These cards at the Phylogame website rock! And in case, you’re new to the Phylomon idea, it’s basically a crowdsourced art, science and gaming project that revolves around the reality of children knowing WAY more about Pokemon than they do about the flora and fauna around them. This, of course, is problematic since one might suggest that it’s not a bad thing for children to also know a little more about the real environment around them (a more detailed description of the project can be found here).

This is also a post to say that I’m on the lookout for artists to contribute to special Phylomon “decks.” In particular, we’ve got funding to seek out art contributions at about $200 per image, with a preference of hiring each artist to contribute at least 5 or so images at a time. Image copyright would remain with the artist, but we ask that the phylo project is allowed to showcase them online in card format in a non-derivative, attribution, non-commercial manner; as well as allow non-profits, museums, educational institutions to use the image (but only in the form of phylo cards) in physical decks that may be sold only for agreed upon outreach project fund raising purposes.

Anyway, if you’re a freelance artist and the project (and the pay) sounds interesting to you, then please do leave your portfolio website in the comments below this popperfont post (we’re also going to contact a few artists who have already so nicely allowed us to use existing art). As well, just so you know, we’re actually looking for art that veers a bit away from the usual conservative realistic type of animal art (i.e. character design buffs are welcome!). Ultimately, we’re looking for art that might actually be considered a bit Pokemon-ish but with details that reflect the real-life organisms.

Oh… And if you want to see more of our existing catalog of cards, then just go to http://phylogame.org/cards. You can also print more, by just hitting “select” on any cards you like – there’s about 300 to choose from, as well as about 500 DIY cards that kids have drawn. When you do this, the card should appear in the “selected cards” shopping basket. When you’re finished, just click on the “Selected Cards” link and it’ll just show you just the ones you’ve picked (6 at a time).

The best part is that you can just print that webpage (i.e. what you see there), and it’ll automatically produce a printout of just the cards (6 at a time) and at print quality resolution.

Game on!
Dave Ng

Mondo-Genetic-Services is proud to announce its latest venture, “The Bestest, Most Kick Ass, Human Genome Project.” Hot on the tails of the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium and Celera Genomics, we present to you a novel approach in the elucidation of mankind’s blueprint of life. Rather than using the frequently studied yet boring human cell lines, or samples from a small group of ethnically diverse, anonymous, and likely dull individuals, we propose a completely different strategy – that is, we plan to use the genomes of individuals handpicked by the editorial staff of People magazine, a move we feel will cater to the desires of you and your friends. Currently our impressive roster of prospective subjects include the following:

People’s Choice Favourite Motion Picture Actor – Harrison Ford
How can any human genome project not have samples from the man revered as Han Solo and Indiana Jones? The man who has uttered such immortal words as “Punch it Chewie,” and “Nazi’s – I hate these guys.” In related news, Mondo-Genetic-Services has also tried to recruit his girlfriend Calista Flockhart into the project, but has recently learnt that she simply did not have enough tissue.

People’s Choice Favourite Motion Picture Actress – Sandra Bullock
Mondo-Genetic-Services feels that the inclusion of Ms. Bullock, the purveyor of such classics as Speed 2 and Miss Congeniality, into the Bestest, Most Kick Ass, Human Genome Project is practically self explanatory. Besides, the editorial staff of People magazine all agree that she “is really hot, but in a nice way.”

People’s Choice’s Favourite Performer in a Children’s Television Program – Goofy
Is he a man? Is he a dog? Is he a man-dog? Be one of the first to find out, here at the Bestest, Most Kick Ass, Human Genome Project.

People’s Choice Most Interesting Person of African Descent – Olusegun Obasanjo
Through email correspondence, the editorial staff of People Magazine have finalized an agreement to sequence the DNA of President Obasanjo, of Nigeria. In return and given their capacity to act as an overseas partner in a balance account transfer from the Central Bank of Nigeria, he will place 20% of US$21,320,000.00 (TWENTY ONE MILLION, THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND U.S DOLLARS) into their corporate accounts.

