Tuesday, February 2, 2016

This week's C&EN

A few articles from this week's C&EN:

16 comments:

  1. Re: return on pharma spending - shouldn't we expect a lag between approvals and return, especially on an annual basis? The drugs approved in 2015 were only on the market for a portion of 2015 (or in some cases, not on the market at all in 2015). And anyway, R&D spending is pre-commercial by definition. Returns today are a reflection of the research done 5-10 years ago, not this year.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Off topic but of interest to CJ:

    http://blogs.harvard.edu/philg/2016/02/02/what-kind-of-university-would-you-start-if-phds-were-common-as-dirt/

    No shortage of suckers....I mean talent!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Will Madeleine talk about salary diversity issues?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Every time I see her picture all I really want is for her to shut her pie-hole.

      Delete
    2. Evidently it's now acceptable to define scientific achievement by phenotype and genotype.

      Delete
    3. Yes, it is defined as white male.

      Delete
    4. "Will Madeleine talk about salary diversity issues?"

      Is there a gap in wages for males and females in chemistry? I'd assume not, but dk and unsure how easy to measure.

      Delete
    5. Dude or lady,
      "Is there a gap in wages for males and females in chemistry? I'd assume not, but dk and unsure how easy to measure."

      We are talking about salary diversity issues between $ 800K p.a. Madeline and the chemists who are, e.g. forced to teach as adjuncts. Their gender is complete irrelevant. Your comments are making me very, very angry.

      Delete
    6. Got it, thanks for the clarification.

      I wasn't aware there were chemists who were "forced to teach as adjuncts". Wouldn't this violate the 13th amendment?

      Delete
    7. Wow, I've enjoyed baiting GC at times, but you are indeed the Master Baiter.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. GC, deleted. Violation of the "you" rule.

      Delete
    11. Anonymous 7:23 here--just to be clear, I was referring/responding to biotechtoreador.

      Delete
  4. Fuel laundering makes a lot of sense if 80% or so of the cost of your gas is tax. That's a lot of money for launderers and buyers to split among themselves if they can pull it off.

    ReplyDelete