David Brooks, "Death and Budgets": An Invitation to Come to Compugen

In his New York Times op-ed entitled "Death and Budgets" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/opinion/15brooks.html?hp), David Brooks bemoans the fact that billions of dollars are being wasted by the US government to prolong life by a couple of months, but no new meaningful cures are on the horizon. Brooks writes:

"The fiscal crisis is driven largely by health care costs. We have the illusion that in spending so much on health care we are radically improving the quality of our lives. We have the illusion that through advances in medical research we are in the process of eradicating deadly diseases. We have the barely suppressed hope that someday all this spending and innovation will produce something close to immortality."

I have said this time and again in this blog, so I will make it short:

I am convinced that the failure of the pharma industry to create meaningful new medicines owes to the fact that they have all been doing the same high throughput and ultra high throughput experiments, i.e. throwing ever larger libraries of chemicals at drug targets at ever higher speeds, without taking the time to understand biological phenomena at the molecular level.

A decade ago, a tiny Israeli biotech company named Compugen predicted that Big Pharma would hit the wall in its drug discovery efforts, and undertook a long lonely effort to create discovery platforms which could accurately model biological processes at the molecular level and enable the computerized prediction and selection of therapeutic and diagnostic product candidates. Foreseeing that the era of trial and error in the world of drug discovery was yielding diminishing returns, Compugen sought to harness advanced mathematics and computer science to create the next generation of drugs addressing unmet medical needs.

Today, at a time when Big Pharma's pipelines are going dry, Compugen has an ever expanding pipeline of early stage therapeutic candidates aimed at unmet medical needs. Compugen's candidates are not intended to extend life by a mere month or two, but rather provide meaningful therapies where often none exist. Moreover, Compugen's computerized ability to identify new drug candidates is swift and costs a tiny fraction of what is required by other pharma companies to discover new potential products (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/search/label/Compugen).

A concrete example of Compugen's predictive capabilities? Consider how they arrived at their candidate for multiple sclerosis ("MS") and rheumatoid arthritis, CGEN-15001, described in my September 7, 2010 blog entry (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/09/cgen-15001-predictive-discovery-and_07.html).

Mr. Brooks, I'm inviting you to visit Compugen to learn about their cutting edge science. Alternatively, let's have a conference call. It should prove an eye-opener for you.

[As noted in prior blog entries, I am a Compugen shareholder, this blog entry is not a recommendation to buy or sell Compugen shares, and in mid-September 2009 I began work as a part-time external consultant to Compugen. The opinions expressed herein are mine and are based on publicly available information. This blog entry has not been authorized or approved by Compugen.]

Roger Cohen's "A Year of Waste": Unadulterated Rubbish

A "polite" condensed version of the following blog entry, which was submitted as an online comment in response to Roger Cohen's op-ed "A Year of Waste," was censored by The New York Times:

Roger "Iran is not totalitarian" Cohen has again outdone himself in yet another obsessive effort to bash Israel, entitled "A Year of Waste" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/opinion/15iht-edcohen15.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss). In this slimy attempt to blame the Jewish state for a lack of progress in talks with the Palestinians, Cohen writes:

"The Israeli insistence on up-front recognition from the Palestinians of Israel as a 'Jewish state' is absurd — a powerful indication of growing Israeli insecurities, isolation and intolerance. There was no such insistence a decade ago."

What is Cohen hiding from us this time? What in fact happened during the past ten years?

Ten years ago there were relatively few suicide bombing perpetrated by Palestinians in Israel: two in 1998, two in 1999, and five in 2000. Suddenly in 2001 there were 41 suicide bombings, in 2002 there were 46 suicide bombings, and in 2003 - when Israel slowly began to gain control over this horror - there were 24 suicide bombings. (For a list of these bombings, including casualties, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks) Yes, things were different a decade ago.

But that's not all. A decade ago, the south of Israel was not being bombarded with mortar shells, rockets and missiles fired from Gaza at civilian targets. Since 2001, some 12,000 such projectiles have been shot at Israeli towns and cities. Five more rockets were fired at Israel yesterday. Small difference, huh, Roger?

In March 2008 I invited Cohen to visit the Israeli town of Sderot, which was under siege by Palestinian rockets. In my e-mail to Cohen, I suggested:

"Visit Sderot, opposite the Gaza strip. I would like you to meet some of the underprivileged families that live there - they cannot afford to move - and their children, who have been living with the rockets for the past five years and the 15 second routine to reach a bomb shelter. Some wet their beds rather than risk a trip to the bathroom."