People’s Choice Most Interesting Person of Asian Descent – Michelle Kwan
Yes, the folks at People magazine are certified KWAN FANS. Michelle has agreed to participate in this project and in return, we will help start up an official Michelle Kwan fan club. More to the point, inclusion of DNA from this outstanding athlete will allow us to finally answer one of life’s most troubling questions – that is, how exactly does figure skating get judged?

People’s Choice Favourite Television Icon – Arthur Fonzarelli
“The Fonz” was a cultural icon of the 1950’s and is certainly deserving of a place in the Bestest, Most Kick Ass, Human Genome Project. Not only did he seem to have telekinetic powers, but this is one guy who must have seen a lot of sex! Since the lubricated condom wasn’t introduced until 1957, and the oral contraceptive wasn’t even invented until the 60s, Mondo-Genetic-Services wouldn’t be surprised if Mr. Fonzarelli himself sired half of Middle America.

People’s Choice Favourite Television Comedy Series – Cast of “Who’s the Boss”
In an attempt to secure DNA sequences that espouse the best of American family virtues, the Bestest, Most Kick Ass, Human Genome Project will obtain tissue samples from the entire cast of “Who’s the Boss.” This will include cells taken from Tony Danza, Judith Light, Katherine Helmond, Alyssa Milano, and even the little boy whose name no one can remember.

People’s Choice Favourite Diety – Jesus:
In a coup d’etat for this project, Mondo-Genetic-Services has secured the sole rights to sequence and publish the Prince of Peace’s very own DNA. Furthermore, our scientists have also discovered that due to the principle of the Holy Trinity, this agreement also effectively grants us sole rights to the genetic code of the Holy Spirit and of God himself

People’s Choice Reader’s Pick – George W. Bush
Because apparently America, like the rest of the world, is wondering “what the hell is up with that?”

- – -

But a lot can happen in thirty minutes. Earlier, I had been looking over some 2009 UNAIDS statistics, and noting the numbers issued in the report. They are all very big, big enough certainly to require the pressing of buttons on calculators. More to the point, I learn that during my thirty minutes, approximately 70 people died from HIV/AIDS in Sub-Sahara Africa. That’s 1.3 million victims each year – in Sub-Sahara Africa alone. Many of these were parents leaving orphans, and many were young children just leaving. Most troubling, however, is the fact that all of them suffered their fate with a loss of dignity.

Why do I say this? I say this because people shouldn’t have to die from HIV/AIDS. There are good medicines out there, and they can control the disease. In fact, for those in the developed world, HIV/AIDS is now considered a chronic disorder, not a death sentence. If you are diagnosed, you are no longer forced to take a shortcut to demise. You can still have a long life, you can still be productive, and you can still live with dignity.

Unfortunately, this wasn’t an option for those who passed away. For them, the medicines were out of reach. They were simply too expensive. And from this, you come to realize a cold hard fact in this narrative: that the fate of a person living or dying from HIV/AIDS is determined by their income. This statement is fairly straightforward, with no mincing of words, or confused rhetoric. But for most, it feels fundamentally wrong, and yet, it is a simple reality of how the world works today. Why it works in this way, however, is complicated.

This, basically, is how the pharmaceutical industry works. They are inventors, and their product is medicine. Research and development costs are significant, both in terms of money and in terms of time, mostly because many of the things they invent do not work out in the end. They get patents, and are compensated and rewarded accordingly – relatively speaking, the pharmaceutical industry is rewarded very handsomely.

This is because there is a market for such things: whether we are talking about antiretroviral drugs for HIV or Viagra for life style needs, in the developed world, people want these drugs (and in some cases, need these drugs), and are willing to pay for them. They do this, because they can, often with help from health care providers and government. The supply and demand is there, and the pharmaceutical industry knows how to play this game. You, the reader in the developed world, make the market.
Because things are so handsome, the pharmaceutical industry has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. They don’t want to lose any semblance of control, even if, apparently, lives are on the line. They are very good at protecting this control – their lobbying influence is very strong indeed, and they do this with zeal although sometimes by misrepresenting facts.

