|
Editorial: Paper or Plastic? Paper or Digital?
Remember when grocery stores first began giving you an option of paper or plastic? That was interesting because the intent was to "save the forests" by using plastic. It was never mentioned that trees are "a renewable resource" and plastic was not; furthermore, paper would deteriorate properly whereas plastic would stay buried for many years.
Anyway, the topic of today is "Paper or Digital." When purchasing a book or a journal, one generally has the option of purchasing a paper copy (print) or an electronic digital copy. With the Sony eReader, the Amazon Kindle, and the new IPAD, we can now purchase books at a fraction of the price paid for a paper copy. Let's look at some of the advantages of buying books digitally and in paper print form.
Digital books tend to be less expensive and occupy very little space. In fact, one can hold about a hundred books on some of these devices. They are easily portable and generally have a relatively long battery life. The downside is that the batteries in these devices have a finite life and either must be replaced or other arrangements made. If the unit is dropped, it can break. If one wants to search for an older book, or a previous edition, i.e., reference books, it may not be available. As one updates to a newer edition of the book, the older may be overwritten and is no longer available. As digital formats change (Remember 8" floppy disks, 5.25" floppy disks, 3.5" floppy disks, VHS tapes, cassette tapes, 8 track tapes, etc.?), one cannot always update to the new media, it becomes difficult to obtain devices that can "read" the older media, and media is not always upward compatible and supported. It can be difficult to share digital editions with others without also providing a reading device.
Paper print books tend to be more expensive, occupy more space, and are heavier to transport. However, they will last hundreds of years and be available for a long time. New editions can be set alongside previous editions on the bookshelf, and you can retain them all. Formats don't change, and they don't have batteries. They are easy to share with family and friends.
There are advantages and disadvantages of digital journals as well. (IJPC offers both, and both are included in a standard subscription). However, when preparing manuscripts, articles, etc., I often need to access a journal to which I do not subscribe. Formerly, I would go to a medical center library and there would be all the current issues of several hundred journals. But�no more, as they are only available electronically. So, what choices do I have? First, I can make arrangements, if possible, with the library to gain access to their online journals. Second, I can go online from my office and access the journal online and pay $25 to $55 dollars for a copy of each single article, which I do as the need arises.
As the user of numerous electronic books, one has to decide which to use and which makes the most sense in their specific situation. Oh, one thing I forgot to mention, one can now get a Nintendo DS "game" containing 100 classic books that can be read on the DS game�and it works very well and is a good way to introduce kids to the classics.
So, we will continue to have print and digital books, journals, etc. for a number of years to come. We just need to determine which method works best for our individual situations.
Loyd V. Allen, Jr., PhD, RPh
Editor-in-Chief
|
|
Drug Prices to Drop Resulting from Austerity Measures
Europe is responsible for 31 percent of the world PHARMA market. A squeeze on European drug prices will increase in coming quarters as cash-strapped governments push through austerity measures designed to control runaway healthcare spending. The worst is yet to come in Europe, following recent moves by countries including Greece, Spain, and Germany to slash the price their healthcare systems pay for medicines. Greece has started the greatest cuts, slashing the price of medicines by 21.5 percent on average.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE66K1IV20100721
Think Tank Requests the FDA to Accept Drugs Cleared by European Regulators
The Pacific Research Institute argues that Americans would benefit if the FDA would allow American patients to access medicines that have already been approved in Europe. This would increase regulatory competition, enable more patient choice, and potentially save the lives of those suffering life-threatening illnesses and who currently have no treatment options available.
The Institute reports that, of 39 new medicines approved by the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2008 and 2009, only 11 were approved by the EMA. Also, the approval time was 97 days faster on average in the European Union (EU) for the 13 medicines approved by both regulators.
"Clearly," the Institute argues, "Congress's grant of a regulatory monopoly to the FDA is creating a significant obstacle to Americans' timely access to new medicines."
The organizations report goes on to recommend amending the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require the FDA to approve a New Drug Application when the drugmaker notifies the FDA that a comparable foreign jurisdiction, such as one in the EU, has lifted its ban on the new medicine.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/prescription-drug-policy/111135-think-tank-calls-for-fda-to-forgo-approval-of-drugs-cleared-by-european-regulator
"Pay-for-delay" Deals Increasing to New Record in 2010
A record twenty-one deals were made by brand-name drug companies so far this fiscal year, with generic firms that delayed production of cheaper generic drugs. These "pay-for-delay" settlements are being increasingly scrutinized by the FTC, highlighting that when generic versions of a drug hit the market, on average, the price of the medicine falls roughly by half. The 21 deals in the first nine months of the 2010 compare with 19 made in all of 2009, 16 deals in 2008, and 14 in 2006 and 2007.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2712034820100727
Fatty Fish at Least Once Weekly by Older Adults May Lower Risk of AMD
The Journal Ophthalmology reports that the study does not prove that eating fish cuts the risk of developing the advanced stages of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), but it does add to evidence from previous studies showing that fish eaters tend to have lower rates of AMD than people who infrequently eat fish.
These findings support the theory that omega-3 fatty acids-found most abundantly in oily fish like salmon, mackerel, and albacore tuna-may affect the development or progression of AMD. Although there is no cure for AMD, certain treatments may prevent or delay serious vision loss.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66I48520100719
|
