Welcome David to Firedoglake! We’re really looking forward to this discussion.

Thank you so much for being here today. Your book is number one on my 2008 reading list.

Thanks very much. It’s a pleasure to be here.

David – Could you maybe start us off with a simple definition of social entrepreneurs?

Sure. A social entrepreneur is someone who applies the same qualities we traditionally associate with someone who starts an innovative for-profit company to solving a social problem. The behavior patterns are pretty common to entrepreneurs: they look for opportunities, articulate meanings, they bring people together in teams, build organizations, mobilize resources, persuade others to see the world somewhat differently, or behave differently, and, in general, work to make ideas become real. historically, we’ve focused on the business aspect of this behavior pattern. But it is equally well suited to addressing social challenges.

Welcome, David. Thanks so much for being here today.

David welcome to the Lake.

Since I’m sure many people will want to Digg this, there’s a minor typo that needs fixing:

“Child Survival Revolution has helped an estimates 25 million children” Should be “estimated.”

Welcome Mr. Bornstein, and many thanks for introducing us to the wonderful people you’ve profiled.

Hi, David.

Welcome. Perhaps you are writing about a new field that could be considered Applied Sociology, the attempt to take knowledge about societies and use it to change things.

In order to implement some of these concepts, particularly in areas far from home, it’s helpful to network with others who are working in the same general direction. I began working on a medical program 5,000 miles from home when most of our communications were handled by fax. I imagine someone setting out today could greatly accelerate program development thru the internet. Do you observe this in your work, and what are some ideas for people to creatively reach out to their future colleagues?

What you seem to be describing is sort of a ground up non governmental or corporate driven solutions to some rather large problems. Is that correct?

Thanks Jane. To clarify, it may help to offer a few examples. We typically think of people like Florence Nightingale or Jane Addams as ‘humanitarians.’ But if you look closely at how they advanced ideas, how they moved them through systems, got the ideas financed, got the ideas rooted politically and culturally, and so forth, it becomes clear that they are every bit as ‘entrepreneurial’ as a successful business person. I would argue they are more creative because the degree of difficulty in solving social challenges is often greater. there are many many contemporary examples, and that’s what i write about.

Thanks Marion! I’ll fix it now.

Dumb question…

These social entrepreneurs (still a bit unclear about what they do) are they solving problems that gov and biz are failing at, or have not even recognized?

What are some of the root causes of these “problems”? Are they found in poverty, lack of education, religion and social customs, parenting and family structure?

Is this a viral concept?

excellent point. it’s important i think to know where the innovation is occurring. i think everyone working in any field should be able to answer the question: what are the 3 most innovative ideas that have occured in your field globally in the past 10 years? how are they innovative? who are the people behind them? what makes them different from the way the problem was handled in the past? there are networks of social entrepreneurs — like Ashoka, Echoing Green, the Skoll Foundation, the Schwab Foundation, and so forth, that are great starting places.

Does the rise of social entrepreneurs mean that government ie, the “people” (hopefully) is unable to solve these “social” problems?

It often begins from the ground up — like the Grameen Bank — but in order to achieve real impact you often have to change behavior patterns in business and government. The Grameen Bank has changed behavior patterns in every development organization in the world, just about, as well as govt foereign aid programs, and now banks. Enormous structural changes are occurring to make it possible for hundreds of millions of people gain access to financial services. It began in one village with 42 people, and grew up for many years, but at a certain point it also grew horizontally and had to bring structural and attitudinal and political changes.

David,

Love your work and the people you write about! Thank you, thank you.

Many of these stories ARE being written about, but there are so many niches. And if the blogs aren’t in English, their chances of worldwide notice are vastly diminished. But we need to focus on impossible, positive accomplishments, made possible and actual by people taking one small step at a time, and you’re doing that.

Sander – I’ll let David answer more clearly but I like your mention of a “viral concept.” The people who are social entrepreneurs are in some ways like bloggers. Just as we don’t rely on mainstream media, they don’t rely on a large institution to take on a problem but instead identify creative people powered answers and then do it. And like a good blog, that idea then spreads and inspires more and leads to institutional change.

From your book, it seems that India really is something of a hotbed of social entrepreneurship. Why do you think that is?