1. This market doesn’t count because they cannot afford the drugs.

2. This market doesn’t count because they are not part of the pharmaceutical industry’s bottom line.

Consequently, a lot of very clever people have suggested that a way to get around this challenge, this challenge of access to medicine, is to set up ways to produce generic drugs. This is essentially where outside companies can be granted the right to copy the drug and produce it at much lower costs. Just to clarify, the cost of drug production is generally a very small fraction of the final price tag. Anyway, the argument here, is that these rights would be very specific, in that generics could only be sold under strict circumstances such that the status quo is unaffected in wealthy markets. A good example of this, is to simply say that generics can only go to developing markets, can only go to places like Sub-Sahara Africa, since they already do not factor into the industry’s bottom line. Furthermore, the inventors can stipulate royalties, so that they still get compensated for opening up these markets. In fact, in the best situation, the inventors would even produce their own generics.

For a variety of reasons, the pharmaceutical industry has not been keen on this idea, and has done much to make generic production as laborious and slow as possible. Ideally, they would be a willing participant in discussions with generic producers, and bargain fair terms so that these cheaper drugs can be made. Unfortunately, this rarely happens and when it does, it tends to be on an older palette of medicines, things out of date for rich people like us, which may be less effective for a variety of reasons (side effects, efficacy, convenience).

Because the pharmaceutical industry generally does not want to play, the notion of “compulsory licenses” has been pushed to the forefront. I’ve written about these in the past, and they deserve a repeat mention.

To illustrate this, here are some hypothetical (and not so hypothetical examples):

1. You are a company that recently received your patent, so that now your drug is being sold for $1500 instead of the previous $10 pricetag.

2. Your country has experienced a series of anthrax scares. The company that holds the patent for the most effective drug against infection from the offending bacterium, sees an opportunity, and decides to jack up the price.

3. Someone has declared war on your country. To defend yourself, you would like to utilize a particular product. Unfortunately, it is under a cost prohibitive patent and therefore out of reach.

4. There is an impending nuclear power plant meltdown, and there is technology that would be incredibly useful to mitigate radiation contamination and poisoning. However, your resources are already stretched because of the utterly horrific effects of a 9.0 Richter Scale earthquake, and this technology is too expensive at the scale that is required in such an emergency.

5. There are markets where your life saving drug is not being sold because no-one can afford them anyway. However, the drug (which could be a matter of life and death for millions) could be made at a cost (i.e. a generic) that makes it accessible in these markets, but if and only if, the patent over them is adjusted.

Here is the point. In all of the above cases, you would like to live in a civil society where the government can step in and forcibly change the patent, because in every case, there is an element of morality involved. And guess what – governments can do this and they do! It’s called a “compulsory license,” and they exist for this very purpose.

In fact, even the WTO is on board with this idea. They recognize that in some circumstances, such as those pertaining to global health, there needs to be an understanding that using such compulsory licenses is both necessary and an obligation. In fact, if you have a hankering for the legalese that outlines this for patents over essential medicines, you need only look up info on the Doha Declaration.

Unfortunately, there is some serious push back from the Canadian pharmaceutical industry. They lobby government and do so with counter arguments that have already been addressed by this expert peer review, such that many have been calling the pharmaceutical industry unethical: that their reasons for fighting are based on misinformation. Most of their arguments appeal to those that value ownership, that their properties, inventions, and monopolies are in danger because of careless policy, but that could not be farther from the truth. They simply don’t want to lose any semblance of control. Despite these tweaks being carefully scripted to protect their business interests, the pharmaceutical industry still regards them as a starting point to a “possible” loss of control. Because of this excessive anxiety, they fight and they fight and they fight. For those interested in endings, this one is severe: Bill C-393 was killed.

Sometimes, they fight in other ways. In the case of Free Trade Agreements between the European Union and India, one of the battles over generic drugs concerns the issue of “data exclusivity.” This is a technical term that essentially says that even if a patent is not holding things back, a company still can halt the process. Here, a bulletin recently released by Doctors Without Borders describes it well:

Data exclusivity (DE) is a backdoor way for multinational pharmaceutical companies to get a monopoly and charge high drug prices, even when their drug has been found to not deserve a patent, or the patent has expired – DE would apply to all drugs.

