Thatâs the problem with chemicals in general â how long they last is highly variable. Iâm on a drug (a liquid) that deteriorates quickly, due to combination with oxygen in the air. It turns from white to brown in a week if air gets in. Brown means no good.
Determining the shelf life is problematic with a new drug. One can do accelerated testing by heating them up, but thatâs not a perfect solution, because other reactions can complicate matters. Usually drugs are approved with a specified limited shelf life. After a few years, I imagine the sponsor can apply to have the shelf life increased, using drugs made when it was first approved, but they have to prove that the old drug is still potent. They could do that the same way the researchers did in the article, but that was just a chemical study. Depending on the drug, the FDA might require the sponsor to do a limited clinical trial, which is expensive. That may be the only way to actually prove itâs still potent â I can imagine chemical tests may have conflicting results.
I recall sponsors requesting shelf life extensions for prosthetic heart valves when I was at the FDA. Hospitals didnât like to throw them out when they expire because theyâre so expensive. I wasnât involved in this particularly but it makes sense. We already required accelerated testing to make sure they lasted in a person, so it was mostly a matter of showing they didnât deteriorate in the package. I donât recall if more accelerated testing was required, or just tissue comparisons (for pig and tissue valves). Mechanical valves of course pretty much last forever.
As someone who went through the 4-H program as a kid, this hurts.
Unfortunately, my own national org isnât as robust as I had hoped:
(Link to PDF). Thereâs a statement about not discriminating on the grounds of sex, but nothing about sexual orientation or gender. Basic charter rights, and no more.
You can learn a lot of skills in the program. How to run a meeting. How to give (and write) public speeches and presentations. Bookkeeping. Fundraising. Skills that it often seems are lacking in left-leaning political organisations, sometimes. I have seen twelve-year-old 4-Hers give better public speeches (that they wrote themselves!) than some wannabe politicians.
I think part of the problem is that we isolated it as âthis farming thingâ which allowed it to get increasingly saturated by the right wing. When I was in it, the main job of the adult leaders was to prevent us kids from doing anything dangerous or illegal. They provided logistics and coordination with big events who wanted to deal with an adult, but members were involved in arranging everything else. Members ran meetings, held all the officer positions â the treasurer even had signing authority (with pres and vice-pres, two signatures were required) on the club bank account. Depending on how good your club was with fundraising, that could be a significant amount, especially to a pre-teen or teen. All officers were elected by the membership: the closest I have seen since is attending union AGMs. They were looking to expand beyond Ag⌠which if it had succeeded in the US, might have prevented the spiral into handwringing bigotry.
But honestly? I think the left could use such a program. One where kids do learn how to organise, fundraise, negotiate and express their own voices, rather than being told by adults what to do. Itâs not just voter suppression from the top that works. Right Wing orgs are organised. That isnât something the members learn as they realise that there is a problem. Itâs something that they grew up doing. And 4-H is (sadly for me) a large part of that success.
I know, but it always makes me a bit sad, none the less, like itâs my failure somehow, ya know. But at least some of the kids seem to get it, so I should be okay with that.
âYou ever heard of people tossing turkeys out of airplanes?â
"Like that TV show⌠what was it⌠WKRP in Cincinnati?
âWhatever, just give me 4750 words by Tuesday.â
This is a particularly sad case, but there is a legitimate component to priority, that of persistence. Itâs unfortunate that the funding agencies werenât foresighted enough to see the potential of Prasherâs work. But the fact that he didnât persevere (like Darlene Love did) probably had something to do with the Nobel committeeâs decision.
Related: There are a number of cases in the history of science where someone lost out on the credit for a discovery. They were first person to discover it, but they didnât publish; someone else did later on. Alas, I canât recall any examples!
