Rep. Joe (You Lie!”) Wilson (R-SC), speaking on the health care bill:
One of the reasons I have long supported the U.S. biotechnology industry is that it is a homegrown success story that has been an engine of job creation in this country. Unfortunately, many of the largest companies that would seek to enter the biosimilar market have made their money by outsourcing their research to foreign countries like India.
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO), speaking on the health care bill:
One of the reasons I have long supported the U.S. biotechnology industry is that it is a homegrown success story that has been an engine of job creation in this country. Unfortunately, many of the largest companies that would seek to enter the biosimilar market have made their money by outsourcing their research to foreign countries like India.
When two (or more) students submit verbally identical answers to the same assignment, it’s not hard to guess that at most one of them actually did the work, and both of them are going to spent an unpleasant half-hour with the Dean of Students.  The same inference operates here, and Robert Pear of the New Y0rk Times has discovered that in this case they were both copying from the same source: a lobbyist for Genentech, the biotech arm of Roche, which is vitally interested in making it harder for its competitors to get FDA approval for generic versions of its hugely expensive patented drugs.
Some Democrats got caught, too.Â
Students who copy word-for-word, either from one another or from the Web, are not just dishonest but stupid. Even if they’re not actually going to do the work, they could at least pretend. The same applies to Congressmen too lazy to do their own thinking, or even to have their own staffs do their thinking for them.
Another clear inference: The provision must be insanely favorable to Genentech, which is to say designed to cost consumers tons of money. Maybe the Senate can do better.
Footnote  Additional points off for imprecise writing: it should be “such as India,” not “like India.”
Whinston Smith writes good like a cigarette should.
This provision is a problem beyond the plagiarism. Herceptin and the other biologicals are keeping many people alive, but at a crippling cost. I've seen figures as high as $70K annually for Herceptin.
There are two sorts of biochemicals: one you buy by the milligram, the other you buy by the boxcar or tankcar load. Drugs virtually all fall in the latter category. Monoclonals like Herceptin can be produced by fermentation processes, which indicates that the costs Genentech is charging for Herceptin are pretty profitable. FDA data show that the R&D costs for biologicals are actually somewhat lower than those of conventional drugs.
To quote Will Shakespeare, something's rotten in the biological pharmaceutical industry.
"Some democrats got caught, too." That's it? What better way to show that the "fact man" is fair and balanced. I suggest that anyone, who is shocked, surprised or upset that something like this happens, read the NYT's article which is as much about Democrats on the verbal take from the biotech lobbyist writing copy for both sides of the aisle. And if this little exercise is yet another way of Kleiman proving to himself that although Democrats are dishonest but not stupid as opposed to Republicans who are both stupid and dishonest, I suggest that he reread the article which strongly suggests that that some of the 20 Democrats, who used copy handed to them by Roche, were not only "dishonest" but "stupid" as well.
The professor doesn't give a reason why the conduct is "dishonest," but seems to think its analogous to two students giving the same answer to an assignment, the dishonesty being that at least one of them didn't do the "work." Does this also apply to a president when he delivers a speech created by a speech writer? Unless the president conveys the impression that he composed the speech, I don't think anyone would regard the borrowed speech as dishonest. Nor does anyone expect a representative to write his or her talking points. If our representatives' job is to enact legislation, if that is their "work," the real dereliction to duty occurs when they delegate the writing of legislation to others. But we know that is how legislation is written, do not expect representatives to compose legislation and it is not "dishonest" when they delegate it to others. Writing talking points is not nearly as much the "work" of representatives and unless your representative represents that he wrote everything he says, I don't think anyone,other than the professor, expects or cares if a representative writes his or her own copy or borrows it from someone else.
Well, democrats aren't generally in favor of corporate ownership of congress as integral to the First Amendment, the way genial whore John Roberts is.
I can't at all see how "like India" is confusing.
I've been trying to get a response out of my Congresswoman (Anna Eshoo) that actually addresses the estimated $70B+ the 12 year exclusivity will cost over te 5 year exclusivity favored by Schumer and Waxman. Her staff has refused to address anything substantive, in particular about "evergreen" exclusivity, a provision that allows minor structural changes to restart the clock on clinical data exclusivity for the reference medicine. So effectively 24 years or more of exclusivity. Development costs of biologicals are comparable with small molecule medicines that have 5 years of exclusivity.
Teddy Kennedy did write the same 12 years into the HELP committee health reform, must be some Route 128 companies that benefit just like the bay area biotechs. We can only hope that the Senate (Shcumer, Brown, Lincoln, Vitter are trying) fixes this, otherwise there will be hundreds of thousands of Americans faced with the choice of $100,000 medicine bills or death. Putting that cost on the taxpayers still doesn't change the wrongness of this regulatory monopoly profit scheme.
yoyo, Mark didn't say that "like India" was confusing; he said that it was imprecise. Genentech mentioned India as an example of a foreign country, and did not mean that India is like other foreign countries. Moreover, lack of confusion is not the only criterion of good writing. "Ain't" is not confusing, but one should not use it, particularly in writing.
Joel, surely if we put our minds to it we could think of adequate reasons to distinguish the case of a public official delivering a speech written by her staff from the case of that same official delivering a speech written by an agent who's being paid solely to advance some parochial private interest.
Wilson & Luetkemeyer purported to be giving first-person accounts of their mental processes – of their long-held reasons for something. It may be that in this case the Genentech employee had privileged access to the contents of their minds, but when this kind of first-person report is ventriloquized, suspicions of dishonesty arise in a way they don’t when the speaker reads someone else’s words that merely report an observable fact on the order of "Blaine Luetkemeyer attended Lincoln University" or "Tommy has a blue pencil."
