We all know Web 2.0 by this point; the idea of users creating and sharing their own content, making the web and the sites they use their own. As a recruiter it is a staple that any good web application developer, whether coming from a Java, PHP, or .Net background, is going to have AJAX and ideally some Jquery skills. In the end that is probably the lasting technical contribution of Web 2.0 - the innovation and evolution of JavaScript and with it the ability for those with a web browser to share various content.
The feature that drove JavaScript's success, however, is the lightness of the code. In the beginning of the era it was largely Flash and Flex that facilitated this model. Then in 2008 and 2009 you started to hear of enterprise level projects replacing Flex with JavaScript components. Likewise you saw Steve Jobs and Apple choose not to embrace Flash. In short, with the limitations of smart phone browsers, and even the latest browsers used on old-fashion PCs, much less today's tablets, we see a desire for lighter and faster loading code. Ajax and the various JavaScript libraries seem to be the winners.
It must be noted here that XML was the other winner here. I remember discussions way back in 2001 and 2002 about the possibilities of XML. Today we use it and embrace those offerings routinely. XML is the X in AJAX. And even here JavaScript offers an alternative to XML in JSON.
So at this point the above is largely history. With Facebook and Linkedin, and all the other social-media sites out there today, we have exhausted the possibilities of Web 2.0. Such sites will not disappear though I am sure that we will see some battles ahead of between entities such as Linkedin, Google+, Facebook and others! We will continue to update out Twitter accounts, and share pictures on Facebook and announce our new position or title on Linkedin. Likewise, the technology will continue to evolve. We have certainly not seen the last version of JavaScript much less HTML.
All that said, what will the web offer us next? What is its next evolution? It seems that the next evolution is the management of data. This is seen in two unique spaces: the cloud and the semantic web. The cloud of course is a hot topic today. For those who have embraced all these various social media websites, which are accessed from one's phone, tablet, home and work PCs, there is a challenge. Where do I store my various pieces of data so that I can access them from any device? Prior to the cloud there was no central storage area for all one's pics, videos, and whatever else.
Granted this is only a small component of the cloud aimed at individual users but it does point to a challenge. If the individual has challenges accessing and managing his or her own data, what do we do with all the data that is being created around us? How do we keep up with the massive onslaught of twitter updates, blog postings, YouTube clips and whatever else is out there?
Stay tuned for the answer to this question, an exploration into the Semantic Web, and what I believe Web 3.0 will entail.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
New York City's Aspirations!
I need to do some of my own writing at some point but did see this last night and just had to repost it! Imagine New York pursuing this and what it would mean for the city!
Originally found on Crains - http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110719/FREE/110719898
NYC to Silicon Valley: It's on
The Bloomberg administration Tuesday unveiled its request for a new engineering campus. It's the beginning of a long-term quest to challenge the West Coast for supremacy in the tech world.
Print Email Reprints Comment
By Daniel Massey
July 19, 2011 3:25 p.m.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg issued an RFP at the Future of New York City conference.
Updated: July 19, 2011 5:12 p.m.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced Tuesday details of a request for “universities near and far” to submit proposals to build or expand a science and engineering campus in the city—a project he called “one of the most promising economic development initiatives in the city's long history.”
In a speech at the Crain's Future of New York City conference, the mayor said a 1 million-square-foot applied science campus could spin off some 400 new companies and create more than 7,000 construction jobs and 22,000 permanent jobs in its first 35 years. Some $6 billion in economic activity could be generated, resulting in roughly $1.2 billion in new tax revenues added to city coffers.
“During the 1980s and 90s, Silicon Valley—not New York—became the world capital of technology startups, and that is still true today,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “But if I am right, and we succeed in this mission, it won't be true forever.”
The city is offering real estate on Governors Island, Roosevelt Island or at the Brooklyn Navy Yard at virtually no cost, and is pledging up to $100 million in infrastructure upgrades. It expects that contribution to be “matched several times over” by the winner or winners. Sources say the city could end up selecting two separate projects, and that Roosevelt Island is attracting the most interest, followed by the Navy Yard.
Roosevelt Island is believed to be the most attractive site because of its proximity to Manhattan, its public transportation and easy access to Queens neighborhoods that could accommodate startups launched by engineering students.
Governors Island has infrastructure and transportation challenges and the Navy Yard is not accessible by subway. Applicants can also propose other sites.
According to the request for proposals, the winning entry must lay out a plan to develop research that will lead to the formation and expansion of companies in the city in industries with substantial growth potential. It calls for institutions to propose graduate-level programs on the campus and mechanisms to transform research into commercial activity.
“We understand we will not catch up to Silicon Valley overnight,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “But—as with everything we do—we are taking the long view.”
The initiative was launched at the end of 2010 when city officials asked educational institutions for expressions of interest in building a new engineering and applied sciences campus. The city received 18 responses from 27 institutions around the world, including Cornell University, Stanford University and Technion-Israel Institute of Technology. They outlined ideas ranging from environmental sciences to nano-engineering. All of the institutions that expressed interest are eligible to respond to the request for proposals.