If India accepts DE, the agency in charge of approving medicines for use in the country would not be allowed to register a generic version of a medicine for a period of time – usually 5 to 10 years. To register a generic, producers rely on the clinical trial data provided by the originator company to show the drug is safe and effective. All the generic has to prove is that it is identical to the originator product. But if DE were in place, the originator company’s clinical trial data would be protected by ‘exclusivity’ and generic producers would therefore have to submit their own safety & efficacy data to register the generic medicines. This would oblige them to repeat clinical trials—something that would take years and be incredibly expensive, not to mention unethical, as it would involve withholding a drug that has already proven to be effective from some of the participants in the trial.

And so things drag, time passes, and minutes, days, and years are wasted. To call this delay an act procrastination sounds too contrite. I can certainly think of stronger words.

- – -

To get involved there are a number of places I can recommend. Firstly, an informal blog collective has been set up to discuss these issues in a more layman and easy to read manner. This blog is called “My Rights Versus Yours” and includes a cast of students and academics who are involved in various aspects of the Access to Medicine cause. We aim to have posts that deal with the various issues at stake including pieces about both the science and policy involved. This is a new blog, but we are hopeful that many will find it both useful and enjoyable to read. You can follow the blog on twitter or better yet, partake in its first Global Health Carnival. If you’re a Canadian reader, I strongly urge you to check out aidsaction.ca particularly the page which asks our candidates to endorse and support the reform of Canada’s Access to Medicines Regime. Timing is crucial here, as a Federal election looms. If nothing else, just make sure you vote.

Well, we in the spin department think that we’ve got an idea that you upper managerial types are gonna love. Let me explain. Basically, it’s like this: when we thought about fairytales, we thought about castles. And when we thought about castles – as vanguards of the consumer world, we didn’t think about real “historic” castles. No, we thought about pink stucco creations – you know, like the kind you might associate with movie studios and animated versions of Cinderella. And then, like magic (and we mean that literally), we said in unison, “THEME PARK ON AN OIL RIG!” And then we wondered, how much energy is 4.9 million barrels anyway?

Well, it turns out (this with some very speedy back of the envelope calculations) that the amount of energy we can get from 4.9 million barrels is just about the same as the energy needed to run our own magic kingdom for the better part of a year! This is the honest to freaking goodness truth! We can even show you the calculations if you want. Believe me when I say we did them properly: Yup, did that 30% efficiency pulled from the crude oil thingy, and other science stuff like that. That’s right. Magic castle on the water, oil from the water, energy from the oil, and then energy to run the park! It’s freaking awesome!

But we digress. Let’s not bore you with talk of numbers: let’s talk THEME PARK ON AN OIL RIG!

Now this is just preliminary brainstorming, but we’re thinking a great name would be something like SLICK CITY! Nice, right? Maybe even add to that a catchy tagline – something like THE FAMILY FRIENDLY OIL SPILL. We can even have animal characters wandering around the park, with maybe some kind of funky oil in their fur and feathers so it looks all fancy like. We can even envision a theatre area where an oiled down anthropomorphic animal mascot version of Grease is performed. Maybe it’s just us, but we think people will pay some serious coin to see that.

And the rides? Well, obviously we need a roller coaster. Perhaps one made to look like crude oil on tracks – black and all shiny like. People can even sit in barrels or something. Wait – maybe we should save the barrels for something like the log ride. Except that the barrels might even go faster since they’re flowing through a petroleum based fluid: dredging up some first year physics here and stuff about friction coefficients. Oh man, wouldn’t it be cool if we can somehow light it on fire!

What about a game like “Stop the Press?” You can have all these carts that go around a track, and the riders can have these light guns that shoot at things for points. For instance, they can shoot lasers at all the nasty news articles and opinion pieces. Or how about at the journalists themselves? Ha ha, just kidding – we’re just throwing ideas out there, but you get the picture right?

