GlobalTort

Matt Peacock's YouTube Story on Asbestos Use in India - An Example of a Useful Story Made Less Useful by Flawed Factual Assertions

Kirk Hartley — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:03:26 -0600

Matt Peacock has been covering asbestos use issues for many years from a consumer point of view. Now on YouTube is a 25 minute video on asbestos use in India. The story also is on AlJazeera.

The story is somewhat useful for presenting issues about continuing asbestos use. Unfortunately, the story also highlights the reality that discussions about "toxic risks" are too often conducted in short-hand terms and that facts are often distorted. Thus, the "pro-consumer" line of the story is impaired flawed by a Canadian scientist failing to acknowledge that science does draw lines between the disease-causing potential of different types of asbestos fibers - the lines are real. On the other hand, "industry spokespersons" also fail to state accurate facts about asbestos risks and resulting injuries. The lack of accuracy makes it harder for governments, businesses and consumers to make good choices.

The Litigation Industry - Some Big Numbers from Big Problems, Such as Lehman, Chevron- Ecuador, and Asbestos

Kirk Hartley — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:38:19 -0600

"Big law" - and litigation boutiques - love large problems because they create many years of work. Indeed, the problems sometimes create far more revenue than myriad deals. Three examples popped up today, with two of them in AmLaw's Litigation Daily.

A story on Lehman's bankruptcy notes that professional fees paid by the estate (not all to lawyers) are now up to $1.5 billion. The big winner is New York and some of its law firms, such as Weil, with Lehman estate billings of $ 375 million and Milbank with Lehman estate billings at $ 133 million.

Then there is a story on Chevron's increasingly desperate bid to avoid paying an $ 18 billion judgment for polluting Ecuador and creating cancers. Chevron filed a "privilege log" listing the lawyers and law firms it has used for for various aspects of the litigation. According to the story:

"In a recent discovery filing, Chevron disclosed that it is employing no fewer than 39 law firms in the Ecuador matter (including four law firms representing the related individual defendants, but not including non-U.S. counsel retained in connection with potential enforcement actions). By the Ecuadorian plaintiffs' count (which we did not verify), Chevron employs close to 500 outside lawyers or paralegals to counter their claims.

Among the 39 law firms listed are 15 Am Law 100 firms—Akin Gump; Ballard Spahr; Boies, Schiller, Crowell; Gibson Dunn; Holland & Knight; Jones Days; King & Spalding; Mayer Brown; Nutter McClennen; Pillsbury; Schulte Roth; Skadden; Sonnenschein; and Steptoe—and four smaller firms that qualify for the NLJ 250."

Finally, there is a Reuters story on Western MacArthur and insurance coverage battles over its asbestos losses. The latest story is a New York appellate court opinion confirming an award of $ 420 million for Travelers and against reinsurers. The ruliing is the latest step in a journey that dates back at least as far back as Western suing Travelers for coverage - in 1993. No doubt there were negotiations before the start of the 1993 litigation. So, two decades and many lawyers and law suits to deal with just one part of an insurance portfolio for one asbestos defendant.

Conclusion? The litigation industry will continue to expand for as long as short-term thinking continues to create large, long-term problems.

Direct Actions Against Insurers - The FDIC is Using the Remedy

Kirk Hartley — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 05:59:40 -0600

"Direct actions" allow an injured plaintiff to file a lawsuit directly against the insurer for a defendant. Direct actions are not allowed in many jurisdictions, but some do permit direct claims. When a direct action remedy is available, the FDIC is using it in bank failure cases. Kevin LaCroix has the story in a recent post at The D & O Diary.

Can IPO Terms Actually Preclude Investor Class Actions and Other Traditional Rights of Traditional Shareholders ?

Kirk Hartley — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:15:09 -0600

Carlyle Group's IPO papers include - so far - terms purporting to preclude future class actions over securities disclosures. Ahead should be a decision by the SEC on what it will say about the use of such terms. The story in a bit of detail is on the Conglomerate blog. The overall terms of the IPO are characterized in more detail - and more harshly - by Professor Davidoff in a very pointed article on DealBook. As he notes, the offering also eliminates most other traditional shareholder rights.

The issues are important in many ways. Over time, the answers on the issues will impact companies that face mass tort claims because some of the companies face significant uncertainty, and also have a very real need to maintain a workable capital base.

Good, bad or otherwise, the reality of the marketplace is that financiers and lawyers will always be moving faster than government and existing laws and regulations. Simply including the terms in the IPO - if allowed - will create uncertainties and leverage that would not otherwise exist. Set out below is the introduction to Professor Davidoff's article - the entire article is well worth a read.

"It is quite possible that the Carlyle Group, the private equity firm that is preparing to go public, is proposing the most shareholder-unfriendly corporate governance structure in modern history.