Cornell, which in the expression of interest phase proposed four hubs, including one encompassing technology for healthier living, sent a large contingent to hear the mayor's Tuesday speech. The university has put together a trustee task force to lead its bid, including Irwin Jacobs, the co-founder of Qualcomm; Andrew Tisch, co-chair of Loews Corp.; and Abby Joseph Cohen, a partner at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. All are Cornell alumni.
“We have been in New York City a long time,” said David Skorton, the university's president. “This is part of our DNA.”
Stanford issued a statement Tuesday afternoon saying it planned to make a proposal by the October deadline. The university's initial interest has centered on an engineering, computer science and business program based on Roosevelt Island. The university outlined plans for 200,000-square feet each of residential towers and academic buildings centered around an open green space, with cafes, retail shops, an auditorium and gym on the edge of the East River.
"Stanford University brings its entrepreneurial culture, excellence in engineering and technology, proven track record of partnering with industry and history of successfully transferring research advances to the marketplace," said President John Hennessy.
ALL FUTURE OF NYC COVERAGE
NYC to Silicon Valley: It's on
City leaders foresee prosperity—and challenges
Coming down the infrastructure pike: private investors
Taxes, schools blamed for job woes
Greatest challenge to tech? How about them high taxes
Finding a cure for public education's ills
Responses to the call for proposals are due in October, with a winner or winners to be chosen by the end of 2011. Projects will be judged based on economic impact and feasibility (40%), respondents' track records (40%) and their connections to the local community (20%). Ground could be broken in 2013.
The opening of the first phase of the project, which includes at least 250,000 square feet of development, is scheduled for 2015.
Mr. Bloomberg described the effort as the city's “most ambitious attempt to counteract a decades-long economic trend that once threatened the very future of American cities”—the decline of manufacturing jobs. New York managed to survive an 81% drop in manufacturing jobs, to 150,000, between 1966 and 2001, when Mr. Bloomberg was elected. But it did so largely on the back of Wall Street, becoming dependent on its booms and suffering from its inevitable busts.
The request for proposals issued Tuesday is an attempt to shift the city's reliance away from Wall Street and toward a future based on technology.
In remarks at the conference, Bloomberg L.P. Chief Executive Dan Doctoroff said New York is “on the cusp” of establishing itself as a player in the tech world. “This can really be the catalyst for making that a reality for the long term,” he said.
Originally found on Crains - http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110719/FREE/110719898
NYC to Silicon Valley: It's on
The Bloomberg administration Tuesday unveiled its request for a new engineering campus. It's the beginning of a long-term quest to challenge the West Coast for supremacy in the tech world.
Print Email Reprints Comment
By Daniel Massey
July 19, 2011 3:25 p.m.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg issued an RFP at the Future of New York City conference.
Updated: July 19, 2011 5:12 p.m.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced Tuesday details of a request for “universities near and far” to submit proposals to build or expand a science and engineering campus in the city—a project he called “one of the most promising economic development initiatives in the city's long history.”
In a speech at the Crain's Future of New York City conference, the mayor said a 1 million-square-foot applied science campus could spin off some 400 new companies and create more than 7,000 construction jobs and 22,000 permanent jobs in its first 35 years. Some $6 billion in economic activity could be generated, resulting in roughly $1.2 billion in new tax revenues added to city coffers.
“During the 1980s and 90s, Silicon Valley—not New York—became the world capital of technology startups, and that is still true today,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “But if I am right, and we succeed in this mission, it won't be true forever.”
The city is offering real estate on Governors Island, Roosevelt Island or at the Brooklyn Navy Yard at virtually no cost, and is pledging up to $100 million in infrastructure upgrades. It expects that contribution to be “matched several times over” by the winner or winners. Sources say the city could end up selecting two separate projects, and that Roosevelt Island is attracting the most interest, followed by the Navy Yard.
Roosevelt Island is believed to be the most attractive site because of its proximity to Manhattan, its public transportation and easy access to Queens neighborhoods that could accommodate startups launched by engineering students.
Governors Island has infrastructure and transportation challenges and the Navy Yard is not accessible by subway. Applicants can also propose other sites.
According to the request for proposals, the winning entry must lay out a plan to develop research that will lead to the formation and expansion of companies in the city in industries with substantial growth potential. It calls for institutions to propose graduate-level programs on the campus and mechanisms to transform research into commercial activity.
“We understand we will not catch up to Silicon Valley overnight,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “But—as with everything we do—we are taking the long view.”
The initiative was launched at the end of 2010 when city officials asked educational institutions for expressions of interest in building a new engineering and applied sciences campus. The city received 18 responses from 27 institutions around the world, including Cornell University, Stanford University and Technion-Israel Institute of Technology. They outlined ideas ranging from environmental sciences to nano-engineering. All of the institutions that expressed interest are eligible to respond to the request for proposals.
