFSC2005.pdf">A Possible Declining Trend for Worldwide Innovation</a>.”</p>
<p>Measuring the number of innovations divided by the size of the worldwide population, Dr. Huebner contends that the rate of innovation peaked in 1873. Or, based on the number of patents in the United States weighed against the population, he found a peak around 1916. (Both Dr. Huebner and Mr. Kurzweil are occasionally teased about their faith in graphs.)</p>
<p>“The amount of advance in this century will not compare well at all to the last century,” Dr. Huebner says, before criticizing tenets of the Singularity. “I don’t believe that something like artificial intelligence as they describe it will ever appear.”</p>
<p>William S. Bainbridge, who has spent the last two decades evaluating grant proposals for the National Science Foundation, also sides with the skeptics.</p>
<p>“We are not seeing exponential results from the exponential gains in computing power,” he says. “I think we are at a time where progress will be increasingly difficult in many fields.</p>
<p>“We should not base ideas of the world on simplistic extrapolations of what has happened in the past,” he adds.</p>
<p><strong>‘Deus ex Machina’</strong></p>
<p>Last month, a biotech concern, Synthetic Genomics, <a title="A past Times article on the synthetic cell." href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/science/21cell.html">announced</a> that it had created a bacterial genome from scratch, kicking off a firestorm of discussion about the development of artificial life. J. Craig Venter, a pioneer in the human genome trade and head of Synthetic Genomics, hailed his company’s work as “the first self-replicating species we’ve had on the planet whose parent is a computer.”</p>
<p>Steve Jurvetson, a director of Synthetic Genomics, is part of a group of very rich, very bright Singularity observers who end up somewhere in the middle on the philosophy’s merits — optimistic about the growing powers of technology but pessimistic about humankind’s ability to reach a point where those forces can actually be harnessed.</p>
<p>Mr. Jurvetson, a venture capitalist and managing director of the firm Draper Fisher Jurvetson, says the advances of companies like Synthetic Genomics give him confidence that we will witness great progress in areas like biofuels and vaccines. Still, he fears that such technology could also be used maliciously — and he has a pantry filled with products like Spam and honey in case his family has to hunker down during a viral outbreak or attack.</p>
<p>“Thank God we have a swimming pool,” he says, noting that it gives him a large store of potentially potable water.</p>
<p>Mr. Orlowksi, the journalist, sees the Singularity as a grand, tech-nerd dream in which engineers, inventors and innovators of every stripe create the greatest of all reset buttons. He says the techies “seem to want a deus ex machina to make everything right again.”</p>
<p>They certainly don’t want any outside interference, and are utterly confident that they will realize the Singularity on their own terms and with their own wits — all of which fits with Silicon Valley’s strong libertarian traditions. Google and Microsoft employees trailed only members of the military as the largest individual contributors to Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign.</p>
<p>The Valley’s wizards also prefer to avoid any confrontation with Washington.</p>
<p>“Dealing with politics means having to compromise and convince people of things and form alliances with people who don’t always agree with you,” Mr. Orlowski says. “They’re not wired for that.”</p>
<p><strong>Increasing Acceptance</strong></p>
<p>Mr. Kurzweil is currently consulting for the Army on technology initiatives, and says he routinely talks with government and business leaders. Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, appears in Mr. Kurzweil’s books and often on the back flaps with celebratory quotations.</p>
<p>Mr. Kurzweil and Mr. Page of Google created a renewable-energy plan for the National Academy of Engineering, advising that solar power will one day soon meet all of the world’s energy needs.</p>
<p>Mr. Kurzweil’s 31-year-old son, Ethan, says his father has always been ahead of the curve. The family had the first flat-screen television and car phone on the block, as well as a phone that could fax photos.</p>
<p>“We also had this thing where you put on a hat that had sensors and it would create music to match your brain waves and help you meditate,” Ethan says. “People would come over and play with it.”</p>
<p>Ethan previously worked for Linden Lab, the company behind the virtual world Second Life. These days he’s a venture capitalist at Bessemer Venture Partners. A section of the bookshelves in his office has been reserved for multiple copies of his father’s works.</p>
<p>“A lot of what he has predicted has happened, and it’s interesting to see what he’s been saying become more mainstream,” says Ethan, who looks very much like a younger version of his father. “He has a certain world view that he feels strongly about that he thinks is absolutely coming to pass. The data so far suggests it is. He’s incredibly thorough with his research, and I have confidence his critics haven’t thought things through on the same level.”</p>
<p>Indeed, Ethan says, his father is almost, well, accepted.</p>
<p>“He is seen as less weird now,” he says. “Much less weird.”</p>
<p> </p></div>
<p><!--cur: prev:--></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<h6>A version of this article appeared in print on June 13, 2010, on page BU1 of the New York edition.</h6>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/06/14/merely-human-that%e2%80%99s-so-yesterday/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Second firm withdraws drugs from Greece over cuts</title>
		<link>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/06/01/second-firm-withdraws-drugs-from-greece-over-cuts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/06/01/second-firm-withdraws-drugs-from-greece-over-cuts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 14:48:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Miller, Bioethicist</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Biolaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Human Rights and Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pharmaceutical Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Resource Allocation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World News - Home]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World News - News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bioethics and economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drug access and affordability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pharmaceutical ethics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/?p=1788</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[BBC] Another Danish pharmaceutical company is withdrawing products from Greece in protest at the government&#8217;s decision to cut the prices of medicines by 25%.