It starts with the fact that Carlyle is providing its soon-to-be public shareholders with no power over the company. Carlyle shareholders will have no ability to elect directors. Instead, Carlyle intends for the company to be controlled by its management, primarily its co-founders: Daniel A. D’Aniello, the firm’s chairman, and William E. Conway Jr. and David M. Rubenstein, the co-chief executives. They will have special power to elect Carlyle’s board of directors as long as they and Carlyle’s affiliates own more than 10 percent of the company."

Rutgers Hosting Great Looking February 29 Conference on Insurer "Bad Faith" Claims

Kirk Hartley — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:08:26 -0600

Insurer "bad faith" has been a significant and growing problem ever since consulting heavyweight McKinsey & Company advised various insurers on financial engineering, and how to "manage" claims. For the history, see Professor Jay Feinman's great book - Delay, Deny, Defend - here is the web page for the book. Jay is a Distinguished Professor at Rutgers.

The short-hand term "bad faith" actually is a misnomer. The real issue is that many insurers (not all) and their agents have built a business model based on refusing to pay claims. Insurers using this business model time and again breach the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Thus, instead of acting fairly and responsibly, they follow McKinsey's financial engineering advice on looking for excuses to refuse to pay claims instead of fairly evaluating and paying claims.

I've often seen the lack of good faith in both my professional life and personal life. Some of the most egregious examples involve failure to pay for expensive treatments for cancer patients - the stories are real, the examples are legion, and people die and/or suffer terribly because of the practices of many (but not all) health insurers. Egregious also is the label for insurers which refuse to pay asbestos claims - many still trump up excuses, and courts let them get away with it, thus helping to worsen the problems of mass tort litigation.

For those interested in the subject, Rutger's is sponsoring a great looking February 29, 2012 conference on the subject of "Bad Faith and Beyond." The speakers are top notch. The agenda is pasted below and includes heavyweights on both sides of the issues.

Bad Faith & Beyond Conference - Agenda

9:15-9:45	Registration and Coffee
9:45-10:45	Theoretical Approaches to Bad Faith Kenneth S. Abraham - University of Virginia School of Law Robert Jerry - University of Florida Levin College of Law Moderator: Adam Scales - Rutgers School of Law - Camden
10:45-11:00	Break
11:00-12:30	The Law of Claims Practices Jay Feinman - Rutgers School of Law - Camden Thomas F. Segalla - Goldberg Segalla LLP Douglas R. Richmond - AON Risk Services Amy Bach - United Policyholders Moderator: Ellen Smith Pryor - SMU Dedman School of Law
12:30-1:30	Lunch
1:30-2:45	Empirical Perspectives on Claims Practices Regulation Mark Browne - Wisconsin School of Business Sharon Tennyson - Cornell University, College of Human Ecology Peter Siegelman - University of Connecticut School of Law Moderator: Rick Swedloff - Rutgers School of Law - Camden
2:45-3:00	Concluding Remarks Tom Baker - University of Pennsylvania School of Law

New Concussion Class Action Includes a Focus on Medical Advisor Conflicts of Interest

Kirk Hartley — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:13:00 -0600

As we move further and further into an age of massive information sharing, it is logical that "sponsored research" remains a focal point in litigation over alleged or actual physical injuries and disease processes that evolve over time. More specifically, the pressures are growing as to medical advisors and disclosures involved in researching and communicating scientific information related to evolving disease processes and injuries. The pressures include assertions that information must be fully disclosed and should be evaluated by medical advisors who are leading experts in the area, and do not labor under conflicts of interest, whether "real" or "perceived."

The most recent example I've seen arises in a new class action involving NFL players and concussions. The lawsuit is now pending in Philadelphia, and was filed filed by the Locks Law Firm, a significant national plaintiff's firm. The online press release also is pasted below. Note especially that the description chosen by plaintiff's counsel includes a focus on "sponsored research" and alleged conflicts of interest effecting medical professionals.

PHILADELPHIA, Jan 19, 2012 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Locks Law Firm attorneys Gene Locks, Michael Leh, and David Langfitt filed a class action lawsuit yesterday in Philadelphia against the NFL on behalf of all former NFL players, including seven named players and four spouses, all of whom are the class representatives. The named players include former Philadelphia Eagles Ron Solt, Joe Panos, and Rich Miano. The suit charges that the NFL and other defendants intentionally and fraudulently misrepresented and/or concealed medical evidence about the short- and long-term risks regarding repetitive traumatic brain injury and concussions and failed to warn players that they risked permanent brain damage if they returned to play too soon after sustaining a concussion.

Ron Solt, age 50, was an all-star guard for the Eagles from 1988 to 1991 and also played for the Indianapolis Colts, playing 10 seasons in all from 1984 to 1993. He suffered at least one concussion during an NFL game while with the Eagles, as well as multiple head traumas and concussions during practice that were never medically diagnosed. He now suffers from substantial memory loss and persistent ringing in his ears.