Cornell, which in the expression of interest phase proposed four hubs, including one encompassing technology for healthier living, sent a large contingent to hear the mayor's Tuesday speech. The university has put together a trustee task force to lead its bid, including Irwin Jacobs, the co-founder of Qualcomm; Andrew Tisch, co-chair of Loews Corp.; and Abby Joseph Cohen, a partner at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. All are Cornell alumni.
“We have been in New York City a long time,” said David Skorton, the university's president. “This is part of our DNA.”
Stanford issued a statement Tuesday afternoon saying it planned to make a proposal by the October deadline. The university's initial interest has centered on an engineering, computer science and business program based on Roosevelt Island. The university outlined plans for 200,000-square feet each of residential towers and academic buildings centered around an open green space, with cafes, retail shops, an auditorium and gym on the edge of the East River.
"Stanford University brings its entrepreneurial culture, excellence in engineering and technology, proven track record of partnering with industry and history of successfully transferring research advances to the marketplace," said President John Hennessy.
ALL FUTURE OF NYC COVERAGE
NYC to Silicon Valley: It's on
City leaders foresee prosperity—and challenges
Coming down the infrastructure pike: private investors
Taxes, schools blamed for job woes
Greatest challenge to tech? How about them high taxes
Finding a cure for public education's ills
Responses to the call for proposals are due in October, with a winner or winners to be chosen by the end of 2011. Projects will be judged based on economic impact and feasibility (40%), respondents' track records (40%) and their connections to the local community (20%). Ground could be broken in 2013.
The opening of the first phase of the project, which includes at least 250,000 square feet of development, is scheduled for 2015.
Mr. Bloomberg described the effort as the city's “most ambitious attempt to counteract a decades-long economic trend that once threatened the very future of American cities”—the decline of manufacturing jobs. New York managed to survive an 81% drop in manufacturing jobs, to 150,000, between 1966 and 2001, when Mr. Bloomberg was elected. But it did so largely on the back of Wall Street, becoming dependent on its booms and suffering from its inevitable busts.
The request for proposals issued Tuesday is an attempt to shift the city's reliance away from Wall Street and toward a future based on technology.
In remarks at the conference, Bloomberg L.P. Chief Executive Dan Doctoroff said New York is “on the cusp” of establishing itself as a player in the tech world. “This can really be the catalyst for making that a reality for the long term,” he said.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
You are invited to an Open House - Java Developer Hiring Event hosted by the Eliassen Group
Afternoon,
If you are a Java or Web Developer located in NYC and looking for your next opportunity, then please do attend the Open House/ Hiring Event for Java Developers and hosted by the Eliassen Group!
This is happening this Thursday, May 19th from 2:00 PM to 5:00 PM.
The location is 12th Floor, 295 Madison Avenue, New York, NY
We have multiple opportunities right now with clients in various sectors including financial services, e-commerce, and others. My colleagues and I would welcome the opportunity to sit down with some of you and explore these opportunities further. These are primarily consulting assignments but we do also have clients looking for full-time staff. All are involving information technology, and specifically web and Java Development.
For further information regarding this even and the opportunities we are currently working, please contact me at 646-652-8576 or emai at rschaffer@eliassen.com.
Walk-ins are welcome but if you plan on attending please do RSVP.
Thanks and see you Thursday!
Robert Schaffer
Sr. Technical Recruiter
Eliassen Group
295 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10017
T: (646) 652-8576 C: (914) 391-9596
rschaffer@eliassen.com
www.eliassen.com
Linkedin Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/bobschaffer
If you are a Java or Web Developer located in NYC and looking for your next opportunity, then please do attend the Open House/ Hiring Event for Java Developers and hosted by the Eliassen Group!
This is happening this Thursday, May 19th from 2:00 PM to 5:00 PM.
The location is 12th Floor, 295 Madison Avenue, New York, NY
We have multiple opportunities right now with clients in various sectors including financial services, e-commerce, and others. My colleagues and I would welcome the opportunity to sit down with some of you and explore these opportunities further. These are primarily consulting assignments but we do also have clients looking for full-time staff. All are involving information technology, and specifically web and Java Development.
For further information regarding this even and the opportunities we are currently working, please contact me at 646-652-8576 or emai at rschaffer@eliassen.com.
Walk-ins are welcome but if you plan on attending please do RSVP.
Thanks and see you Thursday!
Robert Schaffer
Sr. Technical Recruiter
Eliassen Group
295 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10017
T: (646) 652-8576 C: (914) 391-9596
rschaffer@eliassen.com
www.eliassen.com
Linkedin Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/bobschaffer
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Progressions - From Recruiting to Larry, Moe and Curly to T-Rex
Today was a day for progressions; not necessarily progress, but progressions. I was looking at was several trends, things that we do, watch and listen to and just considering how things change and evolve. I figured why not put them out there. . . for what they are worth. Besides it has been awhile since I wrote anything here.
