The Obama administration has become so concerned about the slowing pace of new drugs coming out of the pharmaceutical industry that officials have decided to start a billion-dollar government drug development center to help create medicines.
The new effort comes as many large drugmakers, unable to find enough new drugs, are paring back research. Promising discoveries in such illnesses as depression and Parkinson's that once would have led to clinical trials are instead going unexplored because companies have neither the will nor the resources to undertake the effort. Drug companies have typically spent twice as much on marketing as on research, a business model that is increasingly suspect.
The initial financing of the government's new drug center is small compared with the $45.8 billion that the industry estimates it invested in research in 2009. The cost of bringing a single drug to market can exceed $1 billion, according to some estimates.
Groundwork for drug firms
The National Institutes of Health has traditionally focused on basic research, such as describing the structure of proteins, leaving industry to create drugs using those compounds. But the drug industry's research productivity has been declining for 15 years, "and it certainly doesn't show any signs of turning upward," said Dr. Francis Collins, director of the institutes.
The job of the new center, to be called the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, is akin to that of a home seller who spruces up properties to attract buyers in a down market. In this case, the center will do as much research as it needs to do to attract drug company investment.
That means that in some cases, the center will use one of the institutes' four new robotic screeners to find chemicals that affect enzymes and might lead to the development of a drug or a cure. In other cases, the center might need to discover not only the right chemicals but also perform animal tests to ensure that they are safe and even start human trials to see whether they work. All of that has traditionally been done by drug companies, not the government.
"None of this is intended to be competitive with the private sector," Collins said. "The hope would be that any project that reaches the point of commercial appeal would be moved out of the academic support line and into the private sector."
Whether the government can succeed where private industry has failed is uncertain, officials say, but they say doing nothing is not an option.
The health and human services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, sent a letter to Congress on Jan. 14 outlining the plan to open the new drug center by October — an unusually rapid turnaround for an idea first released with little fanfare in December.
Creating the center is a signature effort of Collins, who once directed the agency's Human Genome Project. Collins has been predicting for years that gene sequencing will lead to a vast array of new treatments, but years of effort and tens of billions of dollars in financing by drugmakers in gene-related research have largely been a bust.
As a result, industry has become far less willing to follow the latest genetic advances with expensive clinical trials. Rather than wait longer, Collins has decided the government can start the work itself.
"I am a little frustrated to see how many of the discoveries that do look as though they have therapeutic implications are waiting for the pharmaceutical industry to follow through with them," he said.
Illinois appellate court throws Emanuel off Chicago ballot
CHICAGO – An Illinois appellate court on Monday threw former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel off the ballot for Chicago mayor because he didn't live in the city in the year before the election.
The decision put Emanuel's candidacy into doubt a month before the election. He had been considered the front-runner and had raised more money than any other candidate.
The court voted 2-1 to overturn a lower-court ruling that would have kept his name on the Feb. 22 ballot.
A lawyer for Emanuel says they plan to appeal the matter to the Illinois Supreme Court.
Those challenging Emanuel's candidacy have argued that the Democrat doesn't meet the one-year residency requirement because he rented out his Chicago home and moved his family to Washington to work for President Barack Obama for nearly two years.
Emanuel has said he always intended to return to Chicago and was only living in Washington at the request of the president.
Emanuel is one of several candidates vying to replace Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, who didn't seek a seventh term. Emanuel moved back to Chicago in October after he quit working for Obama to campaign full-time.
Before Monday's ruling, attorney Burt Odelson, who represents two voters objecting to Emanuel's candidacy, had little luck trying to keep Emanuel off the ballot.
The Chicago Board of Election Commissioners and a Cook County judge have both ruled in favor of Emanuel, a former congressman, saying he didn't abandon his Chicago residency when he went to work at the White House.
Odelson had said he planned to take the challenge to the state Supreme Court, if necessary.
"Have I stood down at all? No, I've been confident all along because that's the law. That's the way you read the law," Odelson told reporters on Monday.
The three main other candidates running — former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, former schools President Gery Chico and City Clerk Miguel del Valle — have been critical of Emanuel during the race, calling him an outsider who doesn't know Chicago.
Emanuel appeared to have gotten a big boost last week when his campaign announced he raised more than $10 million and was endorsed by former President Bill Clinton during an event in Chicago.
