Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Open Innovation in Life Science - Closing the Loop

 Peer-reviewed
 



The first decade of the 21th century has been noted to witness a decline in the pharmaceutical innovation (Kaitin and DiMasi, 2011), with some recent signs of revival (Ward, 2014). According to the Centre for Medicines Research International in the USA, the average success rate of bringing a new drug to the market has declined, since the mid-nineties. Failure occurs predominantly in the later phases of clinical testing, which makes them even more expensive. The business witnessed only 24 new-drug approvals by the United States Food and Drug Administration during 1998 with a $27 billion Research and Development (R&D) cost. However, the industry in 2006 spent $64 billion, for only 13 new drugs, making it to the market (Kaitin and DiMasi, 2011). Some have proposed that the traditional linear model of bioinnovation, is no longer viable, concluding the need for a "fully integrated pharmaceutical networks," (FIPNets/FIPCO) or simply an "ecosystem". In this essay I explore reasons and practicalities of turning to Open Innovation. I also argue a potential enhancement in the quality of input into the earlier phases of drug production, with fungal conservation and bioprospecting as a case in point.






Download the paper

 

 

 

 

Time Feminism evolved!

If feminism stands for gender equality, then I'm a radical feminist.


However, I'm not happy with the name of the movement(s). I, as a "gender-equalist", like to be categorised as a gender-equality activist rather than a feminist.



This is for two main reasons.
I'm using gender-equalism rather than the more generic "egalitarianism".

The first reason is the name itself: F-e-m-i-n-i-s-t. I don't see any equality in that! It seems to be all about women. But gender equality is not just about women, it is about the whole community benefiting from raising the profile of women and advocating their rights. Gender inequality is harming humanity, not just women. It affects nations, economies, and life as a whole.

The second reason is the lack of consensus over the definition of feminism. People define it (and use it) in many different ways and contexts.


While many women groups (and I'm a proud member of one) have gained a lot for the cause of gender equality throughout history, the term may also be used in other contexts conflicting with what gender equality is about.


1- It is used by oppressive groups to propose limitation and censorship on women's clothes and mobility, so as to "protect" her.



2- It may be used by some "male" feminists to lure "grateful" women into abusive relationships.



3- It may be used by some female trolls to incur unfair gains or abuse men just because they are protected by feminism.

When comparing a man that makes his money by hard work, creativity, and progress (while not being abusive to women) and a woman that makes her wealth by silicon-stuffed curves. I would take the side of the man, not the woman, in this particular case although pleasing men is normally the reason behind such cosmetic trends. I'd say that women need to rise up to the responsibility of gender equality.



4- There is a competency gap that feminism seems reluctant to acknowledge. Women have been conditioned for long not to compete in the job market. Witch hunt, lobotomy, theocracies, colonialism (including Arab colonialism in the Middle East) have pulled women down across generations. Women must empower themselves and each other more in science and technology as much as they demand "protection"; so that equal opportunities - when reached, would work out for them and the world. Ask yourself, if you call yourself a (female) feminist, and you're not living in a community where women are normally cut, denied basic education, or financial independence; have you ever learned to operate a power tool, write a programming code, or build a shed; Have you ever repaired an electric switch or replaced a damaged fuse, or do you always ask a man when it operating any machine other than a car, a dishwasher, and a hoover? If you haven't, now is the time for learning and gaining skills, go for it!



5- Many time feminism slips into man-hate speech and will never blame women for contributing to the current inequality, while the truth is that a great deal of such inequality - and sometimes violence, is nurtured by women themselves. Take Female Gentile Mutilation as an example. Inequality is an ecosystem.

Girls queuing helplessly to be cut - picture from It’s Time to End FGM - GirlsGlobe (link to GirlsGlobe website/

6- The existence of such a biased expression (which was OK at a certain stage of history) defining those who work for gender equality seems like asking for "women care" rather than overall communal synergy based on gender equality. Again, this is all implied by the name, the lack of precise definition, then by the practices of some irresponsible, ignorant or misinformed individuals/groups.


I have to admit that I myself became a man-hater at a certain stage of my life, because of all the violence and brutality practiced by and for men against women in the Middle East, but when I looked closer, I was stunned at realising the massive role of many women in sustaining aggressive masculine cultures. Women think of themselves as trophies or candy bars to be covered and protected, women who would "snatch" men from each other, women who are happy to commodify their bodies and women who get violent against each other to please men. I finally came to the conclusion that gender-equality may need self-liberation and empowerment rather than self patronizing.

Shocking: What makes women settle for such fake pride; being the highest shareholder!

Just look at the amount of money and fame a distinguished female scientist makes, compared to the wealth and fame made by silicon-stuffed* female entertainers, to know that women should work harder on liberating themselves while they ask for justice. Justice is a double-edged sword!

Again, it is not what feminism stands for that is the problem, it is what it seems to be standing for due to the biased name and the lack of consensus over the definition. It is time the term feminism gets firmly and terminally replaced by gender-equality (perhaps gender-equalism) and still be advocating women's right for equality when and where necessary; for the whole community to prosper!

 Relevant articles:
FGM & Circumcision: Two different battles.
* This is not about cosmetic surgery, and is not about a certain profession. All are respected. This is rather about voluntary self-commercialisation for profit or power, and is also about what women are comfortable to pride themselves in, while men prefer making professional and developmental progress.

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

How far can our kind be trusted on geoengineering?


 How far can our kind be trusted on geoengineering?
A multi-disciplinary account of global governance issues in light of Holistic Darwinism

Peer-reviewed

Gihan Sami Soliman


International-Curricula Educators Association




07/05/2015




Would a human kind comprising an estimated number of 700 million of hungry people (WFP, 2014), while wasting one third of its food be entrusted on geoengineering the climate for ecological restoration? The humanity complaining today about the depletion of fossil fuel and global warming, while the little bit of sunlight falling on earth for one hour meets the world's energy demands for an entire year?! (Inslee et al, 2008). How much of today's hunger, misery and fears are all about politics and governance? Perhaps the greatest deal!


          Fears of a man-made doomsday has been lingering there for a few decades, expressed in several forms and cultures (Preston, 2012; Ginn, 2015); but officially by the publication of the “Limits to Growth” – 1972 (Hall, 2009). This seems to have been pushing humanity away from the “individualism” (Encyclopaedia Britannica) associated with the Laissez-faire economy of the traditional liberalism, justified at a time by what is known as the “Social Darwinism”, towards a sort of global solidarity enthusiasm – at least in principle.


[[ Read the whole paper ]]






What is this about?

Each science domain expresses geoenigneering in a different way, and in different jargons. I integrated the different perspectives together, expressed in one simple language. The conclusion is that we have been already been manipulating the ecology for decades, by manipulating nature's fundamentals, till we've reached the current accumulative situation. As an educator, I plan my lesson in line with the objectives defined by the Bloom's Taxonomy. In the psychomotor dimension of the Blooms Taxonomy, and at its highest level, there is manipulation! Manipulation of Nature's fundamentals is what we teach our children to be good at, on a vocational level. So it is only the level of awareness and the consensus on the convenient action that makes today's proposed "geoengineering" called as such, not the action itself. This consensus is the real problem! Science says that decreasing atmospheric carbon dioxide today will not alone solve the problem, and governments might have to take actions in case of emergency, if the weather takes a sudden dangerous turn. But because there is a trust issue, and lack of science integration - to help us see the whole picture, we are reluctant to discuss it or study it further. This paper presents an integrated vision of the case and calls for more studies on geoengineering.



 


Related:

By Gihan Sami Soliman
About the blogger