Joe Panos, age 41, played as an offensive lineman in the NFL from 1994 to 2000 and was with the Eagles from 1994 to 1997. He sustained concussions while with the Eagles and Buffalo Bills. He currently experiences headaches, memory loss, irritability, rage, mood swings, and, sleeplessness.

Rich Miano, age 49, played as a defensive back for 10 seasons in the NFL between 1985 and 1995 and was with the Eagles from 1991 to 1994. He is now associate head coach of the University of Hawaii football team. He sustained at least one concussion while playing but is currently asymptomatic.

Gennaro DiNapoli, age 36, was an NFL center and guard from 1998 to 2004 who sustained repeated head impacts during his NFL career. He suffers from severe depression, memory loss, headaches, anxiety and mood swings.

Adam Haayer, age 34, was an offensive lineman from 2001 to 2006 for four teams. He had at least four concussions or concussion-like symptoms and deals with memory loss, depression, and anxiety.

Daniel Buenning, age 30, played as an offensive lineman in the NFL for four seasons from 2005 to 2008. He suffers from substantial memory loss, depression, trouble with concentration, short attention span, and mood swings.

Craig Heimburger, age 34, played on the offensive line for four teams between 1999 and 2002. He sustained multiple head impacts and concussions and suffers from dizziness, memory loss, and intense headaches.

Also named in the complaints were the wives of several players including Lori Miano, Summer Haayer, Ashley Buenning, and Dawn Heimburger.

"This action is necessary because the NFL knew about the debilitating and permanent effects of head injuries and concussions that regularly occur among professional players, yet ignored and actively concealed the risks," according to Locks.

The suit from Locks Law attorneys Gene Locks, Michael Leh and David Langfitt charges that the NFL voluntarily joined the scientific research as well as public and private discussions regarding the relationship between concussions and brain impairment when it created the Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (MTBI) Committee in 1994. Rather than naming a noted neurologist to chair this committee, it appointed Dr. Elliott Pellman, a rheumatologist who was a paid physician and trainer for the New York Jets, a conflict of interest, and had training in the treatment of joints and muscles, not head injuries. While the committee was established with the stated purpose of researching and lessening the impact of concussions on NFL players, it failed to inform them of the true risks associated with head trauma.

"Although athletes who suffered brain trauma in other professional sports were restricted from playing full games or even seasons, NFL players with similar head injuries were regularly returned to play with devastating consequences," according to Locks.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It seeks medical monitoring, compensation, and financial recovery for the short-term, long-term, and chronic injuries, financial and intangible losses, and expenses for the individual former and present NFL players and their spouses.

Locks Law Firm ( http://www.lockslaw.com ) also plans to file additional suits on behalf of other NFL players in the upcoming weeks.

About Locks Law Firm:

With a litigation team of 23 personal injury attorneys and nearly 100 outstanding legal professionals and auxiliary staff members, Locks Law Firm serves plaintiffs and is dedicated to victims of corporate neglect and malfeasance. The firm, with offices in Philadelphia, New York, Cherry Hill, NJ, and Englewood Cliffs, NJ, is known for groundbreaking verdicts and settlements in mesothelioma, asbestos, pharmaceutical, mass tort, personal injury, and product liability cases. For more information, please visit LocksLaw.com.

SOURCE: Locks Law Firm

More of the Story on Why Exercise is Good for Us

Kirk Hartley — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:49:28 -0600

Here's some incentive to stick with that resolution to exercise more often. Researches in Boston at Dana-Farber have made it into Nature with a new finding on another aspect of why exercise helps us live longer and feel better. Part of the answer it turns out is that exercise stimulates production of a hormone now dubbed "irisin," and it helps to stimulate "good fat" instead of "bad fat." The short story is below; the ScienceDaily summary includes a link to the full article.

"There has been a feeling in the field that exercise 'talks to' various tissues in the body," said Spiegelman, a professor of cell biology at Harvard Medical School. "But the question has been, how?"

According to the report, the irisin hormone has direct and "powerful effects" on adipose, or fatty, tissue -- subcutaneous deposits of white fat that store excess calories and which contribute to obesity.

When irisin levels rise through exercise -- or, in this study, when irisin was injected into mice -- the hormone switches on genes that convert white fat into "good" brown fat. This is beneficial because brown fat burns off more excess calories than does exercise alone.

Only a small amount of brown fat is found in adults, but infants have more -- an evolutionary echo of how mammals keep themselves warm while hibernating. In the wake of findings by Spiegelman and others, there has been a surge of interest in the therapeutic possibilities of increasing brown fat in adults.

Along with stimulating brown fat development, irisin was shown to improve glucose tolerance, a key measure of metabolic health, in mice fed a high-fat diet.

The discovery won't allow people will be able to skip the gym and build muscles by taking irisin supplements, Spiegelman cautioned, because the hormone doesn't appear to make muscles stronger. Experiments showed that irisin levels increase as a result of repeated bouts of prolonged exercise, but not during short-term muscle activity.