The Leo Pharma company says it is suspending sales of two popular drugs because the price reductions will cause job losses across Europe.   The Greek government is struggling with a debt crisis.  [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/10193799.stm">BBC</a>] Another Danish pharmaceutical company is withdrawing products from Greece in protest at the government&#8217;s decision to cut the prices of medicines by 25%.</p>
<p>The Leo Pharma company says it is suspending sales of two popular drugs because the price reductions will cause job losses across Europe.   The Greek government is struggling with a debt crisis.  It has condemned as unfair the action of Leo Pharma, and another Danish company, Novo Nordisk.</p>
<p>Supply embargo?</p>
<p>The decision by Leo Pharma to suspend distribution of an anti blood-clotting agent and a remedy for psoriasis takes Greece one step closer towards an all-out boycott by medical suppliers.</p>
<p>Kristian Hart Hansen, a senior director of the company, said the 25% price reduction would encourage similar moves in other countries with large debt problems such as Ireland and Italy.   He warned that unless the company took action, there would job losses across Europe, including Denmark where the company is based.</p>
<p>Earlier this week another Danish company, Novo Nordisk, withdrew sales of its state-of-the-art insulin product from Greece for the same reason.</p>
<p>Greek government officials believe the Danish companies are blackmailing Athens because they monopolise the market with certain key drugs.  Stefanos Combinos, the director general of the economy ministry, told the BBC that Greece was one of the three most expensive countries in Europe for medicines.</p>
<p>He said pharmaceutical companies had enjoyed great profits out of Greece over the decades and had an obligation to accept price reductions.<span id="more-1788"></span></p>
<p>Mr Combinos said Greece had been under pressure from the IMF to make severe cuts and he anticipated that a compromise on a price reduction would be reached soon.</p>
<p>The Greek government has promised to repay 5.6bn euros that it owes to medical companies for hospital equipment and drugs.</p>
<p>But the Greek Association of Science and Health Providers has warned that there is little chance of an agreement and that the country&#8217;s debt-plagued state hospitals face a supply embargo.</p>
<p>A spokesman for Novo Nordisk, which is owed 24.4m euros by Greece, said that the debt issue was unrelated to the decision not to lower prices.</p>
<p>That decision, he said, was entirely a result of the new price decree.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/06/01/second-firm-withdraws-drugs-from-greece-over-cuts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>First human &#8216;infected with computer virus&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/05/27/first-human-infected-with-computer-virus/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/05/27/first-human-infected-with-computer-virus/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2010 14:25:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Miller, Bioethicist</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Neural Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Risk Exposure & Bioethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World News - Home]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World News - News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/?p=1785</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[BBC] A British scientist says he is the first man in the world to become infected with a computer virus.