Cohen's response:

"Thanks, Jeffrey. And will do."

But Cohen never took me up on my offer.

How important is it for the Palestinians to acknowledge Israel's right to exist? Consider that Israel is only 9 miles wide at its waist. If Israel unilaterally evacuates the West Bank - as it did Gaza - without Palestinian agreement to its right to exist, all of Israel's major cities except Eilat will fall within rocket range and can and should expect the worst.

Why should Israel expect the worst? Consider the results of a very recent survey of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza conducted by US pollster Stanley Greenberg (http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=229493):

"Just 34% said they accepted [a two-state solution], while 61% rejected it.

Sixty-six percent said the Palestinians’ real goal should be to start with a two-state solution but then move to it all being one Palestinian state.

. . . .

When given a quote from the Hamas Charter about the need for battalions from the Arab and Islamic world to defeat the Jews, 80% agreed. Seventy-three percent agreed with a quote from the charter (and a hadith, or tradition ascribed to the prophet Muhammad) about the need to kill Jews hiding behind stones and trees."

"[R]ecognition from the Palestinians of Israel as a 'Jewish state' is absurd"? That's very easy for Cohen to say, particularly given his decision in 2008 not to visit Sderot in southern Israel.

Nicholas Kristof's "The Opposing Party": No Mention of Afghanistan

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Opposing Party" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/opinion/14kristof.html?_r=1&hp), Nicholas "Chemicals Threaten Our Bodies" Kristof is back at it: writing about economics, about which he is demonstrably clueless.

Quickly read through Kristof's partisan blather, 99% of which is devoted to blaming the Republicans for all of America's economic woes. Nicholas does mention health care, and remarkably he acknowledges:

"The Obama health care plan could have done better on cost control."

But where is there even a single mention of Afghanistan? The estimated cost to the US of what is now Obama's senseless war will reach a record $120 billion in 2011. Why is Kristof not highlighting this fact?

Any effort to reduce the deficit must begin with withdrawal of US ground forces from this sinkhole; however, neither Obama nor the Republicans have the good sense or courage to put an end to this folly.

Thomas Friedman's "The Start-Up of You": Why Unemployment Isn't Going Away Anytime Soon

In his latest New York Times op-ed "The Start-Up of You" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/opinion/13friedman.html?ref=opinion), Thomas Friedman observes the rise in unemployment and opines that many of our children might have to invent, as opposed to find, their next job. Friedman writes:

"Look at the news these days from the most dynamic sector of the U.S. economy — Silicon Valley. Facebook is now valued near $100 billion, Twitter at $8 billion, Groupon at $30 billion, Zynga at $20 billion and LinkedIn at $8 billion. These are the fastest-growing Internet/social networking companies in the world, and here’s what’s scary: You could easily fit all their employees together into the 20,000 seats in Madison Square Garden, and still have room for grandma. They just don’t employ a lot of people, relative to their valuations, and while they’re all hiring today, they are largely looking for talented engineers."

I am in agreement with Friedman. In the past, I have written extensively about a small Israeli biotech company named Compugen, whose tiny team of perspicacious scientists is creating an expanding pipeline of therapeutic drug candidates based upon the company's leadership in algorithm-driven predictive biology, at a time when the pipelines of Big Pharma, whose R&D departments are staffed by thousands, are going dry. When it comes to hi-tech employees, I believe that quality, rather than numbers, dictates success.

What does this mean for our children? It is indeed a different world, and a Ph.D. without far-reaching vision, boundless creativity and adaptive flexibility no longer guarantees a job. There is little room for anything less than excellence, and this trend will only grow stronger with the passing of years.

Stated otherwise, unemployment could prove far more intractable in the future than anyone in Washington might imagine.

[As noted in prior blog entries, I am a Compugen shareholder, this blog entry is not a recommendation to buy or sell Compugen shares, and in mid-September 2009 I began work as a part-time external consultant to Compugen. The opinions expressed herein are mine and are based on publicly available information. This blog entry has not been authorized or approved by Compugen.]

Maureen Dowd's "Hitler's Talking Dogs": The Op-Ed Page of The New York Times Goes to the Dogs

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hitler's Talking Dogs" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/opinion/13dowd.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Maureen Dowd tells us that Adolph Hitler might have been crazier than we thought. She tells us of German attempts to teach mastiffs to talk and a plan to have German soldiers pack rubber blow-up dolls as sex comforters.