The Dana-Farber team identified irisin in a search for genes and proteins regulated by a master metabolic regulator, called PGC1-alpha, that is turned on by exercise. Spiegelman's group had discovered PGC1-alpha in previous research."

Targeted Killing and Iranian Nuclear Scientists

Kirk Hartley — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:04:46 -0600

Targeted killings are back online at Opinio Juris due to the recent deaths of Iranian nuclear scientists. The post includes links to various factual materials about the apparent tactics of the Israelis.

Madison County Ties Old Record for New Case Filings

Kirk Hartley — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 06:50:25 -0600

Thanks to the Madison County Record, the numbers are in and published for new asbestos case filings for 2011. Last year ties the largest prior year at 953. The numbers once again prove - if you build it, they will come. The 2011 trial dates will help to fill up the trial date slots previously assigned.

2011 – 953

2010 - 752

2009 - 814

2008 - 639

2007 - 455

2006 - 325

2005 - 389

2004 - 477

2003 - 953

2002 - 809

2001 - 889

For Class Actions in Canada, Analysis of the Rules for Cross-Border Cooperation Between Plaintiff's Firms in Canada and Other Countries

Kirk Hartley — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:08:06 -0600

Mondaq brought up information leading me to this very useful article summarizing recent Canadian decisions on cooperation between plaintiff's counsel in Canada and in other nations. The article is from Lerners, an Ontario firm that represents both plaintiffs and defendants in class action litigation. A January 6, 2012 decision on the subject is detailed in AmLaw's Litigation Daily on January 11, 2012.

Sequencing Entire Genomes Produces Useful Evidence Regarding Cancer Evolution and DNA Damage from Chemotherapy Knowledge on

Kirk Hartley — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 06:23:22 -0600

Sequencing entire genomes is increasingly possible, cheaper, and faster. And, the results really can produce meaningful information. ScienceDaily makes the point by highlighting this new paper from Nature on whole genome sequencing of persons with AML - a form of leukemia. The overall conclusion of the study supports the long held but unproven view that chemotherapy causes DNA damage that can play a role in the recurrence of the disease. To gather the evidence, the team from Washington University in St. Louis used whole genome sequencing to compare entire DNA sequences of tumors before and after relapse.

"The mutations in AML patients who have relapsed are different from those present in the primary tumor, and they are more likely to have a telltale signature of DNA damage," says senior author John F. DiPersio, MD, PhD, the Virginia E. and Sam J. Golman Professor of Medicine and chief of the division of oncology. "This suggests that mutations in the relapse cells are influenced by the chemotherapy drugs the patients receive." Chemotherapy is known to damage the DNA of both cancer cells and healthy cells. But until now, scientists have had little direct evidence to suggest that chemotherapy itself helps shape the evolution of cancer cells and may contribute to disease recurrence. The researchers suspect this phenomenon is not unique to AML and may occur in other cancers as well.”

For the current study, scientists at Washington University's Genome Institute sequenced the genomes -- the entire DNA -- of cancer cells before and after relapse in eight patients with AML and compared the genetic sequences to healthy cells from the same patients. The data essentially allowed them to map the evolution of cancer cells in each patient.

All the patients received cytarabine and an anthracycline drug to induce remission plus additional chemotherapy in an attempt to keep the cancer from returning. Using technology developed at the Genome Institute, the researchers isolated the DNA segments that contained every mutation in the samples of cancer cells and sequenced those regions nearly 600 times each, far more than the usual 30 times each, which substantially increased the statistical accuracy of the results.

Sequencing the entire genomes of the cancer cells was essential to the researchers' discoveries. Most of the mutations in the relapse samples occurred in the regions of the genome that don't include genes and would have been missed if the researchers had sequenced only a portion of the patients' DNA.

"If we only look at the genes, we typically find a total of 10 to 25 mutations in each patient with AML," says lead author and Genome Institute scientist Li Ding, PhD, research assistant professor of genetics. "That's not enough to see significant changes in the mutational patterns of the primary tumor cells versus those in the relapsed cells. Whole-genome sequencing identifies hundreds of mutations in each patient, which provides the resolution and confidence necessary for us to dig deeper to understand how cancer evolves."

Some Governments Focus Research Monies on Mesotheliomas

Kirk Hartley — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 07:13:19 -0600

Victims of mesothelioma suffer terribly, and insurers and companies have collapsed financially because of the costs of monies paid to victims and to defense lawyers, not to mention insurance coverage lawyers and bankruptcy lawyers. And, of course, governments end up picking up many medical costs. Since past inhalations of asbestos cannot be undone, a good answer would be to find ways to cure - or at least manage - mesothelioma tumors. To that end, some governments are funding research focused on understanding the pathways that produce mesothelioma, and thus trying to find ways to cure, manage or prevent mesothelioma tumors. The most recent example is a $3.5 million grant by the Cancer Institute of New South Wales to researchers focused on mesothelioma.