Imagine the blog set forth below written by [the Republican hack of your choice]. The quotes of Representatives Pacrell and Brady, both Democrats, are from the Congressional Record
Rep. Pascrell (D-NJ), speaking on the health care bill:
"Mr. Speaker, I and others have spoken at length on the ways that the Affordable Health Care for America Act will improve health care for all of our constituents. Another significant benefit of this legislation which has not received as much attention will be the creation of new high-paying jobs in this country. Let me repeat that for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle: this bill will create high-paying, high-quality jobs in health care delivery, technology, and research in the United States."
Rep. Robert Brady (D-Penn), speaking on the health care bill:
"Madam Speaker, I and others have spoken at length on the ways that this bill improves and will improve health care for all of our constituents. Another significant benefit of this legislation which has not received as much attention will be the creation of new high -paying jobs in this country . Let me repeat that for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, this bill will create high -paying , high -quality jobs in healthcare delivery, technology, and research in the United States."
[Republican hack then continues with Kleiman analysis]
"When two (or more) students submit verbally identical answers to the same assignment, it’s not hard to guess that at most one of them actually did the work, and both of them are going to spent an unpleasant half-hour with the Dean of Students. The same inference operates here, and [Ace Reporter] of the [newspaper name and hypelink to article] has discovered that in this case they were both copying from the same source: [LOBBYIST], which is vitally interested in ________________________________________________________.
"Some [Republicans] got caught, too."
"Students who copy word-for-word, either from one another or from the Web, are not just dishonest but stupid. Even if they’re not actually going to do the work, they could at least pretend. The same applies to Congressmen too lazy to do their own thinking, or even to have their own staffs do their thinking for them."
"Another clear inference: The provision must be insanely favorable to [LOBBYIST], which is to say designed to cost consumers tons of money. Maybe the Senate can do better."
Footnote [Obligatory grammatical put-down]."
Query: Who is more dishonest?
(A) The party-hack-blogger, who, based on the false premise that representatives promoting legislation are held to the same standards of creativity imposed upon students answering an assignment, pronounces the behavior of the representatives to be dishonest (as well as stupid and lazy), and by his selection of material highlighting the behavior of other-party members gives an impression that such dishonesty is endemic only to the other party? or
(B) The representatives themselves?
Joel, you omit (C) A commenter.
It's possible to think the representatives who got caught out here acted dishonestly (as well as stupidly & lazily) w/o holding them to exactly the same standards in all respects as are used to evaluate students. I'd say in some respects the standards should be lower & in some much higher. Kleiman offered an analogy. Analogies compare items that are alike in some respects & unlike in others. (If they were the same in all respects we'd have not an analogy but an identity, which would be of little help.) You're mistaken – I don’t say dishonest – to conclude the criticism of the representatives rests on any false premise.
You may wish more detail were given about the Democrats mentioned in Pear's article, but the impression Kleiman leaves is that "some Democrats got caught, too." (If he'd sought to give the impression dishonestly is endemic among Republicans, he might have cited more than 2 of the 22 of them who were caught out.) Indeed, a less-informed reader than you might have only learned that Democrats are involved by following the link Kleiman provides. Having been informed, I'd hope he wouldn't be a churl about it.
What follows are K's comments in quotes and and my responses:
"Joel, you omit (C) A commenter." (R) As Moses Mendelsohn may have said: I see no reason for K being so self-critical; my comments were not aimed at K.
"It’s possible to think the representatives who got caught out here acted dishonestly (as well as stupidly & lazily) w/o holding them to exactly the same standards in all respects as are used to evaluate students."
(R) The fact that its possible to think proposition A, is not a justification for or otherwise prove that proposition A
is correct.
"I’d say in some respects the standards should be lower & in some much higher."
(R) You fail to specify which standards should be lower or higher or what those standards are. In addition the statement is one in which you express how things ought to be, not about how they are. Since this is a "reality-based community" one would think that judgments about another's conduct take into account whether the conduct is dishonest as judged by the institution or group in which the conduct takes place. Accordingly, if the UCLA Code of Conduct deems plagiarism to be "midconduct" and punish students who plagiarize, what has that to do with the House of Representatives which has no such rule and/or does not punish offenders of the rule?
"Kleiman offered an analogy. Analogies compare items that are alike in some respects & unlike in others. (If they were the same in all respects we’d have not an analogy but an identity, which would be of little help.) You’re mistaken – I don’t say dishonest – to conclude the criticism of the representatives rests on any false premise."
(R) The way in which Kleiman arrived at his judgements-comparing or analogizing representatives to students, must be based on the premise that the situations compared or analogized are fundamentally similar. Unless the House regards its members conduct remotely similar to the way UCLA regards the conduct, the analogy or comparison does not hold up.
"You may wish more detail were given about the Democrats mentioned in Pear’s article, but the impression Kleiman leaves is that “some Democrats got caught, too.” (If he’d sought to give the impression dishonestly is endemic among Republicans, he might have cited more than 2 of the 22 of them who were caught out.) Indeed, a less-informed reader than you might have only learned that Democrats are involved by following the link Kleiman provides. Having been informed, I’d hope he wouldn’t be a churl about it."
(R) Once again, one wonders when the "reality" part of "reality-based community" will kick-in. You really think Kleiman flipped a coin to determine whether to highlight the "dishonesty," "laziness" or "stupidity" of Democrats or Republicans? Secondly, if you regard my critique as churlish, one can only wonder why you sanction Kleiman's accusations.
Roche is of course a Swiss company, so the bloody-flag waving is especially cynical.
I'd give the lobbyist a pass on "like India", though. Save our prescriptivist dudgeon for more deserving targets.