Jacob Sullum looks at a not-very impressive result in clinical testing:
A study reported this week in the Archives of General Psychiatry found that an experimental “cocaine vaccine” was mostly ineffective at reducing consumption of the drug. Less than two-fifths of the subjects injected with the vaccine, which is supposed to stimulate production of antibodies that bind to cocaine molecules and prevent them from reaching the brain, had enough of an immune system response to significantly reduce their cocaine use (as measured by urine tests). Even among those subjects, only half cut back on cocaine by 50 percent or more.
[. . .]
Vaccine boosters think the real money lies in an effective anti-nicotine treatment, which they believe would attract “inveterate smokers” who have repeatedly tried to quit with other methods. But as The New York Times notes (in the headline, no less), such a vaccine “does not keep users from wanting the drug.” If all goes well, their cravings are not diminished in the slightest; they just can no longer satisfy them. And that’s assuming the vaccine is fully effective (as opposed to maybe 10 percent effective, like the one in the study); if not, it could actually increase consumption by neutralizing a percentage of each dose. A partially effective nicotine vaccine could be hazardous to smokers’ health if it encouraged them to smoke more so as to achieve the effect to which they’re accustomed. In any case, it’s not clear how appealing the idea of biochemically taking the fun out of smoking will be; the success of such a product hinges on consumers looking for a way to frustrate themselves.
If you take the cynical view, it’s a perfect Puritan drug: take away the benefit without reducing the desire. That way, you see, the sinners would still get all the suffering they’re entitled to without any satisfaction at all. Hell on earth, just the way Puritans like it.
Comments Off
Colby Cosh does the spreadsheet thing to prove that I, un-winterized Canadian that I am, would fare poorly in extra-early permanent snowfall Edmonton.
Toronto may not really be the centre of the universe, but at least it’s not like most of Canada, snow-and-winter-cold-wise.
Comments Off
Maybe giving Google a monopoly over all those millions of out of date books won’t work out as well as we might hope. They’ve (kinda) been here before, and the results weren’t what you would expect. For those who remember the “good old days” when USENET was the place to be (before the Web, it was the best thing online), Kevin Poulsen looks at what happened after Google took over the effective ownership of the archive:
Salon hailed the accomplishment in an article headlined “The geeks who saved Usenet.” “Google gets the credit for making these relics of the early net accessible to anyone on the web, bringing the early history of Usenet to all.”
Flash forward nearly eight years, and visiting Google Groups is like touring ancient ruins.
On the surface, it looks as clean and shiny as every other Google service, which makes its rotting interior all the more jarring — like visiting Disneyland and finding broken windows and graffiti on Main Street USA.
Searching within a newsgroup, even one with thousands of posts, produces no results at all. Confining a search to a range of dates also fails silently, bulldozing the most obvious path to exploring an archive.
Want to find Marc Andreessen’s historic March 14, 1993 announcement in alt.hypertext of the Mosaic web browser? “Your search — mosaic — did not match any documents.”
It would be too glib of me to suggest that the Ministry’s preferred way to respond to the Conservative opposition’s call “to cut MoD costs by 25%” would be to abandon the Royal Navy (or ground the Royal Air Force), but it’s hard to imagine them voluntarily cutting their own numbers:
Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox is expected to tell the party’s conference: “Some things will have to change and believe me, they will.”
The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg said Mr Fox had asked for savings in bureaucracy – the MoD has 85,000 civil servants.
The Tories have pledged to cut overall Whitehall budgets by a third.
In his speech to party members in Manchester, Dr Fox will accuse Labour of having creating “a black hole” in defence budgets, which are affecting the war in Afghanistan and threatening to create an “on-going defence crisis for years to come”.
Of course, there’s nothing new about the administrative “tail” of the armed forces growing . . . C. Northcote Parkinson documented the phenomenon (PDF) back in 1955:
The accompanying table is derived from Admiralty statistics for 1914 and 1928. The criticism voiced at the time centered on the comparison between the sharp fall in numbers of those available for fighting and the sharp rise in those available only for administration, the creation, it was said, of “a magnificent Navy on land.” But that
comparison is not to the present purpose. What we have to note is that the 2,000 Admiralty officials of 1914 had become the 3,569 of 1928; and that this growth was unrelated to any possible increase in their work. The Navy during that period had diminished, in point of fact, by a third in men and two-thirds in ships. Nor, from 1922 onwards, was its strength even expected to increase, for its total of ships (unlike its total of officials) was limited by the Washington Naval Agreement of that year. Yet in these circumstances we had a 78.45 percent increase in Admiralty officials over a period of fourteen years; an average increase of 5.6 percent a year on the earlier total. In fact, as we shall see, the rate of increase was not as regular as that. All we have to consider, at this stage, is the percentage rise over a given period.