What we’re saying is that we think (in a manner of speaking) that we’ve hit oil here! A gusher of an opportunity, if you know what we mean. Seriously folks, it’s like the ideas are spilling out uncontrollably. It’s like – wait a minute – FRIED FREAKING FOOD!

Whoa. That one came out of nowhere. Somebody pinch us now. This is going to be so awesome…

The long anticipated installment of a popular Japanese police TV serial.

An unfortunate typo for an especially niched Japanese pop music chart.

An ointment used to treat especially aggressive forms of Nagoya.

The first line of a haiku that was awarded the distinction of being “most boring.”

Next year’s popular International CATS ON PROZAC seminar.

A droid that is seen for only 2 seconds during the Return of the Jedi.

Worst ever celebrity child name.

(Curious folks can read this if they’d like to find out more. Folks on twitter may add to the list – or even just try to be funny – by using the #NagoyaCOP10 tag).

>Jimbo,

What the hell is going on? Copenhagen was a freaking fiasco! What happened? And how is Mr. Environment Minister going to do to fix it?

Stevie (The PM).

>Steve buddy!

O.K. We have a plan. A couple of things actually. Most of them revolving around science and stuff, since we keep getting hammered on our stance with what the climatologists are telling us (you know, the IPCC reports and such). Anyway, the plan is multifaceted, and we’re still bouncing off ideas (FYI: if you got any Prime Ministery input, just pass it on), but here is what we have so far:

1. To get the scientific community off our back, we’re going to challenge them to perform definitive, but basically impossible, climate science experiments. Doesn’t that sound great? I wrote that myself. And here’s one just off the top of my head, which I’m calling the TRI-EARTH experiment (also, wrote that myself). Here, we’ll ask scientists to create two other planet Earths, and populate them with identical geology, biodiversity and anthropogenic infrastructure, and then do a compare and comparison. Our current Earth could be the test subject, whereas the other two could represent “controls” (ooh actual science lingo). These would be conditions with (a) zero fossil fuel emissions, and (b) intensive fossil fuel emissions. Scientists would then be asked to collect data for 100 years, and then reconvene with their conclusions. Brilliant right? Oh man, our tech guys are gonna love making that website.

2. To get the environmental community off our backs, we’re thinking of asking the HR Departments of all tar sand companies to actively hire members of the biodiversity community. And we’re not talking scientists here, but actual animals – the cuter and the furrier the better! This strategy is even timely! Can you believe our luck? 2010 is the “International Year of Biodiversity.” Anyway, the idea is that this would be an excellent way to create tension between all those environmentalists. Imagine the debates! I can hear them already: “You can’t shut down the tar sands! Think of the livelihood of our friends, the [insert name of cute furry mammal]. How will they maintain their way of life?” As an added bonus, the irony alone just might get Suzuki’s brain to explode.

3. This one is a biggie! We’re looking into actually creating new scientific laws! Wouldn’t that be great? I mean a good chunk of the data out there is based on rigorous climate modeling, which is powered by scientific laws and mathematical equations (bla bla bla). So we say: why not take matters into our own hands, and create something like a new addition to the Laws of Thermodynamics. I mean, these laws are well known, they come up a lot in climate studies (the first law with its overbearing “energy cannot be created or destroyed” mantra is especially annoying), and as a bonus, they even have too many syllables which we know is always good for added confusion. If we’re smart, we can even make the new law a little “magical” (seriously, maybe something about unicorns – you like unicorns right?). This might make the whole creationism angle a little easier to swallow scientifically (and you know me, I’m always looking for ways to widen our support base).

4. Advertising: and lots of it. Maybe go with either a “Canada is a Climate Change Free Zone” angle (wouldn’t that look great on a t-shirt?); or maybe just a straight up promotion of things to do in a hotter climate. I think the “Hot Canada” idea could sell itself. I’m thinking four words: beach volleyball and sombreros. Hmmm… let me write that down. Could work as a possible slogan.

O.K enough writing… I’m going to send this memo off right now. These are just a few ideas we’re ready to act on. Add on a good old general marketing blitz, and I think we got something that should do the trick. Anyway, just say the word boss and we’ll get on it pronto.