Dr Mark Gasson from the University of Reading contaminated a computer chip which was then inserted into his hand. The device, which enables him to pass through security doors and activate his mobile phone, is a [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10158517.stm">BBC</a>] A British scientist says he is the first man in the world to become infected with a computer virus.</p>
<p>Dr Mark Gasson from the University of Reading contaminated a computer chip which was then inserted into his hand. The device, which enables him to pass through security doors and activate his mobile phone, is a sophisticated version of ID chips used to tag pets.</p>
<p>In trials, Dr Gasson showed that the chip was able to pass on the computer virus to external control systems.  If other implanted chips had then connected to the system they too would have been corrupted, he said.</p>
<p><strong>Medical alert</strong></p>
<p>Dr Gasson admits that the test is a proof of principle but he thinks it has important implications for a future where medical devices such as pacemakers and cochlear implants become more sophisticated, and risk being contaminated by other human implants. </p>
<p>&#8220;With the benefits of this type of technology come risks. <span id="more-1785"></span>We may improve ourselves in some way but much like the improvements with other technologies, mobile phones for example, they become vulnerable to risks, such as security problems and computer viruses.&#8221;</p>
<p>However, Dr Gasson predicts that wider use will be made of implanted technology.</p>
<p>&#8220;This type of technology has been commercialised in the United States as a type of medical alert bracelet, so that if you&#8217;re found unconscious you can be scanned and your medical history brought up.&#8221;</p>
<p>Professor Rafael Capurro of the Steinbeis-Transfer-Institute of Information Ethics in Germany told BBC News that the research was &#8220;interesting&#8221;.</p>
<p>&#8220;If someone can get online access to your implant, it could be serious,&#8221; he said.</p>
<p><strong>Cosmetic surgery</strong></p>
<p>Professor Capurro contributed to a 2005 ethical study for the European Commission that looked at the development of digital implants and possible abuse of them. </p>
<p>&#8220;From an ethical point of view, the surveillance of implants can be both positive and negative,&#8221; he said.</p>
<p>&#8220;Surveillance can be part of medical care, but if someone wants to do harm to you, it could be a problem.&#8221;</p>
<p>In addition, he said, that there should be caution if implants with surveillance capabilities started to be used outside of a medical setting.</p>
<p>However, Dr Gasson believes that there will be a demand for these non-essential applications, much as people pay for cosmetic surgery.</p>
<p>&#8220;If we can find a way of enhancing someone&#8217;s memory or their IQ then there&#8217;s a real possibility that people will choose to have this kind of invasive procedure.&#8221;</p>
<p>Dr Gasson works at the University of Reading&#8217;s School of Systems Engineering and will present the results of his research at the International Symposium for Technology and Society in Australia next month. Professor Capurro will also talk at the event.</p>
<p>By Rory Cellan-Jones Technology correspondent, BBC News Page last updated at 7:20 GMT, Wednesday, 26 May 2010 8:20 UK <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10158517.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10158517.stm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/05/27/first-human-infected-with-computer-virus/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Scientists use pig embryo to create stem cells</title>
		<link>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/05/05/scientists-use-pig-embryo-to-create-stem-cells/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/05/05/scientists-use-pig-embryo-to-create-stem-cells/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2010 14:00:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Miller, Bioethicist</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beginning of Life Matters and Reproductive Technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Organ Donation and Transplants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World News - Home]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World News - News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Animals and Ethics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/?p=1761</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[CNN] Scientists appear to have broken another barrier in stem cell research by creating a better research model to study human illnesses – a pig – actually 34 pigs.  It’s an important advance for research because pigs are much more like humans than other lab animals are.
The scientists did not clone the pigs – instead [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[CNN] Scientists appear to have broken another barrier in stem cell research by creating a better research model to study human illnesses – a pig – actually 34 pigs.  It’s an important advance for research because pigs are much more like humans than other lab animals are.</p>
<p>The scientists did not clone the pigs – instead they adapted a procedure used in mice and human stem cell researchand were able to grow a specific kind of cell, induced pluripotent stem cells, or IPS cells.</p>
<p>Pluripotent stem cells have the ability to turn into any cell in the body. IPS cells were first developed about five years ago by Shinya Yamanaka, who used four genes to coax a regular mouse cell into acting like an embryo. Creating stem cells with this method is less controversial than harvesting them from an embryo, which destroys the fertilized egg in the process.<span id="more-1761"></span></p>
<p>According to Dr. Steve Stice, director of the University of Georgia Regenerative Bioscience Center, his team took a bone marrow cell from a pig and injected six new genes, which caused it turn into an embryo-like cell.  Pluripotent stem cells were harvested from this embryo-like cell and injected in another pig embryo. </p>
<p>The first piglets carrying these new stem cells were born September 3, 2009. </p>
<p>So far human embryonic stem cell research has not actually found its way into the human body.  Most of the research is still in mice.  But mice aren&#8217;t the best animal models to get more accurate data on how a treatment may affect a person.  For example, mice hearts beat four times faster than a human heart and mice don&#8217;t get atherosclerosis (clogged arteries) – but pigs do.  That&#8217;s why pigs are much better animal models says Stice. &#8220;Physiologically, pigs are much closer to a human,&#8221; he says.</p>
<p>The researchers also found that unlike mouse embryonic stem cells, which can turn into cancer cells, none of the pigs developed any signs of tumors.</p>
<p>But it has been very difficult to harvest embryonic pluripotent stem cells from pigs. Stice credits his research assistant Franklin West with finding a way to make the existing IPS technology work in pigs.  </p>
<p>Now researchers hope to find many different applications for these new pig stem cells and the pigs they can produce.  They are already working with scientists at Emory University to develop insulin-producing pancreatic islet cells, which might be transplanted into people with diabetes.</p>
<p>Stice thinks this new method can also be used to genetically engineer healthier livestock for other tissue transplants and food consumption. He suggests these stem cells may someday be used to make &#8220;artificial bacon,&#8221; which would eliminate the need to slaughter pigs.</p>
<p>The research will be published in the online journal &#8220;Stem Cell and Development.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/05/05/scientists-use-pig-embryo-to-create-stem-cells/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Drugmakers’ Overhaul Costs $105 Billion, Leerink Says (Update1)</title>
		<link>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/04/28/drugmakers%e2%80%99-overhaul-costs-105-billion-leerink-says-update1/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/04/28/drugmakers%e2%80%99-overhaul-costs-105-billion-leerink-says-update1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:03:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Miller, Bioethicist</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Biolaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pharmaceutical Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World News - Home]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World News - News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/?p=1756</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[(Bloomberg) &#8212; Drugmakers face $105 billion in costs over 10 years, $25 billion more than the industry first estimated, from discounting medicines sold through government health programs, according to Leerink Swann &#38; Co.