One wonders when insurance companies will start direct investment in cancer research. Hundreds of thousands of mesotheliomas are predicted to occur around the globe over the next forty years. Since insurance companies live for return on investment, one wonders if they've done a decision tree analysis of the risk and return possibilities for finding better, cheaper medical paths to better outcomes for the victims.

The NSW press release includes the following:

"Almost $7 million has been granted to two eminent research groups, in the latest injection from the NSW Government's translational cancer research program, the Minister for Health and Minister for Medical Research, Jillian Skinner, said today.

The funding is in addition to the $30 million over 5 years already provided by the NSW Government for this hugely beneficial program.

This is part of the NSW Government's record investment to medical research - a massive $105.6 million in 2011-12.

The grants, administered by the Cancer Institute of NSW, have been awarded to the Asbestos Diseases Research Institute (ADRI) and the ANZAC Research Institute, based at the Concord Repatriation General Hospital in Sydney.

The group led by Professor Nico van Zandwijk, director of the Asbestos Diseases Research Institute, has been awarded $3.5 million to improve outcomes for people with asbestos-related cancer and their families."

How Brains Automatically Find Images of Faces, or Close

Kirk Hartley — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 06:53:06 -0600

How is that we so readily and unintentionally find images of "faces" in clouds, tree bark and myriad other locations? Some of the answers are explained in a new paper from MIT - highlighted in ScienceDaily. In short, brain scans indicate that one part of the brain seems to have a specialty in making the initial observation, and a different portion of the brain makes a final decision on whether it's really a human face. Set out below is a key excerpt from ScienceDaily.

"A new study from Sinha and his colleagues reveals the brain activity that underlies our ability to make that distinction. On the left side of the brain, the fusiform gyrus -- an area long associated with face recognition -- carefully calculates how "facelike" an image is. The right fusiform gyrus then appears to use that information to make a quick, categorical decision of whether the object is, indeed, a face.

This distribution of labor is one of the first known examples of the left and right sides of the brain taking on different roles in high-level visual-processing tasks, Sinha says, although hemispheric differences have been seen in other brain functions, most notably language and spatial perception."

To this layman, the study explains some of the mechanics behind the conclusions set out in Thinking Fast & Slow, a fascinating book to consider as to trial work and other aspects of life.

Asbestos Health Risks for South African Diamond Miners - 2011 Medical Article

Kirk Hartley — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 05:01:07 -0600

A 2011 medical journal article in Annals of Occupational Hygiene describes possible or actual asbestos health risks in diamond miners in South Africa. The full text of the article is provided at no charge at the link; the abstract states:

"Objectives: Asbestos is associated with South African diamond mines due to the nature of kimberlite and the location of the diamond mines in relation to asbestos deposits. Very little is known about the health risks in the diamond mining industry. The objective of this study was to explore the possibility of asbestos exposure during the process of diamond mining.

Methods: Scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy analysis were used to identify asbestos fibres in the lungs of diamond mine workers who had an autopsy for compensation purposes and in the tailings and soils from three South African diamond mines located close to asbestos deposits. The asbestos lung fibre burdens were calculated. We also documented asbestos-related patholological findings in diamond mine workers at autopsy.

Results: Tremolite–actinolite asbestos fibres were identified in the lungs of five men working on diamond mines. Tremolite–actinolite and/or chrysotile asbestos were present in the mine tailings of all three mines. Mesothelioma, asbestosis, and/or pleural plaques were diagnosed in six diamond mine workers at autopsy.

Conclusions: These findings indicate that diamond mine workers are at risk of asbestos exposure and, thus, of developing asbestos-related diseases. South Africa is a mineral-rich country and, when mining one commodity, it is likely that other minerals, including asbestos, will be accidentally mined. Even at low concentrations, asbestos has the potential to cause disease, and mining companies should be aware of the health risk of accidentally mining it. Recording of comprehensive work histories should be mandatory to enable the risk to be quantified in future studies."

Litigation Funders at Credit Suisse Exit to Create An Independent Unit

Kirk Hartley — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 07:11:40 -0600

Credit Suisse has been financing litigation for some years. The unit is now independent under the name Parabellum. The story is detailed at the WSJ Law Blog and at AmLaw's Litigation Daily.

Print Editions Now Available for the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence

Kirk Hartley — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 06:08:39 -0600

As the $1,000 genome is arriving, so are print editions of the third edition of theReference Manual on Scientific Evidence. As a reminder, the online (pdf) version can be downloaded for no charge - go here. The manual was developed by the National Academies of Science in collaboration with the Federal Judicial Center, which produced the previous edition. The web site for the National Academies of Science provides background history related to the writing of the 3rd edition.