The first one is in regard my profession. How we find candidates has changed dramatically. It use to be back as recent as 2000 that the newspapers were still a source of candidates. Certainly before that time they were. When I started at Merrill Lynch they had people responding to advertisements in the New York Times and the Newark Star Ledger with typed resumes on crisp paper and mailed with a proper cover letter.
That has changed. Currently we have replaced the file cabinet with all those paper resumes with an internal database. The job advertisements listed in the paper are now on Monster. The New York Times in fact partners with Monster. As I focus on IT Professionals I am also using DICE. the point is we are now in the digital age.
The story does not end there, however, with the digital age. It is also the age of the Internet. The web itself progresses and today it is all about the niche. There really is no longer a central hub like the Times.
Television and the media is experiencing the same trend. There was once only the major networks. Now we have cable networks, satellite TV, and things like Hulu among others. The audience today is distributed across all of these. Likewise in recruiting, there are today multiple sites and places online and off to locate candidates. Those include Linkedin, things like Meetups, which is part online and part offline, various groups-which are an extension of the professional associations of the past, and even Facebook. Let us not forget Craigslist, which is a throwback to the newspaper classifieds, but online. Just as media and its advertisers can no longer focus on mass audiences, so to recruiting must turn to the appropriate niche. That is just the progression.
Jumping to another progression is the Three Stooges or the "Do not try this at home" theme. You remember Larry, Moe, and Curly. . .and let us not forget Shemp. The three idiots that did all kinds of insane and idiotic things. Sometimes extremely painful things. They would routinely bring a chuckle to my face, and occasionally a gasp from others that did not go for such absurdities.
Not too long ago you had to go cable for such stupidity - to JackAss. In fact I have caught AMC playing the stooges too! Today, however, there is Youtube. Now any sixth grader who can crash his skate board, or put himself on fire and just beat himself up pretty good, and ultimately limp away, can potentially be a star. If he does it right, he could have a million hits on his video. Really though, Jackass and Youtube trace back to the Stooges, who I would gamble were doing the same act in Vaudeville before going to the big screen and then the little screen after that.
This is the last one, the last progression. It was perhaps the most speculative, and one that I was simply wrong about. This afternoon I was listening to regular old FM radio briefly in the car-Q104. Imagine that! Anyway, they proceeded to play Tall Cool Woman in Black Dress, the classic Hollies tune. As I listened to it I realized that it shares the same rhythm as the classic T.Rex song Bang a Gong. Another progression, as I thought that the Hollies recorded the song in the sixties. Actually it was recorded in 1972. The T.Rex Classic it turns out was recorded and released in 1971, so if there was any progression it was the other way around. Oops.
In short things always progress, one way or another, and that does not necessarily infer progress.
The first one is in regard my profession. How we find candidates has changed dramatically. It use to be back as recent as 2000 that the newspapers were still a source of candidates. Certainly before that time they were. When I started at Merrill Lynch they had people responding to advertisements in the New York Times and the Newark Star Ledger with typed resumes on crisp paper and mailed with a proper cover letter.
That has changed. Currently we have replaced the file cabinet with all those paper resumes with an internal database. The job advertisements listed in the paper are now on Monster. The New York Times in fact partners with Monster. As I focus on IT Professionals I am also using DICE. the point is we are now in the digital age.
The story does not end there, however, with the digital age. It is also the age of the Internet. The web itself progresses and today it is all about the niche. There really is no longer a central hub like the Times.
Television and the media is experiencing the same trend. There was once only the major networks. Now we have cable networks, satellite TV, and things like Hulu among others. The audience today is distributed across all of these. Likewise in recruiting, there are today multiple sites and places online and off to locate candidates. Those include Linkedin, things like Meetups, which is part online and part offline, various groups-which are an extension of the professional associations of the past, and even Facebook. Let us not forget Craigslist, which is a throwback to the newspaper classifieds, but online. Just as media and its advertisers can no longer focus on mass audiences, so to recruiting must turn to the appropriate niche. That is just the progression.
Jumping to another progression is the Three Stooges or the "Do not try this at home" theme. You remember Larry, Moe, and Curly. . .and let us not forget Shemp. The three idiots that did all kinds of insane and idiotic things. Sometimes extremely painful things. They would routinely bring a chuckle to my face, and occasionally a gasp from others that did not go for such absurdities.
Not too long ago you had to go cable for such stupidity - to JackAss. In fact I have caught AMC playing the stooges too! Today, however, there is Youtube. Now any sixth grader who can crash his skate board, or put himself on fire and just beat himself up pretty good, and ultimately limp away, can potentially be a star. If he does it right, he could have a million hits on his video. Really though, Jackass and Youtube trace back to the Stooges, who I would gamble were doing the same act in Vaudeville before going to the big screen and then the little screen after that.