The extra costs will come from expanding drug rebates through Medicaid, the U.S. insurance program for the poor, Leerink’s John L. Sullivan said [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-27/drugmakers-overhaul-costs-105-billion-leerink-says-update1-.html">Bloomberg</a>) &#8212; Drugmakers face $105 billion in costs over 10 years, $25 billion more than the industry first estimated, from discounting medicines sold through government health programs, according to Leerink Swann &amp; Co.</p>
<p>The extra costs will come from expanding drug rebates through Medicaid, the U.S. insurance program for the poor, Leerink’s John L. Sullivan said today at a Bloomberg conference in Chicago. Last June, the drug industry’s Washington lobbying group, PhRMA, put its share of overhaul costs at about $80 billion over a decade.</p>
<p>The overhaul, approved by Congress last month, “leaves the biopharmaceutical industry probably a larger contributor to health reform than a lot of people understand,” said Sullivan, a managing director at the health-care focused investment bank. “Industry is being asked to shoulder a significant amount and it feels like that which industry will be shouldering is at risk of rising.”<span id="more-1756"></span></p>
<p>The health-care law, championed by President Barack Obama and fellow Democrats, expands coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans over the next decade. The $1 trillion cost to subsidize their care will be paid through Medicare cuts for hospitals and increased taxes and fees on drug manufacturers, insurers and medical-device makers.</p>
<p>Drugmakers in June announced a deal with Senate negotiators to forgo about $80 billion in revenue to help finance the overhaul, partly to pay for discounting drugs to elderly Medicare recipients.</p>
<p>The $105 billion represents about 3 percent of drugmaker revenue over a decade, and the industry, through its deal, probably avoided deeper cuts or more regulations, said Les Funtleyder, author of “Health-Care Investing” and an analyst at Miller Tabak &amp; Co. LLC, at the conference.</p>
<p>“It could have been worse,” Funtleyder said.</p>
<p>By Alex Nussbaum, April 27, 2010</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/04/28/drugmakers%e2%80%99-overhaul-costs-105-billion-leerink-says-update1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Top biotech executives differ on health care law</title>
		<link>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/04/01/top-biotech-executives-differ-on-health-care-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/04/01/top-biotech-executives-differ-on-health-care-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:34:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Miller, Bioethicist</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Biolaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World News - Home]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World News - News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/?p=1721</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[Boston.com] Top executives of the state&#8217;s two largest biotechnology companies offered diverging views today on the health care bill signed into law by President Obama, with one contending it protects innovation and the other insisting it does little to control costs. &#8220;I don&#8217;t think this health care reform really addresses the fundamental underlying issues that [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[<a href="http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2010/03/top_biotech_exe.html">Boston.com</a>] Top executives of the state&#8217;s two largest biotechnology companies offered diverging views today on the health care bill signed into law by President Obama, with one contending it protects innovation and the other insisting it does little to control costs. &#8220;I don&#8217;t think this health care reform really addresses the fundamental underlying issues that are going to get after health care utilization,&#8221; James C. Mullen, chief executive of <a href="http://www.biogenidec.com/">Biogen Idec Inc</a>. of Cambridge, told the annual meeting of the <a href="http://www.massbio.org/">Massachusetts Biotechnology Council</a>, a trade group. He warned that US health care will &#8220;look a lot like the European system,&#8221; where governments try to rein in costs through price controls on drugs and medical services.</p>
<p>Mullen, who is leaving Biogen Idec in June, also predicted biotech companies will face a more difficult regulatory process in the United States. &#8220;The environment to launch new products&#8230; is going to be tougher, the pricing is going to be tougher, the probability (of drug approvals) is probably going to be more challenging,&#8221; he said.</p>
<p>Henri Termeer, chief executive of <a href="http://www.genzyme.com/">Genzyme Corp</a>. in Cambridge, said the new law has the potential to boost investment in biotechnology research through a 12-year data exclusivity provision that shields biotech drugs from generic competition. The bill also contains a therapeutic-research tax credit for biotech start-ups.</p>
<p>Unlike past pushes for health care overhaul that failed, &#8220;this particular set of discussions didn&#8217;t focus on the cost of innovation,&#8221; Termeer said. &#8220;It focused on the cost of access. In fact, you could say that innovation was somewhat talked about in a kind of benevolent way. There was support for the need to be able to take the risks that are necessary. This (Obama) administration is actually interested in innovation.&#8221;<span id="more-1721"></span></p>
<p>Termeer and Mullen spoke on a panel during the MassBio meeting at the Seaport World Trade Center in South Boston. The discussion was moderated by Deborah Dunshire, chief executive of Millennium Pharmaceuticals, another Cambridge biotechnology company that was bought by Japan&#8217;s Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. for $8.8 billion in 2008.</p>