$1,000 Genome Sequencing - Now Arriving - Imagine What's Ahead

Kirk Hartley — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:45:59 -0600

Not so many years ago, my sister was a bench scientist sequencing genes by hand. One weekend, she mentioned that she and others from Salk Labs were going to Silicon Valley to look at software touted as helping to automate gene sequencing.

Today, the $1,000 genome actually is arriving. Stunning progress. Imagine what's ahead.

The device to make this possible is a $ 149,000 machine made by Ion Torrent. The company's latest press release is here. The story - and related offshoots - can be found many places, such as Genetic Engineering News, the Financial Times, and Nature. The field is burgeoning - consider this excerpt from the story in the Financial Times:

"For a decade since the completion of the $3bn international research project to decode the first human genome, the cost of DNA sequencing has been falling faster than almost any other field of technology, as new methods are introduced to read the genetic code shared by all life on Earth.

“A genome sequence for $1,000 was a pipedream just a few years ago,” said Richard Gibbs, director of the human genome sequencing centre at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “[It] will transform the clinical applications of sequencing.”

Baylor is one of three large US medical centres, along with Yale School of Medicine and the Broad Institute, that will receive the first Ion Proton sequencers at the end of January, said Jonathan Rothberg of Life Technologies, who invented the technology used. Deliveries to other academic and commercial customers will follow over the next few months.

Sequencing a human genome on most of the instruments working today costs $5,000 to $10,000 and takes up to a week, using optical technology to read the individual letters of DNA that are tagged with fluorescent marker. The Ion Proton machine cuts that substantially, by using semiconductor technology to read DNA directly through its chemistry.

Life Technologies will not have the $1,000 genome field to itself for long. Other gene sequencing companies, such as Illumina of the US and Oxford Nanopore of the UK, are rapidly developing competing systems – and the cost is expected to plummet further, leading some to speculate that it will become routine for every baby to have its genome read at birth.

Mr Rothberg estimates that between 5,000 and 10,000 people have had their full genome sequenced so far, almost all for research rather than medical treatment. “I believe millions or even tens of millions of people will have their personal genome read over the next decade,” he said."

There also is a remarkable back story. Guess who is one of the creators of the company that created the new Ion Torrent machine?

Gordon Moore. Yes, that Gordon Moore - the creator of Moore's Law on diminishing computing costs. And, on reading the Wikipedia entry, one discovers that Mr. Moore has done many other impressive things to drive science forward, including a $ 600 million donation to Caltech and creating a foundation that funds a range of science projects.

Here's an excerpt from Nature's story this past summer:

"The latest contender in the race for the prized '$1,000 genome' has proved its mettle in a singularly appropriate way: by sequencing the genome of computer pioneer Gordon Moore.

Each Ion Torrent chip sports 1.2 million DNA-testing wells.ION TORRENT

Like the computer chips made by Intel, the company that Moore co-founded, the Ion Personal Genome Machine (PGM) exploits semiconductor technology, with its ability to deliver ever-increasing speed and lower costs — a trend predicted by 'Moore's law' some 50 years ago. When Ion Torrent of Guilford, Connecticut, part of Life Technologies in Carlsbad, California, introduced the device late last year¹, some scientists wondered whether it could live up to its promise to put a sequencer within the reach of any reasonably funded lab. Their doubts are likely to wane in the wake of the company's latest demonstration, published this week in Nature (see page 348)."

Investment Banker Skewers Academics Who Miss the Picture on Risk and Compensation

Kirk Hartley — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 05:35:35 -0600

Candor is refreshing. Specifically, a new academic paper apparently suggests that incentive structures at banks at large banks was not a factor in the financial debacle. That conclusion of course does nto pass the smell test. Happily, rather than accepting a tenuous form of exoneration, The Epicurean Dealmaker skewers the study for missing the real world points. He/she or also make the point that public sharing full data would make studies far more useful.

TED's conclusion?

"Take it from me: stock prices are an unreliable way to measure corporate performance, and they are an absolutely shitty way to predict executive compensation.

* * *

The second methodological problem which this study seems to suffer from is perhaps more common to finance than other industries, especially in the more highly paid investment banking and corporate banking subsegments. For it is an absolute fact that a very large number of employees in your typical investment bank make enormous amounts of money. Not only do many more bankers than populate the executive suite bring home pay packages which could support small villages in Central Austria comfortably—that is, money which looks like “executive-level” pay anywhere else—but often the CEO and other executive officers of an investment bank are by no means the highest paid employees there. In a decent year, hundreds of employees at large investment banks make millions of dollars, and a substantial subsegment of those bring home tens of millions, if not more. If Messrs. Tonks and friends only collated and computed compensation data for named executive officers and non-executive directors—who, by the way, as non-producers are, relatively speaking, low-paid irrelevancies—then they missed the lion’s share of actual compensation going out the door in my industry. That is certainly the impression I get when I peruse Professor Tonk’s slim précis.

