Point / Counterpoint
from the
NY Times
from
Derek Lowe
NY Times:
bq. Your recent editorial on the Apo-A1 Milano therapy for atherosclerosis is strong stuff. For example, you say that ". . .infusing H.D.L. cholesterol directly into the body, was shown effective in animals more than a decade ago, but the industry never really pursued it. One reason was that companies saw little economic incentive in using a normal body protein for therapeutic purposes, since it would be hard to gain patent protection. A medicine that could be made and sold by anybody had little potential for profit."
Derek Lowe:
bq. So, your editorial bungles its key scientific and legal points. Then you follow that up by lecturing academic and industrial researchers who actually know what they're talking about - here we go: "But the fact that such a promising treatment was widely ignored because there was no immediate profit potential is disturbing. . .This story makes one wonder how many similar gaps exist in the vaunted American research establishment."
bq. Well, speaking as a member of the vaunted American research establishment, I find it irritating to be harangued by the New York Times about a subject you've clearly made little attempt to understand. Spend an hour reading the medical literature before you load up the cannons again - it'll be worth it, trust me. Fill in your own gaps, and then we'll talk.
And this was just the last two paragraphs - check out the entire article... :-)
Posted by DaveH at November 11, 2003 11:45 PM