<p>Dunshire described her fellow chief executives as &#8220;battle-scarred&#8221; biotech veterans and noted that they face pressures from increasingly impatient investors. But during the 60-minute event &#8212; which didn&#8217;t allow for questions from the audience &#8212; Genzyme&#8217;s high-profile manufacturing problems at its Allston Landing plant and shareholder activist Carl C. Icahn&#8217;s push for seats on the boards of both Genzyme and Biogen Idec weren&#8217;t discussed.</p>
<p>Mullen took a parting shot at the US Food and Drug Administration, saying European regulators &#8220;frankly seem to be a little more balanced&#8221; in approving riskier new drugs. Citing what he said was the reluctance of biopharmaceutical companies to develop new treatments for cardiovascular diseases, the Biogen Idec chief said, &#8220;The FDA has made it almost impossible to develop anything in cardiovascular. What they ask for sounds very logical in headlines. It&#8217;s just not doable.&#8221;</p>
<p>FDA officials didn&#8217;t immediately respond to requests for comment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/04/01/top-biotech-executives-differ-on-health-care-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Activists Increasingly Like Biotechs But With Mixed Results</title>
		<link>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/02/09/activists-increasingly-like-biotechs-but-with-mixed-results/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/02/09/activists-increasingly-like-biotechs-but-with-mixed-results/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:48:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Miller, Bioethicist</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pharmaceutical Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World News - Home]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World News - News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/?p=1623</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[WSJ] Biotechnology companies, in a sign of the industry&#8217;s maturity, are increasingly coming under the microscope of shareholder activists, who want the sector to act more like traditional businesses.
In recent years, well-known activists like Carl Icahn and Ralph Whitworth have questioned whether larger biotechs, which tend to have good cash flow and diminished competition, are [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100208-711161.html?mod=dist_smartbrief&amp;mg=com-wsj">WSJ</a>] Biotechnology companies, in a sign of the industry&#8217;s maturity, are increasingly coming under the microscope of shareholder activists, who want the sector to act more like traditional businesses.</p>
<p>In recent years, well-known activists like Carl Icahn and Ralph Whitworth have questioned whether larger biotechs, which tend to have good cash flow and diminished competition, are doing enough for their investors. Frequently, the activists question the company&#8217;s spending habits, often obscured by the biotech&#8217;s rapid growth.</p>
<p>For investors, an activist&#8217;s interest is usually seen as positive because it could foreshadow better returns. Within biotech, though, the actual results are less conclusive, possibly reflecting how the sector&#8217;s business model&#8211;which features years of heavy research costs but potentially gigantic returns on a successful drug&#8211;differs from traditional industries.</p>
<p>The most notable activist success in biotech was Icahn in turning around ImClone Systems. He bought shares in the low $40s in early 2004, took control of the board and sold the company to Eli Lilly &amp; Co. (LLY) for $70 a share in 2008. He also pushed for the sale of Medimmune in 2007, and the company was sold to AstraZeneca at a huge premium only two months after he reported an activist position.</p>
<p>However, in several situations&#8211;such as Amylin Pharmaceuticals Inc. (AMLN), Biogen Idec Inc. (BIIB), and PDL Biopharma Inc. (PDLI)&#8211;the stocks have suffered when activists became involved.</p>
<p>Paul Wagner, co-manager of the Allianz RCM Wellness fund, notes that activists&#8217; involvement in biotech can be problematic or distracting if they lack insights into specific company issues or their goals are too short-term oriented.<span id="more-1623"></span></p>
<p>&#8220;I am not sure I agree that putting an underperforming company on the auction block necessarily maximizes long-term shareholder value,&#8221; he said.</p>
<p>Activists, attracted by biotech&#8217;s high profit margins and lack of competition, frequently point to the companies&#8217; accrual of massive amounts of cash, which they say has led to lax financial management, including aggressive compensation, high research spending, and bad deal decisions.</p>
<p>&#8220;In this industry they usually use to try and extend their growth, but a lot of times they overreach and it becomes wasteful,&#8221; said Whitworth, whose firm&#8211;Relational Investors, a $6 billion investment fund&#8211;recently has made noise at Genzyme, which has suffered from manufacturing and regulatory woes.</p>
<p>Also, the industry is getting older, as many biotechs have had products on the market for several years; however, the companies are still regarded as growth stocks, and none pay a dividend, something that is standard among large pharmaceutical companies.</p>
<p>&#8220;As they have grown so fast, they have not taken on the accoutrements of a mature business,&#8221; Whitworth said.</p>
<p>Amgen Inc. (AMGN), with its almost $60 billion market capitalization and $13.4 billion in cash, is the most obvious candidate to pay a dividend, but recently said it wouldn&#8217;t happen &#8220;any time soon.&#8221;</p>
<p>Traditional pharmaceutical companies also produce a lot of cash but face competition in a given class of drugs and from generic companies. Biotech drugs, made from complex biologic processes, often face no competition and have high prices with no regulatory pathway for generic versions.</p>