Not a dumb question at all. Yes. The ’social entreprneneurs’ are responding to a wide array of needs in a decentralized manner. it’s a bit like open source social change. governments and businesses have failed to keep up with these problems. i would argue they couldn’t solve them even if they had all the political will in the world. because innovation and creativity is required, and you simply can’t ‘design’ solutions to really tough problems. you have to explore and experiment and discover what works. and that means drawing on the collective creativity of entire populations. so i think SE’s represent a whole new way of organizing the ‘problem solving’ work of society. and in my view, it will dramatically alter the way governments work in the future.

In talking about the Grameen Bank you used the phrase “grew horizontally.” By that do you mean the concept moving out to other entities, like Kiva, or something else? I’m not clear on this…

It seems like one of the unifying principles underlying the successful examples you profile is the absence of a massive economy of scale. This allows enterprises to start small and grow organically, rather than needing a substantial critical mass to even begin.

One of the things that makes the Internet so transformative is this absence of the constraint of economy of scale. One person with a computer can start a Web site for essentially nothing, and grow bit-by-bit as demand increases. Micro-loans are like this, too.

Do you have any thoughts about ongoing technological, social, or economic developments that could turn out to be transformative in this same way?

But micro finance may have been a new paradigm but it was ultimately another way for making profit and now big banks are involved. It may be headed for corruption no?

Aren’t social problems related to the organization and values of a society and isn’t government the vehicle (when it serves the needs of the people) to address these problems? Can’t government be more creative in its problem solving or is that an oxymoron?

Yes but entrepreneurs by definition are doing things a little differently. Thank you for the list of existing networks, but I’m thinking about the development of new networks in the future. What about the large number of creative individuals out there working alone–how can they connect with each other? What about people working across disciplines, people starting in on complicated problem solving where a variety of perspectives will be needed?

I think this used to be called a university, but we might need a new model in the future.

Welcome David, the concepts outlined here are water for this thirsty soul.

I have no questions–going to read the post and lurk. And thank you for bringing your thoughts to share here at the Lake.

India is indeed a hotbed. So is Brazil, and so is the U.S. incidentally. There seem to be a number of preconditions to the rise of a robust SE sector, you might say. You need lots of people who have access to education, who have the confidence to address problems (ie. who believe they have the power to effect change). You need a free and open media, a business environment that is willing to engage with SEs, a policy environment that allows non-state actors to have at least some influence (though SE’s are given short shrift by govts almost everywhere). You also need a culture of expanding opportunity and elongating horizons. And despite the fact that India has a lot of problems, for many people, including millions of women and even untouchables, there are new opportunities for the expression of talents that would not have existed a very short time ago.

I think this is something right up Dr Kirk Murphy’s alley. Kirk are you around?

I suspect that the internet will be some of the glue for collective creative endeavors if they don’t take it away. And I suspect that if these viral solutions like napster continue, the corporations will clamp down on the democratic nature of the net.

Don’t we need the net like a “right” for social progress?

i don’t think we have even begun to understand what the internet will bring. it’s like when we built the first railways and got the telegraph, no one could have imagined how business would change.

i think the internet will make it possible for people to hear stories of people who can guide them, inspire them, teach them how to do things, and see beyond the constraints of their families and communities. but story telling is still not a big part of the online world. in my view there is too much opining and not enough narrating.

Wonderful intro, Siun; thanks for joining us David.

Have you been involved at all with the linux open source communities and what you think of laptop?

My concern is that we have some very bad institutions and memes around which are barriers to development, including capitalism. I don’t see real development on a worldwide level until we defeat some of these byzantine models that people live inside of… racism, sexism… and theology…

If SE can take those barriers away might see a second age of enlightenment. We missed those the last go round.

in my view there is too much opining and not enough narrating.

This is a fascinating point. As a professor, I definitely have a tendency to opine and describe, rather than narrate.

Could you expand on exactly what you have in mind, and how this shift in argumentative structure will be useful?

great point. yes, micro credit will become bifurcated in the future. there will be profit maximizing micro credit (which will look a lot like predatory lending, and already does) and there will be social benefit maximizing micro credit, which will continue to see credit as a powerful tool. we see both forms now. and banks will likely favor the former. but banks will also have to lobby on behalf of their clients’ needs — and if it happens that a bank has a large portfolio of loans to poor people in India, the lobbyist in D.C. will have consider the impact of our foreign policy on their customers. so there may be interesting alignments in the future.

re: govt. govt is responsible for seeing that the will of the people is carried out within the limitations of the constitution. when it works well, it does this. i see the SE’s as the R&D arm of society. they figure out new approaches, they show how to scale ideas with quality, etc. and the govt has the job of making sure that the solutions we need get to grow.

but govt can’t build the solutions itself. it is not a core competence of govt in my view.

