A Task That Needs to Be Done (Guest Voice)
A Task That Needs to Be Done
by Robert Coutinho
I recently had to go into the hospital due to an emergency. On my last day there, I got a new room mate who talked about politics, economics, and other items. What I learned from him was very important.
The man was in his early sixties. He was probably of average intelligence. He had worked most of his life in manual-labor jobs such as construction, landscaping, cleaning, etc. From what I could discern, I suspect that he voted mostly for Democrats (unsurprising in Massachusetts). What surprised me (and greatly disturbed me) was his nearly total lack of understanding about certain realities of our country.
1. He honestly believed that if a program on television was not purposely fictional that there was some legal or contractional requirement that the people tell the truth. Those of us who follow TMV usually have either assumed or at least hoped that people realize that some of the talking heads on television are either wildly misinformed or deliberately lying (most likely the latter). I think that we need to concentrate on informing the public that commentary on television has no requirement to be honest.
2. He was under the grossly incorrect delusion that the federal government pays for the vast majority of research for new drugs. The pharmaceutical industry would love this to be true, however, it turns out that the bill is footed by the companies trying to invent and develop these (often) life-saving and cost-saving items. A recent article at Forbes [http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-truly-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs/ ] showed that the average cost is currently $1.3 billion, with major players paying more like $4 billion or higher. Additionally, virtually all new drug development is occurring the the USA because it is the only market left that makes such development profitable.
3. He had the misconception that all items offered at a bank were FDIC insured. He had no clue that any bank could offer interest-bearing assets that were considered to be at-risk investments.
4. He was understandably cynical when it came to politics and the finance industry, yet somehow seemed to not know any legitimate reason why he should be cynical. The only information that he actually had about Romney was a vague feeling that the man had somehow hurt our state while he was governor and that he would be a bad president. He really had no specifics to offer on these views.
5. He had a deep mistrust of Wall Street. He believed that the financiers were probably psychopaths. Astoundingly, he had no idea that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was actually a government agency. When I explained that many of the lawyers who had worked for the agency had moved into lucrative, seven-figure-salary jobs with law firms that represent the firms that the SEC is supposed to regulate, he asked me what could be done. He suggested that, perhaps, congress would pass laws to prevent the obvious conflict of interest with people being recruited from a regulatory agency into the firms that represent the regulated industry. I then explained to him that those same lawyers—as well as the firms that hire the lawyers and the firms they represent—are major contributors to the election campaigns of those same law makers. He was easily able to draw the obvious conclusion (his exact wording was something to the effect of, “So we’re f****d?”)
The reason that I am writing this article is so that readers will realize that we have a huge job ahead of us. This man did not watch FoxNews (he does not subscribe to cable television). He seemed genuinely interested in the topics discussed. He even kept an open mind when I informed him of his misconceptions. Never the less, it disturbed me to see first-hand just how difficult of a job the creators of lies and deceptions have made our job.
Robert Coutinho is a disabled pharmaceutical chemist living in Massachusetts. He has been learning about life, the universe, and everything since he was born in 1963. He has had little else to do since his disability began in 1997.
Share This
“He was under the grossly incorrect delusion that the federal government pays for the vast majority of research for new drugs”
The validity of his thinking has to do with the WORDING.
I work in government research with >60 hospitals, I have worked in big pharma, and now also in clinical trials.
HE COULD ARGUE that the largest funder of drug research is the federal government, with the NIH receiving an annual budget of $31B annually. For comparison, Merck and Pfizer have research budgets of ~8B$ each.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/merck-pfizer-strategies-diverge-on-the-value-of-spending-on-drug-research.html
Clearly that isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison, so lets dive deeper.
The NIH funds far more then drug research, such as MD fellowships, genomics, etc, etc. Nonetheless, a HUGE emphasis of NIH funding is on drug development. So much so that the head of the NIH published this very fact in science
http://www.ncats.nih.gov/files/translational_science_07062011.pdf
What drug companies spend money on is mostly the refinement of the discovery into something that can be delivered to patients — including clinical trials. Even there the federal government provides huge assistance, both in the trials themselves and FDA.
TL;DR: ********
While it is difficult to say with exact values, the federal government is undeniably a HUGE funder of drug research, probably more than any single pharma company. It depends on how you count “research” dollars vs the rest of the drug development pipeline.
RC, keep observing and reporting. Thanks
Aren’t they? If I default on my mortgage and that creates a hardship for the bank, the government gives them more money. Granted, not through the FDIC, but that seems like a nuance.
The poor man, suffering such horrifying delusions. Good thing he was in a hospital.
I have plenty of friends who don’t get some fundamental concepts as well. Such as there is no such thing as “free”, that the government may take care of you in an emergency but it won’t be anything called “quality”, that insurance premiums you’ve paid through history are not “banked” for your use later, etc.
There are lots of people who are uninformed and not interested in being informed. There are plenty who’ve simply put their trust that government, in the end, will make everything better.
Two out of five is encouraging. Find out what he spends his spare time on, if he has any.
Senior citizen centers are always up for new classes, starting “news you can use” classes sounds like a good idea. I did one about the deficit in 1993 and it was an eye-opener for the seniors. They didn’t have any solutions, either.
Nice article, RC.
With all due respect and in all sincerity, do you think that watching Fox would make this man “better” informed. By “better” I mean getting a better “understanding about certain realities of our country”? I know you didn’t mean “just” Fox, perhaps you meant to say that he should watch a variety of news and political sources.
Not sure why anyone who is paying attention these days would be surprised at the level of misinformation among the general populace. Also not sure if there was supposed to be some meaning attached to the man being a non-Fox News watching democrat. If that’s what you think don’t be afraid to come out with it.
My solution: You have to make it entertaining and educational at the same time. If this guy, and others like him, Dems or Reps, watch reality shows, then the liberals in Hollywood should produce a Liberal Is Like A Box Of Chocolates reality show. And, come on, there must be some conservatives in Hollywood, so they produce The Conservative Small Government and American Values show. Of course, we may want shorter titles so as not to blow them off before they even start watching.
Let me clarify: a number of the views he had seem to be hammered into the skulls of those who watch Fox News. Since he does not watch Fox News, there must be some other reason why he would believe the things he believed. You have my point reversed.
Let me clarify: a number of the views he had seem to be hammered into the skulls of those who watch Fox News. Since he does not watch Fox News, there must be some other reason why he would believe the things he believed. You have my point reversed.
Sorry for reversing your point, Robert.
Fox doesn’t need this guy. Send him over to MSNBC for indoctrination.
Years ago I was working in a factory while my spouse was finishing college. I asked a fellow worker who she was going to vote for. She informed my that she wasn’t going to vote, never had, and wasn’t interested. It turned out she, at 70 or so, had never been out of the county she lived in – and never intended to be. That was my eye-opener.
One more clarification: it costs a start-up company an average of $1.2 billion to get a drug into the system. It costs the major players $4 billion or more.