This is the last one, the last progression. It was perhaps the most speculative, and one that I was simply wrong about. This afternoon I was listening to regular old FM radio briefly in the car-Q104. Imagine that! Anyway, they proceeded to play Tall Cool Woman in Black Dress, the classic Hollies tune. As I listened to it I realized that it shares the same rhythm as the classic T.Rex song Bang a Gong. Another progression, as I thought that the Hollies recorded the song in the sixties. Actually it was recorded in 1972. The T.Rex Classic it turns out was recorded and released in 1971, so if there was any progression it was the other way around. Oops.
In short things always progress, one way or another, and that does not necessarily infer progress.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
A New Tact. . . and a Web Developer role in PA
If you have arrived here, you probably just clicked thru from Facebook, perhaps Linkedin. Below are the details for a Web Developer position I am staffing in King of Prussia, PA. I am trying out Facebook ads. Normally, Eliassen posts these opportunities on Monster and DICE, but this is something I am experimenting with.
If intersted in the opportunity, please do send your resume to rschaffer@eliassen.com.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 646-652-8576.
Here is the opportunity:
Web Developers (CSS, Javascript, XHTML)
Our client, a leader in e-commerce, is seeking front-end web developers to join their growing team. The candidate will work with a team of software engineers to define and implement new features, components, and services from specs employing Java-based technologies.
Candidates will:
Develop pixel-perfect Presentation Layer / GUIs based on functional specifications, requirements, and comps from the design team.
Collaborate with Art Director / Designer, Information Architects and Project Leads in the development of Information Architecture Design Documentation for new site builds.
Act as technical advisor to Graphic Designers, Information Architects, and Marketing teams in assessing proposed project feasibility given current webstore functionality.
Function independently on project assignments with minimal supervision.
Display a high level of attention to detail.
Exhibit a passion for researching and learning emerging web technologies
Minimum Requirements:
o Minimum 2-4 years experience hand-coding table-less, XHTML/CSS layouts.
Expertise in the usage of CSS / CSS2.
Passionate about producing clean, standards-based semantic mark-up.
Experience using JSP, JSTL and JSON to develop dynamic websites.
Proficient with XML.
Advanced JavaScript experience; ability to write Object-oriented JavaScript, or at minimum have experience using any of the industry-standard JavaScript libraries such as prototype, scriptaculous, dojo, etc.
Solid understanding of development best practices for Search Engine Optimization and Accessibility.
Proficient with Adobe Photoshop or Fireworks, and in image optimization techniques.
Understanding of browser capabilities and design constraints on the web, with expertise in developing and testing across multiple browsers & platforms.
Strong attention to detail, good communications skills, and a positive attitude.
Experience in managing multiple projects on tight schedules.
Prior experience in e-commerce development is preferred.
B.S. Computer Science or related degree required.
Ability to demonstrate previous work via URLs.
If intersted in the opportunity, please do send your resume to rschaffer@eliassen.com.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 646-652-8576.
Here is the opportunity:
Web Developers (CSS, Javascript, XHTML)
Our client, a leader in e-commerce, is seeking front-end web developers to join their growing team. The candidate will work with a team of software engineers to define and implement new features, components, and services from specs employing Java-based technologies.
Candidates will:
Develop pixel-perfect Presentation Layer / GUIs based on functional specifications, requirements, and comps from the design team.
Collaborate with Art Director / Designer, Information Architects and Project Leads in the development of Information Architecture Design Documentation for new site builds.
Act as technical advisor to Graphic Designers, Information Architects, and Marketing teams in assessing proposed project feasibility given current webstore functionality.
Function independently on project assignments with minimal supervision.
Display a high level of attention to detail.
Exhibit a passion for researching and learning emerging web technologies
Minimum Requirements:
o Minimum 2-4 years experience hand-coding table-less, XHTML/CSS layouts.
Expertise in the usage of CSS / CSS2.
Passionate about producing clean, standards-based semantic mark-up.
Experience using JSP, JSTL and JSON to develop dynamic websites.
Proficient with XML.
Advanced JavaScript experience; ability to write Object-oriented JavaScript, or at minimum have experience using any of the industry-standard JavaScript libraries such as prototype, scriptaculous, dojo, etc.
Solid understanding of development best practices for Search Engine Optimization and Accessibility.
Proficient with Adobe Photoshop or Fireworks, and in image optimization techniques.
Understanding of browser capabilities and design constraints on the web, with expertise in developing and testing across multiple browsers & platforms.
Strong attention to detail, good communications skills, and a positive attitude.
Experience in managing multiple projects on tight schedules.
Prior experience in e-commerce development is preferred.
B.S. Computer Science or related degree required.
Ability to demonstrate previous work via URLs.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Genes, Social Justice, Universities, and Venture Capital
The last few days I have been reading through a legal decision. Not my standard reading material. The decision, however, grabbed my attention. In this case you see so much of what is right or wrong in the US today, whether you look at our economy or our health care system. The case involved the ACLU, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Myriad Genetics and Directors of the University of Utah. In short, the ACLU had filed a petition contesting multiple patents given to Myriad Genetics by the USPTO. These patents were for various genes that indicated a predisposition to breast cancer. The University of Utah was listed as a defendant as the discovery of these genes was made in their facilities by faculty member, who went on to form Myriad.