A Chicago Tribune/WGN also released last week showed Emanuel with the support of 44 percent of those surveyed. The same poll found 21 percent of registered voters questioned prefer Braun, while 16 percent favor Chico and 7 percent support del Valle.
Del Valle said the appeal court's decision bodes well for the other candidates and voters who may have thought the race was a foregone conclusion because the amount of money Emanuel has raised.
"Now voters see there's an opportunity to look at the field and give candidates either a second look or in some cases a first look. People are going to pay more attention to the other candidates," del Valle said.
The residency questions have dogged Emanuel ever since he announced his candidacy last fall. Emanuel tried to move back into his house when he returned to Chicago but the family renting it wanted $100,000 to break the lease and move out early. The tenant, businessman Rob Halpin, later filed paperwork to run for mayor against Emanuel, only to withdraw from the race a short time later.
A bid to draft Keith Olbermann to run for Joe Lieberman's Senate seat in Connecticut is in the works.
By Mark J. Terrill, AP On the liberal Daily Kos website, someone going by the handle Stranded Wind says the recently departed MSNBC host is "just old enough, smart enough, polished enough, and has all of the other attributes that would make him a darned good senator for the state of Connecticut."
Olbermann abruptly announced Friday night that he would no longer host his highly rated show on MSNBC. He said the show had become "too much" for him. There have been news reports that an exit by Olbermann, who frequently espoused his liberal politics on his show, had been in the works for a while. Olbermann's settlement with the network is believed to include a non-compete clause that would prevent him from being on TV for a while.
Olbermann was briefly suspended by MSNBC last year for making political contributions, including to Arizona Democrats Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords.
Lieberman, a former Democratic vice presidential nominee who became an independent in 2006, announced last week he would not seek a fifth term in the Senate.
Several Democrats and Republicans are already lining up to succeed Lieberman, including Democratic Congressman Chris Murphy, who changed his website to say "Chris Murphy for Senate" last week.
John Roberts won't have to say a word to make a statement this week.
The chief justice, like his Supreme Court colleagues, must decide whether to attend President Obama's State of the Union address. Last year, Roberts sat passively as Obama drew a standing ovation from congressional Democrats by criticizing the court's just-issued campaign finance ruling.
Since then, Roberts has questioned whether the justices should continue to attend the annual speech, which he likened in March to a "political pep rally." Samuel Alito, who famously mouthed "not true" as Obama spoke, has already said he plans to stay home this year.
"Any who attended last year but don't this year will be sending the message that they were offended by Obama's attack," said Lucas Powe Jr., a Supreme Court historian who teaches at the University of Texas School of Law.
Of the five Republican-nominated justices, three attended last year: Roberts, Alito and Anthony Kennedy. The other two, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, skipped the event. Those five formed the majority in the campaign finance ruling, which freed corporations to spend money on political ads.
Three of the court's four Democratic appointees -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor -- attended last year. The fourth, Elena Kagan, was nominated by Obama in May.
Should only the Democratic appointees go, "that would be an explicit disaster, as everybody ought to realize well ahead of time," said David Garrow, a historian at Cambridge University in Britain who writes about the court. "If things devolve to where it looks like an implicit indication of support or nonsupport for whoever the current president may be, that's a big negative for the court."
Just like the all the president's since the 30's starting with FDR they are just puppets on a string.
Obama is not any smarter than those said president's it's not hard to to be president when all your mouth is is a megaphone for the bankers and the moochers.
The un-fortunate ones here don't need anymore help. They get life saving medical care every day for free and paid for by the taxpayers.
Dude only comes on here bashing one party most here have stated that they are against both parties in some form or fashion.
Taking something from someone that has worked hard for it and suffered all the bs to get there is not conducive to a good economy. Most will give up and quit knowing that their efforts are going to go to someone who was and is lazy enough to just sit on the couch and watch tv eat chit food and get fat.
Europe is a nice place but when you work for the state then it's no different than Communist Russia or any other state that says it's for the good of the country.
American's Have been free to make it or break it in their own lives. Majority Make it. Some don't. Biggest problem is forced commerce and higher taxes to support an ever growing government plain and simple. Less Government the more freedom's to live like you want.
Actractorguy Forum Posts (2,089)
RE: Obama is bringing american ecnomy on track! Support Him!