Jimbo

>Jimbo,

Sounds great. Make it so (I love saying that). Oh and how about this for a slogan, “No more sweater vests!”

Later,
Stevie.

Fox

Tit

Minx

Cougar

Since then, I’ve found myself fully immersed in the web tool, and feel like I can say a few intelligent things about it, especially if you’re reading this as someone who is resisting signing on, or someone who just wants to know a little more about it.

It might help if I first start off with a bit of context.

For instance, my lab sort of already has a twitter account, listed under @sciencescout. Here is an example of type of tweets this account routinely throws out.

All in good fun, since the “jargon in capitals” usually refers to some interesting thing on the internet that has a link (often tenuous) with the word itself. Plus, it’s meant to spur on a scientific drinking game (to quote, “everytime you say the word whilst glass is hoisted, the table must drink”), although I’ve yet to hear about whether folks actually do this or not. Mind you, with almost 800 followers, I’m more than a bit hopeful.

Still, I wouldn’t say the @sciencescout account is “useful.” Good for a chuckle maybe, and for general camaraderie with the Science Scouts, but it doesn’t set itself up well for proper networking or real viral linkage to things of note.

Which is why, I thought it was a good time to set up the personal account (I used @dnghub because there are a LOT of David Ng’s out there!) Actually, I set it up the night before heading of to the TEDxVancouver conference, thinking that if there was a crowd that would be fully embedded with this technology, it would be the crowd at TEDxVan.

Which all leads to the big question: WHAT IS TWITTER GOOD FOR EXACTLY?

Here are my thoughts, many of which I’m guessing can be found elsewhere on the net and described much more eloquently by people cleverer than me, but here goes nevertheless.

1. It is excellent for informal first query type virtual networking. Especially, if you’re hoping to network with the sort of people who are already fond of the social media tool. It’s a bit like how it’s already easier to talk to someone who happens to read your blog, or talk to someone whose blog you happen to read. Except that it takes way less effort. You can begin casual discussions like the drop of the hat, since twitter facilitates this marvelously with its tags: “@” (directed correspondence) and “#” (crowd source type discussions).

I can’t stress how incredibly useful this has been to me already. For example, I have a project getting ready to launch in late January, early February (it’s this one, finally), which necessitated some initial networking with the local and non-local graphic design community. With twitter this has been surprisingly easy. It’s like you can effortlessly initiate an informal query, and folks on the other end can check you out quickly (you can leave your website on your account for instance) to gauge whether they should reply back or not. Much easier than trying to track down email addresses, or going to gatherings in the hope of making contact.

2. It’s a brilliant ice breaker device for meeting someone in person. Twitter was very useful in this context. For instance, at the TEDxVancouver conference, I was an active tweeter (especially around the whole Patrick Moore debacle). Anyway, because there was an active feed around the hashtag #tedxvan, I inadvertently made myself incredibly accessible for discussion when discovering face to face contacts. I found this really cool – a real nice community feel to it all. Plus, your twitter handle works well as a virtual business card, which is nice for a doddering academic like me, who forgets or refuses to get business cards for himself.

3. It is great for receiving pieces of real time information relevant to you. What I mean here, is that if you pick your twitter friends carefully, you’ll get an information feed that is well suited to your needs and personality. For instance, I’m finding it’s wonderful for staying informed with interesting science news, environmental issues, the arts community in vancouver, interesting graphic design bulletins. And this is on top of just staying in touch with some interesting friends, and having the odd chuckle from that “witty” tweeter. For instance, yesterday I found out about “The Danish Text” pretty quick after it came out in the Guardian because of twitter. Sometimes, I even just take a gander at the “trending topics” column for breaking news. Even though most of it is celebrity orientated, you know it must be big when something non-celebrity is seen there.

This stream of information, of course, is best managed when you follow folks who tweet interesting things, tweet with an interest to write well, but also tweet at a somewhat sparing frequency. i.e. you’re not always receiving an onslaught of stuff from one or two profilic users. Anyway, I remember for a while thinking that I’ll just follow anyone who happened to be following me, but then quickly discovered that such a tactic made the stream of information too distracting and too much like white noise.