The ACLU were arguing that one cannot patent a piece of DNA. They argued that genes are found in nature and not something created or invented by man. One cannot own a gene sequence. The claim that one owns a gene is perhaps equivalent to the discoverer of oak trees claiming he now owned all oak trees. I caught several discussions of this case on the cable news outlets and the News Hour and kept thinking that Myriad cannot own the gene but rather must own the method of identification for thee genes. It seems, however, that my hunch was wrong. Myriad used fairly standard methods to locate and discover these genes, and now when someone wants to confirm if they have a predisposition for these cancers, they must go to Myriad.
For the next seven years Myriad has a monopoly on these genes as they did the work and determined which sequence predisposes one to these cancers. In that time, if you want to know if you are predisposed to these cancers, you have to go to a Myriad lab. What differentiated Myriad from other groups offering such services, at least in my quick read of the decision, was that they were not offering access to their product to lower income patients. With that, the ACLU intervened and Myriad of course argued that this was not the case in regard to access. In short, it seems you are given ownership of genes and the fruit of those genes, as long as you make them accessible to those who are in need of such diagnostic tools.
This legal decision, however, challenged that deal now as it claims that genes are found in nature and cannot be patented. Myriad will appeal the decision and I will bet that in the end they will continue to hold the patents for these genes. In one article it was stated that 20% of the human genome is owned by such firms. I cannot believe that 20% is already owned, but no doubt pharma companies and researchers are wasting no time.
Again, this case reveals something about the American system, our economy, our health care system, and the relation between public and private institutions. Front and center is the disparity of wealth. The ACLU filed this case on behalf of a woman who was not able to afford Myriad's diagnostic test. On the other hand, if it were not for Myriad, the diagnostic tool to determine her predisposition for certain cancers would not exist. One of the key reasons for rising health care cost is the cost of the R&D associated with such diagnostic tools and other advances.
So far I have tried to point to two areas of interest. First there was the issue of whether you can own a gene, or does one own a method to determine a gene. Then there is a second issue-the social justice of making such diagnostic tools available to all, and likewise the need to properly compensate the researchers who discovered this process and/or gene sequence. There is, however, a third area that grabbed me in this case. The research was conducted at the University of Utah, but the group that owns these genes is Myriad.
If you read the decision, you get some idea of the relationship between basic research and the process of bringing research-based products to market. The US has the best university systems and it is at these institutions that basic research is conducted. The US also has the best system of venture capital. This case allows you to get a glimpse of the nexus between basic research, happening at our universities, the researchers who see the possibilities of this research, and the venture capitalist who provide the capital to facilitate bringing the product to market.
The venture capitalist, will do this, if and only if there is a potential for a return. In short, venture capitalist and the researcher, require the ownership of the product, in this case a gene. They are gambling that their investment of time and money will pay off. And not only do they have the cost of bringing the product out of the lab, from what was basic research, they also need to license the research from the university. The University basically becomes a partner in the ventures their researchers pursue, which involves the results of work done in the university's labs.
So from public universities doing basic research you have all kinds of new products being brought to market. Genes slices just happen to be the topic of this article and case. This case mayb not be cloth from which movies are made, but it is, very much the cloth from which our political debates regarding social justice, and the the relation of public and private institutions is being cut.
For the New York Times article on this case, click here
And for the judge's decision or opinion, to which I refer click here, again courtesy of the NY Times
The ACLU were arguing that one cannot patent a piece of DNA. They argued that genes are found in nature and not something created or invented by man. One cannot own a gene sequence. The claim that one owns a gene is perhaps equivalent to the discoverer of oak trees claiming he now owned all oak trees. I caught several discussions of this case on the cable news outlets and the News Hour and kept thinking that Myriad cannot own the gene but rather must own the method of identification for thee genes. It seems, however, that my hunch was wrong. Myriad used fairly standard methods to locate and discover these genes, and now when someone wants to confirm if they have a predisposition for these cancers, they must go to Myriad.
For the next seven years Myriad has a monopoly on these genes as they did the work and determined which sequence predisposes one to these cancers. In that time, if you want to know if you are predisposed to these cancers, you have to go to a Myriad lab. What differentiated Myriad from other groups offering such services, at least in my quick read of the decision, was that they were not offering access to their product to lower income patients. With that, the ACLU intervened and Myriad of course argued that this was not the case in regard to access. In short, it seems you are given ownership of genes and the fruit of those genes, as long as you make them accessible to those who are in need of such diagnostic tools.
This legal decision, however, challenged that deal now as it claims that genes are found in nature and cannot be patented. Myriad will appeal the decision and I will bet that in the end they will continue to hold the patents for these genes. In one article it was stated that 20% of the human genome is owned by such firms. I cannot believe that 20% is already owned, but no doubt pharma companies and researchers are wasting no time.