And here is the problem with that: all those uncounted flow traders, M&A bankers, structured products professionals, prop traders, leveraged finance bankers, and derivatives marketers—not to mention all the non-executive group and division heads above them—get paid buckets of simoleons for making money for the firm.

* * *

And this is where I part ways with our dear Herr Professor Doktor regarding his conclusion. If I have correctly identified his study’s methodological weaknesses, not only has he measured the wrong independent variable, but he failed to apply it to the entire set of relevant dependent variables. He doesn’t collect the proper financial performance data—the gross revenue and gross profit metrics upon which investment bankers are paid in the real world—and he doesn’t correlate it against the revenue-producing employees who are producing them. Based upon how my industry actually conducts business and pays its employees, he hasn’t proved anything.

Sadly, Your Dedicated and Evenhanded Bloggist, like many others, would still like to see a comprehensive, data-based investigation of the question which Professor Tonks addresses. Unfortunately, I do not know how one could go about this without at least acquiring time series of aggregate payroll data for all revenue-producing employees at each financial firm, correlated against preferably group or divisional level revenue and profit results. You can just imagine how well that request would go over in the offices of Jamie Dimon or Lloyd Blankfein.

For my part, I continue to believe some banker bonuses were indeed contributory to the financial crisis. My industry’s pay practices and culture were built over decades when the vast majority of business investment banks conducted was agency business. Business like M&A, where you earn a fee for helping a client buy or sell a company, or security underwriting, where you earn a fee for placing client securities with outside investors, or securities market making, where you earn a spread for standing between buy- and sell-side investors as a middleman and temporary warehouser. None of these businesses entailed any material amount of persistent or hidden financial risk to investment banks: we did the deal, we got paid, and we moved on. There are no meaningful, dangerous “tail” exposures from such activities. Accordingly, investment banks got used to toting up the profit and loss for each banker and each business line at the end of each year and paying out a percentage of that as compensation to the people who either brought the money in or who could argue most persuasively they had. Simple.

The problem arose when investment banks (and their bastard cousins and often ultimate owners, commercial or universal banks) began conducting business asprincipals, either explicitly and in full knowledge, or—most dangerously—in total ignorance. Mouthwateringly profitable leveraged lending, structured products, complex derivatives, and proprietary investing of all kinds meant that investment banks no longer conducted business as short-term conduits of temporary risk, but began accumulating long-term financial risks on or off their balance sheet, often without their own knowledge. But when this happens, the old view that Joe in Structured Products should get a massive bonus in February because he brought in $100 million of fee revenue to the firm this year cannot cope with the fact that Joe’s fabulous trades expose the firm to $1 billion in potential losses over the next five years. Even if some investment banks did develop robust and accurate risk-pricing models which accurately tallied and kept track of the massive tail risks metastasizing on their balance sheets—and recent history puts this assertion in considerable doubt—almost none of them drew the connection to compensation practices. Projected firm profits on trades like Joe’s should never be totaled up front when determining Joe’s pay; they should be amortized over the life of the potential risks the ongoing trade poses to the firm. Most banks just didn’t seem to get this important point.³

* * *

There really is a story to be told in here, somewhere, about exactly how and how much banker bonuses contributed to the aggregation of huge hidden and misunderstood risks in the global financial system. From what I can glean from limited evidence, Professor Tonks’ study is not it. Perhaps one day some academic will actually make the effort to understand how my industry works before they design a study to explain it.

Naahh.

Related reading:
Ian Tonks, Bankers’ bonuses and the financial crisis (vox, January 8, 2012)"

Distorting Science - The Latest Example Of Tobacco Industry Manipulation - UCSF Scientists Unearth and Reanalyze Tobacco Industry Data and Find Manipulation

Kirk Hartley — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 05:53:22 -0600

Good science depends on access to full data. A new study from the University of California at San Francisco highlights the point. In this instance, scientists wondered about the accuracy of peer-reviewed papers purporting to show relatively modest carcinogenic effects from tobacco additives. The earlier paper resulted from a study the tobacco industry called Project MIX.

So, how to figure out the truth about the results of Project MIX ? The UCSF scientists used research techniques to wade through 60 million pages of now-published tobacco industry documents obtained through litigation. The wading resulted in finding 500 key documents, including documents regarding Project MIX. The UCSF scientists analyzed the documents and the data. Guess what? Their conclusion is that the data had been manipulated when published. The manipulations, they say, lowered or hid the cancer-causing effects of numerous additives, including menthol.

The new paper also address a second question. How did the manipulated paper make it into peer-reviewed literature? Answer? The industry data was published in a journal for which they found myriad links to the tobacco industry. Indeed, according to the paper: "The scientist and leader of Project MIX Edward Carmines described the process of publication as "an inside job.""

The UCSF paper also is noteworthy for a third reason. The authors published in on PLoS so the full text of the article is freely available in full text. And, even better, the article is supported by online links to images of the papers they cite in their paper. So, it's no longer a game of creating spin. Instead, the evidence is laid out for all to see.