<p>Biotech drugs, especially those treating unmet medical needs, can bring in a lot of cash, making it harder to notice missteps because profitability remains high and market share doesn&#8217;t suffer.</p>
<p>Activists argue that it is important to think about what the company &#8220;could be&#8221; rather than simply reward management for high performance when compared with other industries.</p>
<p>Whitworth projects that Genzyme will generate 60% of its current market capitalization, or more than $8 billion, in discretionary cash over the next five years, compared with the S&amp;P 500 average of about 30%.</p>
<p>But that contrasts with the $10 billion that Genzyme has invested in the past 25 years, which has generated a loss of $1.3 billion, according to Whitworth, who recently reached an agreement that could put him on Genzyme&#8217;s board this year.</p>
<p>Icahn has made similar arguments against Biogen, highlighting that it hasn&#8217;t launched a new product since 2004 and criticizing the 2003 merger that created the company. He recently laid the groundwork for his third consecutive proxy fight, but the stock is down 9% since he revealed his stake in 2007.</p>
<pre></pre>
<p>-By Thomas Gryta, Dow Jones Newswires; 212-416-2169; thomas.gryta@dowjones.com</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/02/09/activists-increasingly-like-biotechs-but-with-mixed-results/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>U.S. rights group argues against human gene patent</title>
		<link>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/02/03/u-s-rights-group-argues-against-human-gene-patent/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/02/03/u-s-rights-group-argues-against-human-gene-patent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:17:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Miller, Bioethicist</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Biolaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pharmaceutical Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Resource Allocation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World News - Home]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World News - News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/?p=1615</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[Reuters] Patents on two human genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer should be declared invalid because they stifle the free flow of information and hamper research, lawyers told a New York judge on Tuesday.
A lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups last May posed a broad challenge to gene patenting [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0215954520100202">Reuters</a>] Patents on two human genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer should be declared invalid because they stifle the free flow of information and hamper research, lawyers told a New York judge on Tuesday.</p>
<p>A lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups last May posed a broad challenge to gene patenting and its outcome could have far reaching effects because one in five human genes are patented.</p>
<p>The specific case argued on Monday at Manhattan federal court concerned a patent on two genes held by Myriad Genetics (<span id="symbol_MYGN.O_0"><a href="http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=MYGN.O">MYGN.O</a></span>). Mutations on those genes are responsible for most cases of hereditary breast and ovarian cancers.</p>
<p>&#8220;(Myriad) uncovered a law of nature &#8230; and they deserve credit for having done so. But laws of nature are not patentable,&#8221; said Chris Hansen, an attorney with the ACLU.</p>
<p>But a lawyer for Myriad dismissed the litigation as a test case to &#8220;go after gene patents and the biotech industry as a whole&#8221; and said patents have a positive impact on human health because they promote innovation.</p>
<p>&#8220;This is not nature&#8217;s handiwork&#8230; this is the hard work of man,&#8221; said Brian Poissant, a lawyer for Myriad.<span id="more-1615"></span></p>
<p>It could be months before the judge issues a ruling.</p>
<p>The lawsuit by the ACLU, the Association for Molecular Pathology, individual women and others was brought against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation, which hold the patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. (Editing by <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?edition=us&amp;n=daniel.trotta&amp;">Daniel Trotta</a> and Chris Wilson)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/02/03/u-s-rights-group-argues-against-human-gene-patent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Vital embryo research driven out of Britain: Scientists abandon plan to develop stem cells after funding dries up</title>
		<link>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2009/10/05/vital-embryo-research-driven-out-of-britain-scientists-abandon-plan-to-develop-stem-cells-after-funding-dries-up/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2009/10/05/vital-embryo-research-driven-out-of-britain-scientists-abandon-plan-to-develop-stem-cells-after-funding-dries-up/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:04:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Miller, Bioethicist</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beginning of Life Matters and Reproductive Technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stem Cells and Cloning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World News - Home]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/?p=1516</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[The Independent] All research involving the controversial creation of animal-human &#8220;hybrid&#8221; embryos has been refused funding in Britain and one of the three scientists licensed to carry out the work has left the UK for a job in Australia.