Laptop is very cool… but it took a billionaire to do it… “the altruist”.

n my view there is too much opining and not enough narrating

Hear, hear. But there’s more than inspiration, narrative and opinion. There’s also connecting. It compresses the six degrees of separation thing down incredibly. And this sharing together, I think, helps (when it works) to crate a kind of group mind. But what sort? A negative one (when emotion-based); exploitable and volatile (crowd mentality). Or a healthy, productive one–a goal-oriented one.

And if the blogs aren’t in English, their chances of worldwide notice are vastly diminished.

Not in fact the case. We have gone from 40,000 visitors a day to more than 100,00 visitors a day in the space of 6 months. The majority of our readers do not have English as anything other than a foreign language.

The last time I looked the biggest language in relation to blogs was Chinese, followed by Portugese.

Perhaps just a tad less anglo-centricism might be in order :-)

check out roots of empathy, in toronto. a small organization. but with a big idea. how do you teach empathy to kids in elementary school? they have a wonderful model.

Sorry for lack of preview. CREATE, not crate. I searching for the unboxed mind!

meh, i thought it was some heady academic :P

David, this is one of the most fascinating “concepts” I have been exposed to lately. (But I am pretty dumb as I learn things now from the internet) I will have to buy you book, read it and of course, give it to someone else to read. Thank you for the thought provocation.

OT we want our EDIT back please!

Yes. I’m into the ‘how-to’s’ — which is to say, whenever i interview a SE, i’m always amazed by how much they have thought about how to solve the problem. it may be getting low income kids into college, or reducing suspensions in grade 4, or figuring out how to get people to take their diabetes medicine properly, whatever the case, they have deeply thought through the question of: how are we going to do this, so that it really works, and works when ordinary people do it? what are the missing ingredients? the level of focus and determination to ‘make the idea work’ is something i have rarely found in public systems. there seems to be a deep need to solve problems, a love of it, that is at the heart of a lot of social change. and we miss it in all our talk about politics. we miss it.

in my view there is too much opining and not enough narrating.

Narrating doesn’t sell, does it? I’m assuming that primary narrating function used to belong to a free press. Maybe I’m way off base.

Sander – one of the things that makes me so fascinated by social entrepreneurs is that they don’t seem to bother with the blockades but instead invent new ways around them – and those new ways tend to change the wider society.

I haven’t read your book, but I just put it on my to do list. Did you visit Auroville while you were in India? It has always seemed to me to be an extraordinary community with it’s multinational population and its renewable energy projects (solar kitchens) and sustainable agriculture.

David, I’m in your choir and what you’re saying is music to my ears. I love the connection that the internet offers, but despair when I see how circular and unfruitful it can be. Too much hanging by the pickle barrel, not enough of the sewing bee or the roof raising. Part of it, I think, is learning to develop a consciousness about what we CAN do collectively (and not just what we can DO, collectively).

David,

We never asked “gov” to be creative in solving probs. Gov has always outsourced to universities or the private sector (in the est) for “solutions” and then they implemented them by “awarding” funding.

I don’t see why we can’t make (persuade, allow, induce) government have a creative side to it. We would expect our executive to be creative and even think outside the box for some good solutions like the WPA, admittedly a very large scale solution to poverty and a depressed economy.

every culture tells itself stories about ‘who we are’. we tell ourselves stories every day: we (in the U.S.) are a country that does a lot of harm to one another (crime), we ‘tranquilize ourselves with the trivial’ (eg. 2200 journalists covered the michael jackson trial), we are not that competent in solving social problems (eg. we can create google and fedex, but we cant’ figure out how to run our schools or even make sure that people in hospitals don’t get infected routinely.) these ’stories’ get fed to us every day. but they are only one small piece of reality. there are also a whole array of other stories out there — competent people, building very cool organizations, not seelking to maximize their own wealth, but seeking to use their talents and brains, and hearts, to fix things. you find them in the fields of education, health, disability, environment, criminal justice, public policy. it’s like a hidden history being written. and we are just awakening to this ‘narrative’. perception like always is well behind reality.

didn’t get there. please describe.

One thing is to realize that the internet is more than a free press. It is a imaginative PLACE. There’s commerce, there’s art, there’s the pub, and there’s a spot where the creative, interconnective folks can hang out and play with problems together. (That’s where I want to be. I love working on problems.)

