I hope that the creators of these robots are heeding the three laws of robotics, as stated by Isaac Asimov in his 1950 classic, I, Robot:

• A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
• A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
• A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

       Handbook of Robotics. 56th Edition. 2058 AD

If that knocked your socks off, just wait until you see our next cool topic. And if you want to peruse all of the previous sock-knocking blog entries, visit the Knocked My Socks Off archive.

Asimov I. I, Robot. New York: Gnome Press; 1950.

*The World Business Culture website gives interesting food for thought about how different cultures value different behaviors. http://www.worldbusinessculture.com/

It is the circumconversioning of antelithual paganelles by a huggerknut cramwell energuman, or the caecodedition of an absquelitteris puttagonnianne to the herreraism of a cabotinesque exploser?

A subsequent exchange between HG Wells and Joyce is priceless:

“You have turned your back on common men, on their elementary needs and their restricted time and intelligence,” HG Wells complained to Joyce after reading Finnegans Wake. That didn’t faze him.
“The demand that I make of my reader,” Joyce said, “is that he should devote his whole life to reading my works.”

So is the rejoinder by Mr. Teachout:

To which the obvious retort is: Life’s too short.

If that knocked your socks off, just wait until you see our next cool topic. And if you want to peruse all of the previous sock-knocking blog entries, visit the Knocked My Socks Off archive.

*Teachout T. Too complicated for words: are our brains big enough to untangle modern art? Wall Street Journal. June 26, 2010. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704911704575327163342009080.html?mod=WSJ_Books_LS_Books_5. Accessed July 2, 2010.

• A systematic approach to problem definition;
• Development of an information technology (IT) infrastructure to make information accessible to all stakeholders;
• Use of modeling and simulation to formalize the relationships between design parameters and performance; and
• Development of efficient and sustainable solutions to manufacturing challenges.

Each change alone was not sufficient to overhaul the system.

Even though biological systems are more complex than aeronautical systems, similarities abound between the pharmaceutical industry of today and the aerospace industry of the 1970s: low productivity; late-stage failures; withdrawal of new products after commercialization; and high cost of implementing new processes.

Every sector of the drug industry has tried to increase productivity or reduce costs. Many of these initiatives have merit, ranging from new technologies and better IT to outsourcing and off-shoring, but they have created “islands of innovation” that are analogous to the “islands of automation” that were a problem in the aerospace industry. To solve the pharmaceutical crisis, innovations must be integrated into a radically new enterprise for drug discovery, development, and commercialization.

Science-based businesses, such as the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, have unique challenges in managing and mitigating risk. The heterogeneous nature of their knowledge base requires knowledge integration across wide areas of expertise. In addition, the rapid pace of scientific progress requires effective strategies for cumulative learning. Use of modeling and simulation was a key improvement in the aerospace industry, and model-based drug development can be an equally important innovation for the drug industry.

Pharmacometric modeling combines knowledge of disease state, biomarkers, and findings from preclinical and clinical studies with knowledge of placebo responses and drop out rates to gain insights into the determinants of efficacy and safety outcomes. These disease-drug models, particularly those that are detailed regarding disease mechanisms and drug effects, support knowledge integration, risk assessment, and informed decision-making. Continuous reassessment of models as new information becomes available can guide design of studies needed to close knowledge gaps.

To realize the benefits of model-based drug development, pharma companies must address current limitations. Timely results are delayed or derailed by a lack of infrastructure. Knowledge management systems and attendant data definitions are inadequate. Lack of sufficient computing capacity, particularly for complex models, adds greatly to the time needed to develop models. Scientists who have skills in both the technical aspects of modeling and the strategic implications of the results are difficult to find. Few university programs are available to train these scientists.

While time, money, and continued experience could address some of these limitations, changes in management approaches to program governance and decision making are needed. The innovations of model-based drug development must be implemented with full attention paid to its effects on the upstream and downstream components of the larger enterprise, including manufacturing, marketing, preclinical and clinical research, and regulatory affairs. This integration is critical to achieving a new model-based drug development paradigm, and this integration is one of our key motivations for the Pharma of the Future℠ program at Cognigen.

Be sure to come back for the next Pharma of the Future℠ blog entry: Meeting the Challenge of Delivering Modeling and Simulation. And don’t forget to peruse the previous post: Disambiguation.

As James Collins wrote [comments added] in the Wall Street Journal,*

Austen’s emphasis on good order and propriety [process definition] can seem dry and stiff. But anyone who reads Mansfield Park will feel the same relief that Fanny does at the change from the rackety disorder of her family’s house in Portsmouth [current drug research] to the order of the Park [process-oriented research]. Similarly, Austen’s regard for self-control, especially as expressed in Sense and Sensibility, can seem hard, but it must be remembered how the author clearly regards Marianne’s emotionalism [science as an artistic endeavor] with the greatest compassion. Austen is not advocating a suppression of the feelings [creative efforts] themselves— despite her faultlessly correct behavior, Elinor undergoes great suffering and feels every bit of it. What Austen is saying, as a modern psychologist might urge, is that one should try to prevent the disintegration of one’s personality [endless kerfuffles].

If that knocked your socks off, just wait until you see our next cool topic. And if you want to peruse all of the previous sock-knocking blog entries, visit the Knocked My Socks Off archive.

*Collins J. What would Jane do? Wall Street Journal. Nov 14, 2009. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703683804574531863687486876.html?KEYWORDS=jane+austen KEYWORDS%3Djane+austen.  Accessed May 12, 2010.

— another indication of a process gone wild.


If that knocked your socks off, just wait until you see our next cool topic. And if you want to peruse all of the previous sock-knocking blog entries, visit the Knocked My Socks Off archive.

• Don’t disambiguate outloud a statement made by your significant other. ‘Nuff said.


• Do attempt to disambiguate statements made by your children, but beware that you will be given a look suggesting that the nursing home can’t be far along.


• Do practice your disambiguation skills in front of your pet, preferably a dog. A wagging tail can be a remarkable confidence booster. And it is very unlikely that you will get a similar look of adoration from your vice president of research.

Be sure read the next Pharma of the Future℠ blog entry: A Drug Is Not a Jet Plane, or Is It? If you missed the last posting, click on over to: Origins of Pharma of the Future℠.

* Derrick Bentley and his accomplice were convicted of murder. The jury believed that the statement “Let him have it, Chris” was intended to incite the younger man to shoot (however, there is doubt those words were ever said). Bentley was hanged in 1953, just 3 months after the bungled break-in. The shooter went to jail and was released after 10 years. In 1998, Bentley was granted a full pardon, posthumously.