I should also note that when using twitter, it is really handy to use some third party software to help organize it all. There’s a number of them out there – currently, I’m using Tweetdeck, which seems to work well.

4. Making contact with individuals of significant influence. This is also kind of interesting. The community that uses twitter has an interesting cultural take on how to interact. I mentioned in the first point, that casual networking is easy, but it also seems to be orders of magnitude easier when dealing with folks you might normally never be able to get a word in at all (i.e. important people). This might be because: (a) you don’t have the contact info to initiate a conversation, (b) even if you do, they’re much too busy to give you the time of day, or (c) in the real world, you’d be corresponding with the “office” and we all know how much fun that can be.

I’m not sure why, but things just seem very friendly in twitter land. I’m guessing this has a lot to do with how easy it is to use and fire off snippets of communication.

Twitter correspondence, for example and just to show that my point is valid, has resulted in a special Science Scout badge – just for Ms. Atwood.

5. You’re kind of also doing it to attract readers, and therefore have some influence over what content they might want to look at. This is where there’s a bit of that vanity thing going on here. Much like a website or a blog, twitter probably represents the easiest way to develop a readership. Plus, the stats or your “online clout” are easily noted because your number of followers can be clearly found. And people do follow a variety of different types of twitter writers. Some write purely from a biographical angle (“I’m pouring my coffee right now”) although this is not the most interesting thing read, nor the most effective way to build a readership. I think a way around this is to put a bit of effort into it and write with a bit of humour. Here is an example of the sort of thing I’ve been writing if it has to do with my day to day activities:

Alternatively, the “venting” tweet is pretty interesting to read.

More important, I suppose, is to also try to highlight things of interest to you. Since I’m all about the science and art angle, with a healthy does of environmental concern, if anything intriguing comes my way, I can quickly “RT” or retweet it. Here, I resist always showcasing the stuff coming out of my lab (was doing that initially with the @sciencescout account, but not anymore), because then it all gets a little promotional for my (and presumably) others’ tastes.

Of course, at the end of the day, I’m guessing the best way to build a readership is to think really carefully about who (not your friend or relative or a celebrity) you would follow. Then with that analysis in mind, sit back and consider offering a similar yet personal take on how you would use your twitter account.

Anyway, I’m at about 100 followers right now. Not a lot by any means, but no longer the void I guess.

(You can follow David’s twitter account by clicking @dnghub)

Truth be told, I don’t read plays very often, if at all. In fact, I’m ashamed to admit that I think the last one I read was back in high school long ago, and if I remember correctly had something to do with vampires – ironic in that vampires at the time were not so popular. But this play was about something I am interested in – medicine and social responsibility – and it was referred to by a friend, who also happened to be one of the authors.

Coincidentally, I read it on my way to Lagos, Nigeria, a place where access to medicine has its own battles. I was going to help facilitate a scientific training workshop, a workshop that would hopefully provide some knowledge to young biologists, many of which were hungry for ideas in their hunt for answers to malaria, HIV, tuberculosis, etc. On that flight, the similarity of scope of what I was reading and what I was heading off to was not lost on me.

In fact, it was much needed. It’s never easy to leave home, your family, for an extended period of time. More so, when you’re traveling to a place where the culture shock is expressed in the lack of the first world luxuries you’re used to. I needed to read the play – because in many ways, it reminded me of why I was going in the first place – that there was value in doing my small part.

To say that Dr. Krisana Kraisintu did a small part would be close to slander. Her actions have saved tens of thousands of lives, likely much more. She was responsible for directly going against governments, against pharmaceutical companies, against international laws even, to formulate and produced GPO-VIR. This is a generic fixed-dose combination of stavudine, lamivudine and nevirapine for treatment of advanced HIV infection, but more importantly represents the first generic HIV cocktail. To say that this took guts would be a great understatement.

Dr. Krisana: The fact that people are dying today from a treatable disease is not a hypothetical situation. Children are -

Brighton Miles Pharmaceuticals Executive 1 (BMP1): Ah, the children.

BMP3: The children!

