By R. C. Anderson, on August 13th, 2008
Why would a scientist who had built his career on researching drugs and vaccines to protect his countrymen from anthrax purposely mail letters contaminated with anthrax to two government officials of the very country he is trying to protect? More importantly, was Bruce Ivins, a U.S. Army researcher of 35 years, the true culprit responsible for mailing the letters coated with anthrax in fall 2001 which killed five people? These questions may never be answered by Ivins since he died July 29 from an overdose of Tylenol. Seven years after these letters were mailed to two U.S. Senators among others, the FBI still has not firmly answered the question of who did it. In 2002, Steven Hatfill, an associate of Ivins, was labeled a “person of interest” by previous Attorney General John Ashcroft. Six weeks ago Hatfill won $5.8 million from the government for both associating him with the crime and the subsequent repercussions on his career.
While some wonder if Ivins was merely another innocent victim in the seven year search for a possible home-grown bioterrorist, others believe that his inability to handle the pressure and recent mental instability is anecdotal evidence of his guilt.
Where Did the Spores Come From?
Unfortunately, not all the evidence associated with Ivins has been released, but it is known that recent advances in science have allowed the FBI to run tests that would have been difficult several years ago. For example, it has been reported that the anthrax spores sent to the Senators have been sequenced. This means that researchers and authorities now know every gene and every detail of the DNA that made up the type of anthrax, or strain, sent in 2001. Since there are many different strains of anthrax, knowing which strain was sent may help authorities link Ivins to the crime if he, for example, used the same strain in his lab. Interestingly, the anthrax coating the letters was found to be a mix of two different strains, one from Ivins’ place of employment, the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID). Debate, however, still surrounds whether Ivins would have been able to produce the very fine powder found lacing the letters.
As the FBI works towards finding solid evidence, scientists are worried about another problem: continued funding. The episode in 2001 caused a surge of economic support for the biodefense budget. Prior to 2001, biodefense research was mainly carried out by USAMRIID and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and funded at $685 million per year. After the anthrax scare, funding for new biosafety labs across the country increased to a high of $8.2 billion in 2005 and has recently fallen to $5.4 billion each year. Richard Ebright of Rutgers University stated in the August 8 issue of Science that the reason there was such a surge in funding was because it was believed an outside force had attacked us. Now that we know it was initiated domestically, Ebright believes the “expansion was fraudulent.” He believes the increased research in biodefense has actually made the country less safe than it was before 2001. Others maintain that although the anthrax scare in 2001 was most likely made by a domestic scientist, there are still those outside U.S. borders that could initiate such an attack and we need to be ready for such an event by continued funding and research.
A Frightening Substance
Anthrax is a particularly frightening substance because of what it can do in such a short period of time. Initially, when anthrax is inhaled, it presents as a common cold. According to the CDC, victims usually have a sore throat and mild fever. This is part of the problem, when something as deadly as anthrax mimics the symptoms of something relatively harmless like the common cold, most people don’t go the hospital and don’t get help. The common cold usually lasts a few days and disappears. Unfortunately, after a matter of days, anthrax symptoms turn more deadly by producing “severe breathing problems and shock.” The CDC notes that inhaling anthrax is usually deadly; however, it is not contagious and cannot be passed from person to person. The CDC has posted on their site that in previous cases, victims did not have a runny nose, which is usually associated with the cold or flu. This is poor comfort at best. Another problem is that anthrax is essentially undetectable until it is too late. It does not have a particular color, smell or taste which would alert someone to its presence. The spores are also too small to be seen with the naked eye. The only way one might suspect anthrax contamination is by looking for a powdery substance since the anthrax spores must be mixed with a powder if they are to be used and transported.
Whether biosafety labs face a reduction in funding and more stringent requirements in order to work with such dangerous materials, the science community has been stirred up by these recent events, causing many to wonder what the future holds. The possible actions of such a scientist long held in high regard for his research has shaken the scientific community a bit and led many to wonder if he really did it, why he would do it and how the government is going to propose to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
By Bhagwad Jal Park, on August 13th, 2008
Setting a price on your product or service can be one of the most difficult decisions a marketing manager can make. Different people value your product differently. Most of the time, it is impossible to get accurate information regarding the percentage of your target market that are willing to pay a certain price for it.
However, even with perfect information, the pricing question can be very vexing. Say you know full well that 30% of the population is willing to pay a substantially higher price for your product. Setting the value at this higher price means that you lose out on the remaining 70% of your market who are not willing to pay that price. Setting a lower price means that you have wasted the spending power of that 30% who will now pay a lower price than what they were willing to pay.