Laura – good point! that’s one reason why I was struck by David’s comments on media (and that made me think about what we do as well – tho I have to say that FDL is a very activating community!) When I first read HTCTW, I was really stunned since the SEs are just regular people – who roll up their sleeves and do amazing things. They are not “qualified” often, they just get in there and do it. And that’s exciting since it means we can too.

govt should be like a greenhouse. it should create an enviroment where things can grow. protect, nourish, etc. but 10,000 government workers could never make a rose grow, or write a poem. they have to elicit these things. you can’t just ‘outsource’ it. it’s like saying that an investment bank outsources to entrepreeurs. they don’t. they search for people with big ideas, workable ideas, and the commitment to see them through, and then they create financial and other structures to allow those ideas to grow. we’ve done this in business so much. but we have only rarely done this in the social arena. yet it is so much better suited to scaling innovative work.

David – Apart from, or a part of, the need to find effective ways of solving problems, how does your approach or awareness through SE distinguish or encompass prevention of problems ? Civilization has been around the block enough times for the same problems to have repeated themselves, yet the same behaviors seem to repeat themselves.

Solutions to real problems require “boots on the ground” and so the internet needs to make that happen. I’ve been disappointed in the failure of the internet to mobilize an antiwar movement as robust as we had in the 60s. This is very depressing. We can communicate but rarely motivate.

Hit tip to Christy,Jane and Selise for their impetus to pound the congress critters or to ante up for Blues, but we need to make a better use of the internet for what I call DIRECT ACTION.

Yes, this malfunction of USA’s edit function within “journalism” drives me batty. I was so excited to find these newsy blogs that bring me information I wouldn’t get through the MSM. I’m a “late adopter” but in my circle I feel quite progressive.

But anyway, in these days of asking myself how to break through the noise, how to push back on the propaganda and junk news, I was quite heartened to see someone arrive here to say “hey, there are solutions…it can be done…just do it.”

thanks again.

It’s at the core of it. So many of the SE’s I have written about, or interviewed for my new book, are focused on changing the structures that produce problems in the first place. in fact in my book HTCTW, i have a quote from MLK to that effect: not enough to fling a coin to a beggar, we must change the edifice that produces beggars. so you see many examples of SE that are at a core preventive. this is a central pattern.

they search for people with big ideas, workable ideas, and the commitment to see them through, and then they create financial and other structures to allow those ideas to grow. we’ve done this in business so much. but we have only rarely done this in the social arena. yet it is so much better suited to scaling innovative work.

This sounds like what the National Insitutes of Health extramural grant funding model is supposed to be like, at least when it works well. Do you think an NIH-like extramural grant funding program for for social entrepeneurship would be workable and effective?

I would add: Just do it. Then look at what happened. See where your assumption were wrong. See why the thing didn’t quite work as you hoped it would. Then listen, talk to a lot of people, bring in some people who have skills that you lack, and try again in iteration#2. So just do it, and just do it, and just do it, and in each iteration get a little closer to the solution. I have never seen an innovative idea that did not have 100 failures along the way. as edison said: i didn’t fail. i just found 1,000 ways it won’t work. that’s the attitude that produces change. people who have it are resources for any society. we need to encourage that attitude and we need to direct it to more important things than selling products we don’t really need.

I would love to learn more about this if you think it might be suited. Do you have any background? Thanks.

I would describe this as “If you’re not making mistakes, you’re not trying enough new things.”

Are these SE ideas presented at the World Social Forum? Why are we not more aware of these things as a paradigm. I have heard about Laptop and micro finance, but it was never identified and profiled by MSM as a “movement” as you have now for me. But maybe I am completely in the dark here, as I am on many issues. Thank dog for FDL.

In the 60s they planted 2 million trees in Tamil Nadu and trucked in water. When the trees grew, temperature was permanently lowered 5 degrees. Then they had architects who designed beautiful public bldngs to serve a much larger population so they could grow into it and they have a utopian community which is still developing. They are experimenting now with not using money. They didn’t have police until a Dutch citizen was murdered a couple of years ago. Now they have a few security guards. A lot of NGOs go there. They have many projects going on in education, health, agriculture, etc. It is under the protection of the Indian Gov’t.

David – I know you’ve recently been looking more at SEs in the US and Canada – and that you participated in the College Summit program. Can you tell us a bit about some we may find in our own communities?