BMP2: The children.

BMP6: The children.

BMP4: Always the children. (to BMP2) Breath mint?

BMP2: No thanks. You can’t fight the dying children.

BMP1: There’s no way.

BMP5: It just shuts off all useful discourse.

BMP2: It’s grandstanding, plain and simple. How do you trump a dying child?

BMP1: You can’t.

BMP3: You can’t.

BMP6: You can’t.

BMP4: It just shuts down the conversation every time.

BMP2: Why, if I had a nickel for every dying child…

BMP1: You’d be rich my friend, you’d be rich.

You learn this when you read the play, and in doing so you learn a little more about the biology of HIV, about the politics and economics of health. And in a way that a news report or textbook can’t emulate, you learn about the devastation of what a disease like HIV can do.

You also learn a little about Dr. Kraisintu, about what compels her to do what she does. In doing so, you are given a rare glimpse into the mindset of an individual who chooses to make many sacrifices for what they believe is right. This reminded me of another outstanding book, referred to me by no less than Stephen Lewis – Mountains Beyond Mountains: here, you lived within the head of Paul Farmer, another individual whose world is enveloped in activism. The parallels are striking and it makes me think that Dr. Kraisintu deserves to be up there with the likes of the Paul Farmers and Stephen Lewis’ of the world. It clear that they tick in the same manner, and it is both admirable and eye opening.

These are the perspectives you get when you read this play, and for that reason, I highly recommend you doing that. I haven’t actually seen the play performed. Not yet anyway. But wouldn’t that be something?

(To puchase from Amazon, please visit here)

First of all, we are not sure there’s enough clarity in this text. Scientific literature, in particular, should leave little room for confusion. Where exactly did Jack fall down? Into the well? A little ways down the hill? All the way down the hill? It’s just too vague. Worst still, we’re not convinced that the science conducted is of high enough caliber. I mean really, who would be stupid enough to put a well on the top of a hill? In conclusion, we feel that this manuscript should be rejected in its current state, but are not opposed to viewing a revised version in the near future.

Initially, we were quite intrigued by your work, especially since it appeared to contain several elements that merit genuine excitement. However, it was then brought to our attention that this body of work had remarkable similarities to a previously published report (The Alphabet Song). It was upon further investigation, that our worst fear was confirmed to be true – that this manuscript constitutes an act of plagiarism. We must state that we feel this to be a serious breach of scientific ethics, and must therefore strongly decline your manuscript.

Although otherwise promising, the reviewers felt that the research in its current state is incomplete. Quite frankly, it was agreed that your principle subject needed to be put back together again. Several of the reviewers suggested courting the expertise of a mathematician who could perhaps create an appropriate algorithm to solve this problem. Alternatively, one reviewer suggested glue. As a final note, questions were also raised regarding the treatment and well being of Mr. Dumpty. Why exactly was he made to sit on the wall? And why exactly would you allow horses (of all things) to put him together again. No matter, the reviewers overall impression was that if you were able to address each and every one of these issues, they would see no problem entertaining a revised version.

The reviewers felt that not enough data was presented to support your claims. For example – how many times did your group observe the cow jumping over the moon? From the text and supporting figures, it would appear that you base this conclusion on one data point as no calculations regarding standard deviations were presented. As an analytical journal of high repute, the reviewers felt that this is simply not acceptable. In addition, several of the reviewers felt that the word ‘diddle’ was inappropriate, and should have been replaced by the more scientifically correct, ‘Hey fornicate fornicate.” Because of these, and other problems, we are sorry to inform you that your manuscript has not been accepted for publication.

Thank you most kindly for allowing us to see this marvelous manuscript. We feel that it is a great privilege that you and your colleagues decided to submit it to our journal. We truly feel that it represents seminal work that could even one day lead to a Nobel prize. To be frank, we were quite surprised to receive your submission, in that we all felt it could have easily been accepted by the more high profile publications (The Nature and Science journals for instance). In any event, we are very pleased to inform you that, we, the reviewers are unanimous in our decision to accept your manuscript.

(Originally published on August 22nd, 2005)