Again, this case reveals something about the American system, our economy, our health care system, and the relation between public and private institutions. Front and center is the disparity of wealth. The ACLU filed this case on behalf of a woman who was not able to afford Myriad's diagnostic test. On the other hand, if it were not for Myriad, the diagnostic tool to determine her predisposition for certain cancers would not exist. One of the key reasons for rising health care cost is the cost of the R&D associated with such diagnostic tools and other advances.
So far I have tried to point to two areas of interest. First there was the issue of whether you can own a gene, or does one own a method to determine a gene. Then there is a second issue-the social justice of making such diagnostic tools available to all, and likewise the need to properly compensate the researchers who discovered this process and/or gene sequence. There is, however, a third area that grabbed me in this case. The research was conducted at the University of Utah, but the group that owns these genes is Myriad.
If you read the decision, you get some idea of the relationship between basic research and the process of bringing research-based products to market. The US has the best university systems and it is at these institutions that basic research is conducted. The US also has the best system of venture capital. This case allows you to get a glimpse of the nexus between basic research, happening at our universities, the researchers who see the possibilities of this research, and the venture capitalist who provide the capital to facilitate bringing the product to market.
The venture capitalist, will do this, if and only if there is a potential for a return. In short, venture capitalist and the researcher, require the ownership of the product, in this case a gene. They are gambling that their investment of time and money will pay off. And not only do they have the cost of bringing the product out of the lab, from what was basic research, they also need to license the research from the university. The University basically becomes a partner in the ventures their researchers pursue, which involves the results of work done in the university's labs.
So from public universities doing basic research you have all kinds of new products being brought to market. Genes slices just happen to be the topic of this article and case. This case mayb not be cloth from which movies are made, but it is, very much the cloth from which our political debates regarding social justice, and the the relation of public and private institutions is being cut.
For the New York Times article on this case, click here
And for the judge's decision or opinion, to which I refer click here, again courtesy of the NY Times
Thursday, March 25, 2010
David Brook's Take on the Healthcare Bill and its Passage
David Brooks, columnist for the NY Times offered some intersting comments on healthcare, the two political parties and where we are today. Below is that article from the NY Times - March 22nd 2010.
Parties come to embody causes. For the past 90 years or so, the Republican Party has, at its best, come to embody the cause of personal freedom and economic dynamism. For a similar period, the Democratic Party has, at its best, come to embody the cause of fairness and family security. Over the past century, they have built a welfare system, brick by brick, to guard against the injuries of fate.
If you grew up, as I did, with a Hubert Humphrey poster on your wall and a tradition of Democratic Party activism in your family, you recognize the Democratic DNA in the content of this bill and in the way it was passed. There was the inevitable fractiousness, the neuroticism, the petty logrolling, but also the basic concern for the vulnerable and the high idealism.
And there was also the faith in the grand liberal project. Democrats protected the unemployed starting with the New Deal, then the old, then the poor. Now, thanks to health care reform, millions of working families will go to bed at night knowing that they are not an illness away from financial ruin.
For apostates like me, watching this bill go through the meat grinder was like watching an old family reunion. One glimpse and you got the whole panoply of what you loved and found annoying about these people.
Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi were fit to play the leading roles. They both embody the two great wings of the party, the high-minded aspirations of the educated class and the machinelike toughness of the party apparatus. Obama and Pelosi both possess the political tenaciousness that you only get if you live for government and believe ruthlessly in its possibilities. They could have scaled back their aspirations at any time but they hung tough.
Members of the Obama-Pelosi team have spent the past year on a wandering, tortuous quest — enduring the exasperating pettiness of small-minded members, hostile public opinion, just criticism and gross misinformation, a swarm of cockeyed ideas and the erroneous predictions of people like me who thought the odds were against them. For sheer resilience, they deserve the honor of posterity.
Yet I confess, watching all this, I feel again why I’m no longer spiritually attached to the Democratic Party. The essence of America is energy — the vibrancy of the market, the mobility of the people and the disruptive creativity of the entrepreneurs. This vibrancy grew up accidentally, out of a cocktail of religious fervor and material abundance, but it was nurtured by choice. It was nurtured by our founders, who created national capital markets to disrupt the ossifying grip of the agricultural landholders. It was nurtured by 19th-century Republicans who built the railroads and the land-grant colleges to weave free markets across great distances. It was nurtured by Progressives who broke the stultifying grip of the trusts.
Today, America’s vigor is challenged on two fronts. First, the country is becoming geriatric. Other nations spend 10 percent or so of their G.D.P. on health care. We spend 17 percent and are predicted to soon spend 20 percent and then 25 percent. This legislation was supposed to end that asphyxiating growth, which will crowd out investments in innovation, education and everything else. It will not.
With the word security engraved on its heart, the Democratic Party is just not structured to cut spending that would enhance health and safety. The party nurtures; it does not say, “No more.”