Every one of the three projects to develop embryonic stem cells from cloned embryos created by fusing [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="font-null">[<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vital-embryo-research-driven-out-of-britain-1797821.html">The Independent</a>] All research involving the controversial creation of animal-human &#8220;hybrid&#8221; embryos has been refused funding in Britain and one of the three scientists licensed to carry out the work has left the UK for a job in Australia.</p>
<p class="font-null">Every one of the three projects to develop embryonic stem cells from cloned embryos created by fusing human cells with animal eggs has now been abandoned, after publicly-funded research councils refused to back the studies aimed at developing new treatments for incurable illnesses ranging from heart disease to Parkinson&#8217;s.</p>
<p class="font-null">Two of the projects fizzled out earlier this year and the third is now understood to have ended after a funding application was aborted and the research licence issued by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) expired in July without being renewed, The Independent has learned.</p>
<p class="font-null">The news is a blow to those who lobbied intensively last year for a change to the law that would allow the creation of hybrid embryos for research purposes. The new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, which came into force this month, was specifically amended to permit the creation of cloned embryos from human cells mixed with the eggs of either cows, pigs, sheep or other animals.<span id="more-1516"></span></p>
<p class="font-null">When the issue was debated in Parliament, many leading scientists, including the heads of the funding councils, warned that it would be a travesty if this kind of research was banned in Britain. It now appears that their own research committees have dismissed the grant applications from all three licence holders as not worth funding.</p>
<p class="font-null">Although the work was not specifically allowed under the old 1990 Act, it was permitted under licence by the HFEA.</p>
<p class="font-null">Professor Justin St John of Warwick University, who held one of the three HFEA licences for research involving the cloning of human-animal hybrid embryos, has resigned from his post as head of reproductive biology and is due to fly to Australia today to take up a position at Monash University, which is renowned for its work in the field of embryonic stem cells.</p>
<p class="font-null">Professor St John refused to answer questions on the reasons for his departure but it is understood he is disillusioned with the funding environment in Britain and the amount of bureaucracy involved in getting ethical approval for this kind of work. In a statement he said: &#8220;I am moving to Monash University in Melbourne because it&#8217;s a world-class university for the study of reproduction, development and stem cells and they have offered me a job.&#8221;</p>
<p class="font-null">However, when he was interviewed by The Independent in January just prior to submitting his funding application for creating animal-human hybrid embryos, Professor St John was asked about the refusal to fund the other two hybrid-embryo projects. &#8220;Some people will be extremely happy about that,&#8221; he said.</p>
<p class="font-null">Asked whether he thought there were people on the funding committees of the research councils who were morally opposed to this work, Professor St John said he had not submitted a funding application at that stage and was not in a position to comment.</p>
<p class="font-null">&#8220;I haven&#8217;t had back a set of reviewers&#8217; comments so I can&#8217;t make a valued judgement as to whether it&#8217;s for real scientific reason &#8230; or whether the funding councils just don&#8217;t want to fund this work,&#8221; he said.</p>
<p class="font-null">The heads of the two research councils responsible for funding work into animal-human hybrid embryos reacted angrily this year to suggestions that members of the funding committees morally opposed to this type of work may be influencing a decision on whether it should receive public money.</p>
<p class="font-null">Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, the chief executive of the Medical Research Council, which turned down one of the three licence holders, said that the peer-review system of assessing funding applications &#8220;rules out the possibility of a personal moral view influencing the final outcome of a proposal&#8221;.</p>
<p class="font-null">Colin Miles, head of systems biology at the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, which turned down another licence holder, said: &#8220;Having an HFEA licence to conduct a certain type of research does not automatically entitle researchers to funding. They must still compete for funding based on scientific excellence and strategic impact and the potential of the project to add significantly to the body of knowledge in that area.&#8221;</p>
<p class="font-null">The two other HFEA licence holders for research into animal-human hybrid embryos were Professor Stephen Minger of King&#8217;s College London, who has left the university to work in industry and whose licence has now expired, and Lyle Armstrong of Newcastle University, who created 278 hybrid embryos from human cells and cow eggs before abandoning the work at Newcastle through lack of funds. He now works in Spain.</p>
<p class="font-null">Professor St John&#8217;s application was to create lines of embryonic stem cells from hybrid embryos created by fusing the egg cells of pigs with human cells from patients suffering from a disease of the heart muscle. He had already carried out extensive work on generating mouse-pig hybrid embryos, funded by the Medical Research Council.</p>