And here’s a link for folks to Roots of Empathy which David mentioned above.

There must be a huge continuum of small-scale SE to larger-scale organization and/or govt programs, from individual to group actions, etc. Why did you choose the ones you chose to talk about in the book — what were you looking at or trying to illustrate?

Yes, very much so. In fact the cofounder of the WSF, Oded Grajew, is a classic example of a social entrepreneur. (He made his money initially in a toy company, then started an array of initiatives to bring change, including the WSF and the Ethos Institute.) Oded is a member of Ashoka’s Global Academy. Ashoka is an organization that supports SE globally. It is a central part of the story in my book HTCTW.

Very hard to choose among so many. I looked at people whose ideas I thought gave insights into ‘ways’ of problem solving that were particularly promising. Also people who came from different walks — so the characters in the book are social worker, journalist, doctor, nurse, engineer, management consultant, divinity student turned teen educator, lawyer, ceramist, etc. I wanted to show the many different ways that people have discovered they can apply their skills to bring change and have challenging and rewarding lives.

I am a failed entrepreneur. I attribute this to the lack of vision of the financial sector which did not explain to me what was lacking in my biz plan. Without real feedback there can be no “new approach” at the problem. In my case it just seemed like I had to keep knocking on doors and so to this day I haven’t learned what was wrong with the biz plan… it was never tested and all I did was fail at getting the money to launch it. I am not sure this applies to the discussion here about learning from failure and thinking outside the box for social problems. My biz plan was addressing many problems and turning the solution into something that would make investors money provide jobs yadda yadda yadda.

I need some of my own social engineering!

Just adding a link to the Auroville site here.

Auroville sounds fascinating – though more as retreat than outward force? and perhaps with a more religious foundation than many of us might be comfortable with.

Here are a few organizations I’ve been researching lately out of about 80 I’m currently examining for my new book.
Sports4Kids
YearUp
Genocide Intervention Network
Institute for One World Health
First Book
Institute for Healthcare Improvement

The National Institutes of Health has an annual extramural budget of about $25 billion, the majority of which is distributed in the form of 3-5 year grants of between $200,000 and $500,000 per year to independent biomedical scientist investigators–most of whom have academic faculty positions.

The grants are allocated on the basis of a complex system of peer review of investigator-written grant applications by panels of scientists who are experts in the particular sub-area of research that an application relates to. Each application describes an existing problem, question, or issue in biomedical research that needs to be addressed, and proposing a method for addressing it.

Some of the basics are available here, and on neighboring pages of the NIH Web site.

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/grant_basics.htm

Adding some links here for folks:

Sports4Kids

YearUp

Genocide Intervention Network

Institute of One World Health

First Book

Institute of Healthcare Improvement

Actually, Auroville is pretty secular. It was created by Mira Alfassa (The Mother) because she wasn’t entirely satisfied with the Sri Aurobindo Ashram. It’s the ashram that’s religious but Auroville isn’t part of the ashra; although the matrimandir is in Auroville and makes lots of money for the guesthouses, it is under the auspices of the ashram, not Auroville.

I think it’s interesting that we focus on and rely so much on governmental solutions yet we celebrate “people powered politics” – and I wonder how we can expand our thinking to understand that there is much we can do ourselves and that in doing that we create a new environment that inevitably alters government as well.

When you look at many of the SEs, they function in societies where governmental services are so remote to the problem they work on, they perhaps would not even think of looking to government as the answer. So I wonder if we are perhaps “spoiled” in ways which lead us to look to government, even when we are very unhappy with it, instead of to ourselves? just thinking out loud here…

And I also do think of something like our Blue America – until Howie, John and Jane got us going on that, I’m sure none of us would have expected to be involved in a PAC! yet we are and are having an impact …

Prof,

Aren’t alot of the NIH grants related to drugs that Pharma wants double blind studies of so that they can manufacture it for profit? So our tax dollars are doing the “proving” for for-profit companies? Where’s that at?