This morning I discussed the matter with Winnie and Arnold, seen above with my oldest son, and they agree that Maureen is running out of things to say and that the op-ed page of The New York Times has gone to the dogs. For a small fee payable in biscuits under the table, they would be willing to advise Dowd.

Full stop.

David Brook's "The Magic Lever": What About Leadership?

In his New York Times op-ed of today's date entitled "The Magic Lever" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/opinion/12brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion), David Brooks concludes that there is no one "magic lever" which can set the economy aright:

"The tragedy is that in Barack Obama and John Boehner we have leaders who would like to do something big. They seem to know that you need bipartisan cover if you want to really cut spending. They seem to know circumstances for deficit reduction will only get worse in the years ahead.

But they are bracketed on all sides — by the tax cut and Medicare brigades, by the wonks hatching budget gimmicks that erode trust, by political hacks who don’t want to lose their precious campaign issues: tax cuts forever, Medicare spending without limit.

Mostly, they are buffeted by the proud, by those who think they have a magic lever to control human destiny and who will not compromise it away. This is the oldest story known to man."

I agree and disagree with Brooks. There is indeed no single "magic lever" to place the economy back in a growth mode, bringing jobs and hope to millions of Americans. On the other hand, I also believe that in the absence of leadership from the White House, economic growth cannot be set in motion, and nowhere was that lack of leadership, i.e. leadership from behind, more evident than at the US embassy in Damascus yesterday. What does the US embassy in Damascus have to do with the US economy? Nothing and everything.

Yesterday, there was a premeditated, government orchestrated, mob assault upon the US embassy compound in Damascus and the US ambassador's residence. Fortunately, no one was hurt, but the message from Syrian President Assad to US President Obama was clear: Assad will brook no interference from US ambassador Ford, who on Thursday and Friday visited the Syrian city of Hama, together with the French ambassador to Syria. Hama is where Assad's father, Hafez al-Assad murdered 20,000-40,000 civilians (the exact number will never be known) in 1982 in order to suppress a rebellion, and where there have recently been mass demonstrations in opposition to Bashar al-Assad.

A few facts about the US embassy in Damascus:

• There had been no ambassador to Syria following the direct involvement of Bashar al-Assad in the murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a friend of the West, in 2005.
• Bypassing Senate confirmation and seeking to avoid public scrutiny by acting while many are on holiday, Obama appointed Robert Ford as ambassador to Syria at the end of 2010.
• Obama has rejected demands to recall Ford as ambassador notwithstanding Assad's murderous repression of the recent civilian insurrection in Syria.

How did Obama respond to yesterday's attack upon the US embassy, which amounts to an attack upon US territory? State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland told a news briefing:

"We consider that the Syrian government has not lived up to its obligations under the Vienna Convention to protect diplomatic facilities. It's absolutely outrageous."

That's all? Business as usual? Obama's foreign policy has been characterized by overtures to the world's most brutal dictatorships, including Iran and Syria, but this has backfired in his face. He has been too slow to acknowledge that Iran is moving full speed ahead with its nuclear weapons development program, and was among the last in the West to condemn Syrian barbarism directed against civilian demonstrators. True leadership from behind.

Back to the economy: The crisis, including the problem of the debt ceiling, was there for all to see, but Obama was too slow to react. You will recall that before deciding to escalate US involvement in Afghanistan, Obama ruminated over the issue for months. Once again, Obama's inability to lead - this time as it pertains to the economy - rises to the foreground.

As acknowledged by Brooks, there is no one "magic lever" for curing the economy. However, economic recovery cannot begin without the confidence of Americans in the leadership capabilities of their president, which are sorely lacking. There are various paths to recovery, but Obama has spent far too much time scratching his head at the junction.

New York Times Editorial, "The Worst Time to Slow the Economy": Brain Dead

In yet another catastrophic attempt at providing economic guidance, the editorial board of The New York Times in "The Worst Time to Slow the Economy" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/opinion/sunday/10sun1.html?ref=opinion) blames the Republicans for cutting spending notwithstanding Friday's dismal unemployment report. The editorial concludes by calling upon the president to find a way to put Americans back to work:

"There is still time for the president to insist that the debt talks include a substantial program to put people to work now, while reducing the deficit over a longer period. To do otherwise is to ignore Friday’s ugly reality."

I would observe:

1. Any attempt to establish a meaningful program to create employment within the space of a week would be specious. This should have been done long ago by Obama.

2. On March 16, 2006, a Democratic senator named Barack Obama opposed George W. Bush’s request to raise the debt limit, declaring: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

Enough said.