What did the UCSF researchers conclude - here's the short version:

"What Do These Findings Mean?

These findings show that the tobacco industry scientific research on the use of cigarette additives cannot be taken at face value: the results demonstrate that toxins in cigarette smoke increase substantially when additives are put in cigarettes. In addition, better powered studies would probably have detected a much broader range of adverse biological effects associated with the additives than identified to those identified in PM's published papers suggesting that the published papers substantially underestimate the toxic potential combination of cigarette smoke and additives.

Regulatory authorities, including the FDA and similar agencies elsewhere who are implementing WHO FCTC, should conduct their own independent analysis of Project MIX data, which, analyzed correctly, could provide a strong evidence base for the elimination of the use of the studied additives (including menthol) in cigarettes on public health grounds."

In short, more reasons to wonder why modern studies are allowed to be published without putting full data online. One might also wonder why the tobacco industry is allowed to exist.

The full article is freely available in full text at this page of PLoS - the Public Library of Science. Set out below is a larger section of the key, summary portion of the article. But the full article is well worth reading. And, again, note that UCSF authors provide online links to actual, complete images of the underlying documents they cite in their paper. Now that's good science !!

"What Did the Researchers Do and Find?

The researchers systematically examined tobacco industry documents in the University of California San Francisco Legacy Tobacco Documents Library (then about 60 million pages made publicly available as a result of litigation) and used an iterative process of searching, analyzing, and refining to identify and review in detail 500 relevant documents.

The researchers found that in the original Project MIX analysis, the published papers obscured findings of toxicity by adjusting the data by total particulate matter (TPM) concentration. When the researchers conducted their own analysis by studying additives per cigarette (as was specified in the original Project MIX protocol), they found that 15 carcinogenic chemicals increased by 20%. The researchers also reported that, for unexplained reasons, Philip Morris deemphasized 19 of the 51 chemicals tested in the presentation of results, including nine that were substantially increased in smoke on a per cigarette basis of additive-added cigarettes, compared to smoke of control cigarettes.

The researchers explored the possibility that the failure of Project MIX to detect statistically significant changes in the toxicity of the smoke from cigarettes containing the additives was due to underpowered experiments rather than lack of a real effect by conducting their own statistical analysis. This analysis suggests that a better powered study would have detected a much broader range of biological effects associated with the additives than was identified in Philip Morris' published paper, suggesting that it substantially underestimated the toxic potential of cigarette smoke and additives.

The researchers also found that Food and Chemical Toxicology, the journal in which the four Project MIX papers were published, had an editor and 11 of its International Editorial Board with documented links to the tobacco industry. The scientist and leader of Project MIX Edward Carmines described the process of publication as “an inside job.”

What Do These Findings Mean?

Product Liability Defense - Some Numbers on the Revenues and Lawyers at Shook Hardy - the Giant of Tobacco Defense

Kirk Hartley — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 06:33:31 -0600

It's interesting to look at the changes in the litigation industry as to defense of product liability cases. When I was a law clerk in 1983 for the Illinois Supreme Court, the purported "liability crisis" was burgeoning. My first job law firm job was in 1984 at a commercial law firm - Chicago's Katten Muchin. The firm had not done any product liability work until some asbestos defense opportunities arrived in 1982. Most partners and associates wanted nothing to do with the cases. A few liked the idea of getting to court often, and so became involved. I joined their ranks when I arrived. For years, the work remained subject to some disdain, but it produced money, so it was tolerated. Two other large commercial firms also did a significant amount of defense - Schiff Hardin and Seyfarth Shaw. A couple of others dabbled occasionally. That was about it.

Today, in contrast, many major law firms love product liability work, and most have some cases. Some have many, many cases. The vast scale of the work at Shook Hardy is illustrated by an AmLaw Daily article naming Shook as the 2011 litigation department of the year for product liability defense work.

Shook Hardy's tobacco background is immense. David Hardy is widely viewed as a primary architect of the tobacco defense strategy of creating doubt, and trying cases tied to that theme. That work has been roundly criticized for many years in books and articles too numerous to collect, and some shave suggested that some of the firm's past lawyers should have been sued for fraud (some examples here, here, here, here and here). Some of the accusations also are laid out in court papers and related tobacco industry memos (e.g. here and here.) Today, however, the work goes on, even as some Shook Hardy lawyers changed firms to Hughes, Hubbard in order to accomodate tobacco defense needs as the tobacco makers seek to assert separateness from each other.

How big is the product liability defense business for Shook Hardy ? Consider these numbers from the AmLaw article:

"The firm has been able to deliver in part because of the sheer size of its product liability practice, which comprises the bulk of its attorneys. Shook counts 303 product liability attorneys, who make up 71 percent of the firm's total head count. In 2010, 78 percent of Shook's $337 million revenue came from product liability work."