Siun, I like the way you think. Government isn’t the answer here–it’s people to people that works. Another out-loud thought: understanding our motives and our aims is critical for succeeding

Siun,

As good as it is to get “good” dems in office, I don’t like the idea of tossing money at politics. It’s just coming from little guys who don’t get to attach a puppet string. We need to get cash out of politics! So Blue America needs to find away to put itself out of business!

yes – and we see in examples like Jeroo’s work with the street kids of Bombay that there’s enormous power in building solutions *with* the constituency. So much of what “we” do involves patronizing expert approaches instead of that collaborative let’s solve this together thinking (and I’m not even going to mention how our foreign policy is the most extreme of this!) When you read David’s book, you’re reminded that people are wise and creative and powerful all over the world – and how much we can learn if we start to listen to their voices and stories!

and how much we can learn if we start to listen to their voices and stories

This may involve learning languages other than English :-)

and how much we can learn if we start to listen to their voices and stories!

The healthy aspect of narrative (part of the narrative being the unseen aspect: listening).

This has been a very interesting and enlivening discussion. I don’t feel as depressed as I did half an hour ago about the state of the world. I read in the NYT that a right wing Hindu who colluded in a massacre in Gujarat was elected by an overwhelming majority and I got really depressed. Now, I feel more hopeful.

So true, Du.

I think that one of the ‘awakenings’ today is the recognition that we have been asking our governments to accomplish things that they are not well designed to accomplish. it’s one thing to mail everybody a check, or to enforce a regulation. it’s quite another to develop a policy and then go and implement all the things that need to happen, very well, for that policy to achieve its desire intent. If we asked an investment bank to go out and, for example, create a series of innovative technology companies to fix the health care information problem, they wouldn’t know how to do it. just because the government has the money and the responsibility, doesn’t mean that it has the whole array of human qualities and knowledge bases needed to solve problems on a large scale. so we have to ask what is government really good at? what are the SE’s good at? what are businesses good at? how do we make sure that we are asking organizations to do things that they are equipped to do. and bring them all together.

Hope is nice, but I wouldn’t put too much faith in it!

Aren’t alot of the NIH grants related to drugs that Pharma wants double blind studies of so that they can manufacture it for profit?

Some are, but I wouldn’t characterize it as “a lot”. The vast majority of the expense of trials of proprietary drugs owned by drug companies are paid for by those drug companies.

Most of the extramural NIH budget goes to independent biomedical scientists like me, who use those funds to discover new things about fundamental biological principles, biological mechanisms of disease, and new approaches to preventing and treating disease.

I don’t agree that a government cannot solve problems and can only send checks and so forth.

Governments are what they people ask them to be in a democracry and they can do some good things. WPA was a perfect example of the government solving real social problems… and it really turned around the economy, created infra structure and jobs.

We could very well do another WPA today, from inside of government. KBR and Halliburton stay in Dubai please, to develop new rail systems, rebuild our falling bridges and roads, ports, power grids, water systems and so forth. Please no “private enterprise” is the best way to do this.

Do you know the percentage of pure research as opposed to “for industry” research?

Re Siun @ 73: “So I wonder if we are perhaps “spoiled” in ways which lead us to look to government, even when we are very unhappy with it, instead of to ourselves? just thinking out loud here…”

I often wonder about how important it is or not for masses to experience true hardship to positively shape values and behavior on a large scale. Measured hardship (ideally in the form of self discipline) is far more preferable than alternating between boom and bust, yet is difficult to maintain when one ascribes caretaking to government. It’s not as simple as that, as the government does assume some important power and responsibility, but there does appear to be a crucial space occupied by ‘community’ that rests between the individual and government and, while perhaps not directly experiencing hardship is at least more stimulated to take initiative to act. It is Community that appears poised to become more powerful and positively effective. Obviously the interconnectedness offered by the Net is a playing field for this to occur in new dimensions.

Some are, but I wouldn’t characterize it as “a lot”. The vast majority of the expense of trials of proprietary drugs owned by drug companies are paid for by those drug companies.

Something like 80% of pharma research dollars goes into “me-too” drugs, which is just a patentable difference away from an exiting blockbuster. (Think Viagra, Cialis.)

I do not know the percentage. All NIH grants and their dollar amounts are a matter of public record. You can do keyword searches and the like here:

http://www.sunshine-project.or…..search.php

I took a look at the essay on happiness, and I want to comment on that, if you please.

The very idea of the pursuit of happiness is really turned around. Some wag once wrote that it was the happiness of pursuit, not the pursuit of happiness, and while we chuckle and smile, that person was closer to the truth than one may think.

One of the most traumatic episodes in my very young life was when, in a moment of sheer bliss, I was rudely brought up to “reality” buy an authoritative figure saying “What have you got to be happy about?” and demanded to know what external event occurred to bring about this state. I could not identify anything, and immediately went cold inside. Had I committed some sort of sin?