What we need is a way to charge a higher price for those who are willing to pay more, and a lesser price for those who are willing to pay less. Simply ask each customer how much the product is worth to them, and charge them on that basis!
However, your customers might throw a fit if they realize that they are being charged simply because they are willing to pay more. No one likes to feel that they are paying more than another person who is getting the same service. In addition, customers will have a strong incentive to lie. Just because I’m willing to pay a high amount for a service doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t like to pay less for it.
The way to achieve this differential pricing is to identify customers who are willing to pay less for your product based on their behavior and charge less when you observe that behavior being followed.

Image Credit: washed up
One example is computer gadgetry. When a new computer gadget comes out, those who will only pay a lower price for it (the cheapskates) will not buy it immediately. When it comes to computer gadgets, cheapskates always feel that the prices will come down several months later. Therefore the best strategy for a company that is bringing out a new computer gadget is to charge high prices when the product comes out and deliberately lower those prices for the cheapskates later on.
Those who pay a high price for the gadgets will get bragging rights and the knowledge that they are the first adopters of the technology.
In most cases however, it is very difficult to identify the cheapskates. Fear not. Certain strategies exist that make the cheapskates identify themselves. This is called self selection. Using certain strategies, your firm can cause the cheapskates to unknowingly reveal their true colors. You can then charge them accordingly.
Image Credit: agthom
The strategy cannot be as simple as, “Whoever says that they are too poor to afford this product will get a 15% discount.” If it’s that easy, then everyone will follow it to get the discount. The idea is to make the cheapskates work for their discount. Those who are willing to pay a high price for the service are usually price insensitive and will not bother to go through the extra effort to get a lower price.
For example, several restaurants charge lower prices in the afternoon. Most people enjoy going to a restaurant in the night when they can party with their friends as part of a later plan to enjoy the rest of the evening. However, by offering lower prices at a time of the day when it’s slightly inconvenient, you invite the cheapskates to get your meals at a lower price. There’s no danger of your richest clients coming at this time simply to save a few bucks. For them, it’s simply not worth it. But you manage to get others who would not normally have come to your restaurant.
By making the cheapskates reveal themselves, you cause them to self select and are free to charge them lower prices. The self selection is always implicit instead of explicit. It’s never mentioned that lower prices are being charged for the sake of cheapskates. Pretty sneaky, huh?
By G.L.C., on August 13th, 2008
Immigrants, both legal and illegal, play an important role in U.S. economy. The topic of immigrants invokes a lot of emotion. Due to their large numbers, which are increasing every day, they are having more of an impact on the economy than ever before. Most people tend to blame crime and loss of jobs on immigrants. The overwhelming argument against immigrants is that they will take work away from native workers at a much lower wage.
An article, “Immigration: Issues and Perspectives for Businesses,” by Sarena Davila insists that immigration can be beneficial for the U.S. economy. Immigrants are a source of labor at relatively low cost. The high cost of labor has forced many U.S. companies to move their operations to countries like China and India where the cost of labor is much lower. If labor is available at lower costs, most American companies would continue to operate from here rather than move their operations abroad. If a worker is skilled and meets the requirements of the company at a lower cost, any company will hire that worker. In this era of globalization, American workers must get competitive or they stand to loose. The real concern here should be if the immigrants are paid sub-standard wages on account of their immigrant status. It is important to continue to encourage those who want to come to the U.S. to do so legally and continue to contribute to the economy.
Immigrants often fill undesirable jobs – the jobs American workers do not want to do – or jobs of American workers who drift into higher paying occupations. This implies there is no loss in jobs as immigrants do not take jobs away from currently employed citizens.
American businesses who hire illegal workers are actually breaking the law because employers who hire illegal workers also violate immigration laws when misled by false documents.
To tackle this problem, a mere legal mechanism to check immigration is not sufficient. Most immigrants come to the United States looking for jobs and end up in less skilled jobs. There is a real shortage of less skilled workers in the United States. Add to that the minimum wage laws. These two factors act as an incentive for U.S. businesses to hire immigrant workers – both legal and illegal. Immigrant workers who want to come and work in the United States will do anything it takes to get here. They want to get here because they know they will get work no matter what their immigration status is – legal or illegal. It’s simple economics. There is demand for such workers. So long as there is a demand, these workers will continue to come to the United States looking for work. Instead of just concentrating on legislation to tackle this issue, the government should address the root of the problem – the demand for such workers. If there is no demand, these workers would look at other countries. But then again the government cannot just put a complete stop to the hiring of immigrant workers. These workers are needed if the U.S. economy is to maintain its competitiveness.
|
|
Most Popular Posts