<p class="font-null">Last year, leading scientists, politicians and commentators applauded Parliament for passing the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which was supported by both Gordon Brown and David Cameron and allowed creation of animal-human &#8220;admixed&#8221; embryos for stem-cell research.</p>
<p><!-- adSurroundStart --></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2009/10/05/vital-embryo-research-driven-out-of-britain-scientists-abandon-plan-to-develop-stem-cells-after-funding-dries-up/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Biotech Bottleneck</title>
		<link>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2009/08/03/biotech-bottleneck/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2009/08/03/biotech-bottleneck/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:32:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrea Fletcher</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bioethics News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pharmaceutical Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World News - Home]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/?p=1356</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Congress can encourage competition within an increasingly important class of prescription drugs.
[Washington Post] With a name like the Affordable Health Choices Act, you&#8217;d think the health-care reform bill that passed the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee this month would have made an effort to provide affordable health choices. But instead, the bill includes [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!--StartFragment--></p>
<h3><strong><span>Congress can encourage competition within an increasingly important class of prescription drugs.</span></strong></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/27/AR2009072702501.html"><span>[Washington Post]</span></a></span></strong><span> With a name like the Affordable Health Choices Act, you&#8217;d think the health-care reform bill that passed the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee this month would have made an effort to provide affordable health choices. But instead, the bill includes a provision that would create a 12-year market exclusivity period for brand-name biologic drugs. This would drive costs to consumers above even current levels, making the title little more than a mockery.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Biologic drugs, medical therapeutics derived through biotechnology techniques, are an important and ever-expanding field of prescription drug innovation. Forty-five billion dollars of U.S. prescription drug sales last year were biologics, and they comprise approximately 25 percent of new drugs. Prices for a single course of a brand-name biologic can soar into the tens of thousands of dollars, and this is not likely to change soon. Big pharmaceutical companies maintain that a lengthy exclusivity period in addition to the patent protection they already receive is necessary to drive continued innovation. But is it?<span id="more-1356"></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>A Federal Trade Commission <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/06/P083901biologicsreport.pdf"><span>report</span></a> released last month suggested the opposite &#8212; that the biotech industry&#8217;s patents on its biologic innovations are so strong that no added exclusivity period is necessary. Biologic drugs require a much more complicated manufacturing process than their chemical equivalents, and, thus, a greater research investment. But the flip side is that many stages of the process can be patented &#8212; from the drug products themselves to the genes that produce them to the cells in which they are made. This makes entry into the market by follow-on-biologics, or &#8220;biosimilars,&#8221; more difficult because multiple patents are harder to design around. Unlike the market for more traditional prescription drugs, in which the entrance of a generic competitor cuts sharply into the profits of a brand-name innovator, the imperfect substitution between biologics means that pioneer biologics retain a large market share even when biosimilar drugs are introduced, allowing innovators a lengthy period in which to recoup their investment.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The Obama administration has favored a seven-year exclusivity period, characterized as a &#8220;generous compromise.&#8221; Any additional protection would be not only unnecessary but harmful. An extended monopoly would delay the entry of biogenerics and drive costs even higher. Especially considering that the government is a major purchaser of biologics &#8212; the top six drugs for Medicare Part B expenditures in 2006 and 2007 were all biologics &#8212; this failure to open the market will be costly.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>There is still time for action. In the House, a pending amendment would offer a similar 12-year exclusion period, but there is an alternative: a bill put forth by Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) that would limit the exclusion period to five years. If Congress is serious about health-care reform, it must take another look at whether its legislation truly balances incentives for innovation against the need for price competition.</span></p>
<p><!--EndFragment--></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2009/08/03/biotech-bottleneck/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