The point is, I was happy. I was born happy and I was taught to see that state as somehow suspect, because I hadn’t erned it.

There is no need to pursue happiness. There is only the need to let go of that which prevents one from living his/hers blissful state. It’s taken many years to come back that, and in doing so, has lifted the burden of deserving happiness by my actions and not as a birthright, which we all possess.

I will read your book, David. The micro credit idea is one of the most powerful ideas I have seen in many, many years.

Than you, and best wishes to all during this season of joyfulness and love.

As we wind down today’s Book Salon, I want to thank David for joining us today and sharing his thoughts. Like “slouching,” I find David’s book and the movement he writes about a very valuable response to the depression we face as we look at so much around us. Seeing individuals who act and inspire provides us with new – and energizing – options.

I hope firepups pick up David’s book – and use it to inspire their own social entrepreneurism!

David, do you know if any notion of “micro-equity” has been tried, where individuals purchase equity stakes in very small enterprises, analogous to micro-loans, as a way of generating start-up operating capital? It seems like it could be possible to set up a Web site where people describe their business ideas and sell equity in the businesses. Even if the business is something like running a fruit stand or shining shoes.

I think that one of the ‘awakenings’ today is the recognition that we have been asking our governments to accomplish things that they are not well designed to accomplish. it’s one thing to mail everybody a check, or to enforce a regulation. it’s quite another to develop a policy and then go and implement all the things that need to happen.

That reminds me of a computer – it, too, can sort, execute rules, etc (your govt – GIGO?) but you can’t ask it to think up ideas.

How dare you be naturally happy! *g

That’s a depressing statistic. Jon Tester was talking about the problem of increasingly privatized universities, where all the research is funded by business — and nothing that doesn’t have the potential to yield profits for them gets funded.

Someone got me on the phone the other day saying they were raising money for breast cancer research and went on a 5 minute spiel just assuming I’d be behind it before I could get a word in edgewise. “What exactly are they researching?” Silence.

I said she could call me again when she found out.

David I look forward to reading your book early in the new year. I struck at the curious process this salon is manifesting today. Some linear thinking that’s off-topic, some ‘muzzy’ (pun intended–please don’t take that as an insult!) thinking that is to the point. I am curious how many of these SEs are gifted with the ability to be both direct (in terms of being very clear about their aims) and yet also able to think flexibly/non linearly about the process they’re in. I suspect quite a number of them.

Thank you SO much for your efforts and for spending time here today! Best wishes for a productive, healthy year!

And may you continue to be so, now that you’ve found your way back!

Ditto. Thanks so much for taking time to be with us, today.

The dogs also take a moment from chasing the tennis ball to “Holly Jolly Christmas” to say thanks.

Something like 80% of pharma research dollars goes into “me-too” drugs, which is just a patentable difference away from an exiting blockbuster. (Think Viagra, Cialis.)

Another a wrinkle is to get an already established drug approved for another use, an anti-depressant used for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. A wrinkle on the wrinkle is simply to use drugs for off label uses. Various anti-convulsants, for example, have been prescribed for pain, mood stabilization, and even migraine.

PhysioProf – do you know the work of Kiva? that’s close to what you’re describing.

David,

Thanks, I’m gonna buy!

it’s a nice sentiment — ‘govts are what people ask them to be’ — but is it true? governments today cannot ‘be’ what the public wants because they are constrained by a whole array of organizational and structural limitations. for example, how can policy makers who must show positive results every 2-4-or-6 years realistically support policies that are future oriented. the Grameen Bank took about a decade to demonstrate its model convincingly. it only started lending money principally to women in its 8th year. That’s the end of the president’s second term! the shutter speed of politics is out of whack with the natural cycle of innovation. it takes a long time to problem solve. years to figure things out. SE’s spend year exporing approaches before they spread widely. how does that jive with the government’s incentive structure. another thing: govt’s need to be accountable often ends up stifling innovation. you often can’t justify a good idea until it’s been on the market for years. many great companies lose money for several years before they show their promise. a government will pull the plug on a losing idea long before it can cross that line.

the kind of government that is friendly to innovation is a new version of governement. government 2.0 or 3.0. and it will look very different than the way it looks today. i don’t know know what it will look like. but i know that the change is necessary.

Jon Tester was talking about the problem of increasingly privatized universities, where all the research is funded by business — and nothing that doesn’t have the potential to yield profits for them gets funded.

