Biotech / Medical | Biotech Valuation


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: BulbaMan who wrote (38157)4/19/2012 2:57:22 PM
From: fred hayes   of 40275
 
Interesting discussion. Sorry I'm late to it, but I have to ask how the new system would assure that the most productive contribute the most to the cost of government. Now, as I recall, about half pay no income taxes at all (some get credits) and the top one percent pay around one-third of the total. According to some people, that is not nearly enuf. Surely step 2 would be to come up with a bunch of other complex administrative systems to solve this problem.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: Ian@SI4/19/2012 5:21:52 PM
   of 40275
 
I was expecting to see Seagram's or the like as the principal funder for this study. ;)


Public Release: 19-Apr-2012
Journal of Hepatology
Modest alcohol consumption lowers risk and severity of liver disease
People with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NALFD) who consume alcohol in modest amounts -- no more than one or two servings per day -- are half as likely to develop hepatitis as non-drinkers with the same condition, reports a national team of scientists led by researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine.
NIH/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, NIH/National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH/National Cancer Institute
Contact: Scott LaFee
slafee@ucsd.edu
619-543-6163
University of California - San Diego

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: fred hayes who wrote (38161)4/19/2012 6:28:35 PM
From: BulbaMan1 Recommendation   of 40275
 
Fred: As indicated in the Op-Ed by Sheila Bair (former FDIC chair) linked below, you don’t need “a bunch of other complex administrative systems” to fix our financial problems ;-)
washingtonpost.com 
More seriously, I don’t think taxes are a good way to “assure” anything, whether it’s helping workers or the “most productive.” Having said that, I’m guessing Peter would appreciate that we discontinue discussion of my zero income tax, money printing idea on the Biotech Valuation Board. Those interested in another take on abolishing the income tax might want to check out the Fair Tax website: fairtax.org 
Peace & good health,
Bulba

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: John McCarthy4/20/2012 2:26:10 AM
   of 40275
 
Synthetic DNA Created, Evolves on Its Own
"XNA" may help answer basic questions of biology, study says.

Christine Dell'Amore
National Geographic News
Published April 19, 2012

Step aside, DNA—new synthetic compounds called XNAs can also store and copy genetic information, a new study says.

And, in a "big advancement," these artificial compounds can also be made to evolve in the lab, according to study co-author John Chaput of the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University. (See "Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: 6 Bones of Contention.")

Nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA are composed of four bases—A, G, C, and T. Attached to the bases are sugars and phosphates. ( Get a genetics overview.)

First, researchers made XNA building blocks to six different genetic systems by replacing the natural sugar component of DNA with one of six different polymers, synthetic chemical compounds.

The team—led by Vitor Pinheiro of the U.K.'s Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology—then evolved enzymes, called polymerases, that can make XNA from DNA, and others that can change XNA back into DNA.

This copying and translating ability allowed for genetic sequences to be copied and passed down again and again—artificial heredity.

Last, the team determined that HNA, one of the six XNA polymers, could respond to selective pressure in a test tube.

As would be expected for DNA, the stressed HNA evolved into different forms.

This shows that "beyond heredity, specific XNAs have the capacity for Darwinian evolution," according to the study, published tomorrow in the journal Science. (Read "Darwin's Legacy" in National Geographic magazine.)
"Thus, heredity and evolution, two hallmarks of life, are not limited to DNA and RNA."

XNA Could Demystify Origins of Life?

All of XNA'S actions are "completely controlled by experimentalists—it's 100 percent unnatural," study co-author Chaput noted.

But such control means that scientists can "use [XNA] to ask very basic questions in biology," such as about the origins of life, Chaput said.

For instance, "it's possible that life didn't begin with DNA and proteins like we see today—it may have begun with something much, much simpler," he said.

A scientist could potentially evolve XNA to discover various functions that would have been important for early life.