The second biggest threat to America’s vibrancy is the exploding federal debt. Again, Democrats can utter the words of fiscal restraint, but they don’t feel the passion. This bill is full of gimmicks designed to get a good score from the Congressional Budget Office but not to really balance the budget. Democrats did enough to solve their political problem (not looking fiscally reckless) but not enough to solve the genuine problem.
Nobody knows how this bill will work out. It is an undertaking exponentially more complex than the Iraq war, for example. But to me, it feels like the end of something, not the beginning of something. It feels like the noble completion of the great liberal project to build a comprehensive welfare system.
The task ahead is to save this country from stagnation and fiscal ruin. We know what it will take. We will have to raise a consumption tax. We will have to preserve benefits for the poor and cut them for the middle and upper classes. We will have to invest more in innovation and human capital.
The Democratic Party, as it revealed of itself over the past year, does not seem to be up to that coming challenge (neither is the Republican Party). This country is in the position of a free-spending family careening toward bankruptcy that at the last moment announced that it was giving a gigantic new gift to charity. You admire the act of generosity, but you wish they had sold a few of the Mercedes to pay for it.
Parties come to embody causes. For the past 90 years or so, the Republican Party has, at its best, come to embody the cause of personal freedom and economic dynamism. For a similar period, the Democratic Party has, at its best, come to embody the cause of fairness and family security. Over the past century, they have built a welfare system, brick by brick, to guard against the injuries of fate.
If you grew up, as I did, with a Hubert Humphrey poster on your wall and a tradition of Democratic Party activism in your family, you recognize the Democratic DNA in the content of this bill and in the way it was passed. There was the inevitable fractiousness, the neuroticism, the petty logrolling, but also the basic concern for the vulnerable and the high idealism.
And there was also the faith in the grand liberal project. Democrats protected the unemployed starting with the New Deal, then the old, then the poor. Now, thanks to health care reform, millions of working families will go to bed at night knowing that they are not an illness away from financial ruin.
For apostates like me, watching this bill go through the meat grinder was like watching an old family reunion. One glimpse and you got the whole panoply of what you loved and found annoying about these people.
Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi were fit to play the leading roles. They both embody the two great wings of the party, the high-minded aspirations of the educated class and the machinelike toughness of the party apparatus. Obama and Pelosi both possess the political tenaciousness that you only get if you live for government and believe ruthlessly in its possibilities. They could have scaled back their aspirations at any time but they hung tough.
Members of the Obama-Pelosi team have spent the past year on a wandering, tortuous quest — enduring the exasperating pettiness of small-minded members, hostile public opinion, just criticism and gross misinformation, a swarm of cockeyed ideas and the erroneous predictions of people like me who thought the odds were against them. For sheer resilience, they deserve the honor of posterity.
Yet I confess, watching all this, I feel again why I’m no longer spiritually attached to the Democratic Party. The essence of America is energy — the vibrancy of the market, the mobility of the people and the disruptive creativity of the entrepreneurs. This vibrancy grew up accidentally, out of a cocktail of religious fervor and material abundance, but it was nurtured by choice. It was nurtured by our founders, who created national capital markets to disrupt the ossifying grip of the agricultural landholders. It was nurtured by 19th-century Republicans who built the railroads and the land-grant colleges to weave free markets across great distances. It was nurtured by Progressives who broke the stultifying grip of the trusts.
Today, America’s vigor is challenged on two fronts. First, the country is becoming geriatric. Other nations spend 10 percent or so of their G.D.P. on health care. We spend 17 percent and are predicted to soon spend 20 percent and then 25 percent. This legislation was supposed to end that asphyxiating growth, which will crowd out investments in innovation, education and everything else. It will not.
With the word security engraved on its heart, the Democratic Party is just not structured to cut spending that would enhance health and safety. The party nurtures; it does not say, “No more.”
The second biggest threat to America’s vibrancy is the exploding federal debt. Again, Democrats can utter the words of fiscal restraint, but they don’t feel the passion. This bill is full of gimmicks designed to get a good score from the Congressional Budget Office but not to really balance the budget. Democrats did enough to solve their political problem (not looking fiscally reckless) but not enough to solve the genuine problem.
Nobody knows how this bill will work out. It is an undertaking exponentially more complex than the Iraq war, for example. But to me, it feels like the end of something, not the beginning of something. It feels like the noble completion of the great liberal project to build a comprehensive welfare system.
The task ahead is to save this country from stagnation and fiscal ruin. We know what it will take. We will have to raise a consumption tax. We will have to preserve benefits for the poor and cut them for the middle and upper classes. We will have to invest more in innovation and human capital.
The Democratic Party, as it revealed of itself over the past year, does not seem to be up to that coming challenge (neither is the Republican Party). This country is in the position of a free-spending family careening toward bankruptcy that at the last moment announced that it was giving a gigantic new gift to charity. You admire the act of generosity, but you wish they had sold a few of the Mercedes to pay for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