The National Institutes of Health funding for biomedical research is a success story at preventing this kind of thing from happening. Anyone who is in favor of the pursuit of knowledge generated by universities being targeted and driven by the interests and passions of individual scholars and scientists–rather than by profit-driven business concerns–should be in favor of robust federal governmental funding for research.

I personally do not receive any funding for my research from for-profit private entities. However, as the federal science budget gets tighter and tighter, the pressure to seek and obtain such funding get higher and higher.

Julia sunday upstairs.

Thank you everybody for a wonderfully thoughtful exchange. It’s been a pleasure meeting the Firedoglakers! Happy Holidays and may 2008 bring a more peaceful world.

That is loans. I was thinking of equity–i.e., ownership stake in the business.

Thank you David, I really enjoyed the discussion.
and as ever, thank you Siun

Thanks, David! It was a very stimulating discussion.

I suspect the HIH grant process is now polluted by industry plants who came in through the revolving door.

I sat in on house sub committee hearings and it was an eye opener.

Great ideas from a great thinker!

Dubaltach, in case you’re still around, now that we’re hanging out at the foyer of the salon as it’s ending–today’s GG is incredible. I appreciate that much, much hard work went into bringing it out (although I have no idea HOW that happens…but I’m imagining a lot of why the site was down yesterday has to do with today’s fantastic post).

I suspect the NIH grant process is now polluted by industry plants who came in through the revolving door.

Actually, the NIH is one of the few executive branch bureaucracies that hasn’t been completely destroyed by the Bush regime. The overwhelmingly vast majority of career civil servants who administer the peer review and grant portfolio systems are Ph.D. and/or M.D. biomedical scientists who are not political appointees. Only the head of the NIH itself is truly a political appointment; even the heads of the individual institutes that make up the NIH are genuine biomedical scientists.

There has been no politicizing/privatizing revolving door at NIH. This is not to say that there haven’t been ideologically driven decisions–e.g., most prominently, in the case of embryonic stem cell research–made that relate to NIH. But NIH is one of the few executive agencies that hasn’t been severely tainted by the Bush regime.

Maybe this is because they don’t grant Ph.D.s in the biomedical sciences at Regent University!

PhysioProf, were I to ask you how you enjoyed the Golden Compass today, would I be making a completely inaccurate and off-the-wall guess?

You would. I have no idea what the “Golden Compass” even is.

The one about the little girl learning to walk again? Yes it is a very beautiful story.

As to us:

We’ve been under a massive attack for last two weeks both hacking attempts and Distributed Denial of Service attacks. We had to bring the site down we were already planning to take advantage of the proximity of Eid and Christmas to move the more important parts of “Guides” to separate servers, bring in new facilities for members, harden the site, etc. This made doing that even more important and a lot more stressful.

Nur Khaled and Mohammed have put up the Christmas greeting which means I can take it easy tomorrow I doubt we will post anything further. Or do much posting until January.

I am so sorry to hear this, although not surprised. Your process sounds difficult and expensive. Is there a way to donate to GG’s site?

As to your second paragraph, I hope everyone in the GG family can enjoy their hard-earned rest for the rest of this month. Here’s to peace in the new year, and wishing health and strength to all of you.

Without denying that a lot of “me-too” drugs have little business coming to market, I’d like to say a word in defense of others.

Sometimes there’s a race to market between two or more similar-seeming drugs. One may be way ahead of the others in its stage of clinical research and regulatory filings. Does that mean the others are worthless me-too’s? Not if the first crashes and burns in Phase III on the basis of efficacy and/or safety and one or more of the stragglers proves more worthy. Without getting specific, this happens.

Other times, as with antiviral or oncology drugs, the human stakes can be so high that a me-too drug in an existing class could be considered a worthwhile advance even if it affords only a modest incremental improvement in efficacy or tolerability.

Finally, although first-in-class drugs can carry medical science to new heights, they can also prove — often at an exorbitantly expensive late stage of development — to possess fatal flaws that rightly keep them from entering the market, or (if too subtle to be picked up in Phase III) get them pulled from the market later on. In my day job, over the past several decades, I’ve seen this happen far more often than dazzling successes.

That’s just to point out that developing truly novel medications is a spectacularly high-stakes game. A company’s rational calculus may net out in favor of paths of lesser resistance. In such cases, the system that gave rise to the calculus may be at greater fault than those acting on the calculations.