Overall, he said, the new discovery is "pretty cool—and very powerful."

news.nationalgeographic.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: IRWIN JAMES FRANKEL who wrote (38142)4/20/2012 6:32:03 AM
From: nigel bates   of 40275
 

"our economy is a zero sum game (ignoring growth for now)"


Absolutely - and eventually we will be obliged to forego growth anyway (though not quite in our lifetimes):
physics.ucsd.edu 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: BulbaMan who wrote (38157)4/20/2012 6:47:51 AM
From: nigel bates1 Recommendation   of 40275
 
"To sum up, the current income tax system is complex, inefficient and unfair"


Indeed - but so would be taxing via inflation, since again it would be a tax easiest for the most wealthy to avoid, and would skew investment decisions quite considerably.


Also if you're only abolishing income tax, you would get considerable tax arbitrage. if you wanted to replace other taxes as well, it would require a rate of inflation which would be hugely distortionary.


Bear in mind too that governments already raise money in this way (although not on a consistent or predictable basis).

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Biomaven4/20/2012 2:16:39 PM
   of 40275
 
Haven't used this myself, but looks like a cheap way to read many journal articles for those without any access to a university library:

deepdyve.com 

Peter

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Biomaven who wrote (38134)4/20/2012 6:30:24 PM
From: Biomaven1 Recommendation   of 40275
 
>>This is an interesting abstract I came across recently - don't understand this interaction, but it seems real based on these numbers: :

Diabetes Care. 2012 Mar 28. [Epub ahead of print]

Statin Use As a Moderator of Metformin Effect on Risk for Prostate Cancer Among Type 2 Diabetic Patients.



I mentioned this to a doctor friend whose specialty is deciphering just such articles, and he had quite a different reaction:


I'm afraid I can't agree. Do you now believe (based on this) that metformin without a statin *doubles* the risk of prostate cancer in diabetics?

This to me looks like the typical sort of spurious finding that occurs when you dredge a database. Think of all the different things that might have been looked at to get to this result. I'm guessing, though it may not be correct, that the a priori hypothesis was something like "statins and metformin will have an additive effect in reducing cancer". That let the researchers then test against lots of different cancers until they found an "interesting" result.

However, even if they started out looking at prostate cancer, they certainly weren't expecting metformin to double the risk a priori. And, of course, it didn't. If they had left the effect modifier term out of their model, I suspect metformin use would have shown no association with prostate cancer. You would be hard pressed to find any example of a drug that, when combined with another drug decreases cancer risk by 30%, but when used alone doubles that cancer risk. It just doesn't pass the smell test.

Also, note that the reduced risk in patients on both is based on 17 cases of prostate cancer.


Clearly he makes several very good points here.

Peter

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: BulbaMan who wrote (38157)4/21/2012 1:32:40 PM
From: Chris08   of 40275
 
1. If this were such a good idea, I suspect it would already have been instituted somewhere and as far as I know it never has. I know of no economist, even the sillier among them, who ever advocated this.
2. Taxes are useful to redistribute income. Without them inequality would probably be far greater than it is today in the US and it is already far too great. Taxes change the "natural" distribution of income.
3. Taxes require political decisions re how the government money is allocated and spent. If it could simply be created how would the allocation (budget process) be decided? There would be too great a temptation to fund any and all initiatives. Taxes limit how much the government can spend and forces choices to be made.
(Just a few of the reasons, I think, that simply printing money has never been a serious consideration.)

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: BulbaMan who wrote (38157)4/21/2012 2:26:38 PM
From: Biomaven   of 40275
 
>printing money

I think this is just going to produce hyperinflation - the system is going to be unstable. If government expenditures are say 30% of GDP, then assuming roughly constant V, the money supply will grow exponentially even if GDP is constant - perhaps by 15% per year. That doubles prices every 5 years or so, which is enough for people to buy ahead of the price increases because of inflationary expectations. That would then increase V, ratcheting up inflation further.

I think the last country that tried something like this was Zimbabwe. Here's what you can get for $4.45:

ebay.com 

Peter

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.