Phil online

In Atlas Shrugged one of the main characters invents a fabulous new metal. He calls it Reardon Metal. It is stronger and lighter than steel. It will revolutionize industry, but it will also compete “unfairly” with existing steel producers. The State Science Institute, a fictional government agency which lately focuses more on socialistic concerns than science, issues an official statement condemning Reardon Metal:

He pointed to the newspaper he left on her desk. “They haven’t said that Reardon Metal is bad or that it’s unsafe. What they’ve done is…” His hands spread and dropped in a gesture of futility. She saw at a glance what they had done. She saw the sentences:

It may be possible that after a period of heavy usage a sudden fissure may appear, though the length of this period cannot be predicted. The possibility of a molecular reaction, at present unknown, cannot be entirely discounted. Although the tensile strength of the metal is obviously demonstrable, certain questions in regard to its behavior under unusual stress are not to be ruled out. Although there is no evidence to support the contention that the use of the metal should be prohibited, a further study of its properties would be of value.

We can’t fight it. It can’t be answered,” Eddie was saying slowly. “We can’t demand a retraction. We can’t show them our tests or prove anything. They’ve said nothing. They haven’t said a thing that could be refuted and embarrass them professionally. It’s the job of a coward. You’d expect it from some con-man or blackmailer, but Dagny, it’s the State Science Institute!” She nodded silently.

By strange coincidence, I was re-reading this book (at this chapter, even) this month when this article came out:

Advisers to the Food and Drug Administration cited lingering questions about how long the controversial implants really last before breaking and leaking inside women’s bodies as they narrowly rejected Inamed Corp.’s bid yesterday to bring the products back to the market in the United States.

The FDA isn’t bound by its advisers’ recommendations but typically follows them.

Without long-term data on implants’ safety and durability, “how we can get an informed consent from our patients?” said New York dermatologist Amy Newburger as she joined fellow FDA advisers in voting 5-4 that Inamed’s implants aren’t ready for widespread sale.

‘’We are holding it to higher standards than other implants,'’ said FDA adviser Stephen Li. ‘’This device has a 30-year history that, at best, is checkered. Given that history, it behooves us to have a higher standard.'’

Perhaps you haven’t heard, but there have been dozens of studies of silicone breast implants, each of which has failed to find a correlation between leaking (or not) implants and the various maladies which have been attributed to them.

Perhaps you did hear it, but you didn’t believe. Juries heard the scientific evidence during the trial and still found for the claimant to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Such is the power of language to obscure facts.

Even this article from the National Academy of Science is littered with speculation and innuendo. Yet, when you read only the facts stated in the document, they sound like a clear exoneration of silicone breast implants!

Strangely enough, the FDA approved another company’s request to sell the same implant technology. One article said that this shows that the FDA can be “thoughtful”.

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 14th, 2005 at 4:11 pm and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.