How 20th Century Law is Undermining 21st Century Medicine
September 9, 2013
Digital and biochemical revolutions have made it possible to decode what ails us and help determine the remedy—if only Washington and the FDA would get out of the way—argues Huber, a lawyer and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, in this provocative, optimistic look at modern medicine. He envisions a free-market ideology for drug development and usage that, thanks to digital technology, will cheaply design new drugs and predict how well they perform and on whom. But Huber, who popularized the term “junk science” with his 1991 book Galileo’s Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom, believes Washington nudges doctors away from the Hippocratic oath to “prescribe regimens for the good of my patients” and toward “veterinarian ethics—the sick dog’s treatment is determined by the master’s willingness to pay.” There’s no middle ground in the war between the 20th and 21st century medicine, Huber believes—we must choose between medicine that deals with “biochemical reality” or is “favored by crowd doctors” who “cling to the view that if they scrutinize, track, certify, and choreograph things just right, they can deliver better medicine to all from afar.” Huber’s challenge is sure to spark controversy as the U.S. adapts to the Affordable Care Act.
October 1, 2013
Legal expert Huber (The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy, 2006, etc.) contends that government intervention in the science and practice of medicine is impeding progress. The author claims that the advancement of molecular biology--the ability to decipher the genetic codes of bacteria and viruses, as well as of their human victims--allows for the practice of a new kind of individualized medicine. Cheap home-diagnostic test devices now allow patients to collect their own medical information just as diabetics routinely regulate their own insulin dosages. In the not-too-distant future, it should be possible to develop specifically tailored medical protocols based on an individual's unique genome. "[M]agic-bullet science," writes the author, can become a reality if regulatory agencies do not interfere and people are allowed to take active control of their personal treatments. Huber makes the point that the kind of broad-based, double-blind experiments currently required before a drug can be marketed will become obsolete as risk factors for particular treatments can be individualized on the basis of genetic information. He predicts a future in which "the power to read biochemical text" will be democratized and information will be deposited on the digital cloud. Patients will be directly connected "with the biochemists and doctors who design clever fixes and patches and find new ways to use them as well." Huber, an opponent of Obamacare, suggests that past public policy initiatives regarding vaccination and sanitation have served their purposes and that "collective solutions" to medical issues are becoming counterproductive. The "triumphs of socialized medicine are behind us now," he writes. Huber's political polemics detract somewhat from an otherwise intriguing discussion.
COPYRIGHT(2013) Kirkus Reviews, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
November 1, 2013
Our ability to read the genetic code heralds a transformation of modern medicine. Yet many potential medical miracles remain throttled. Antiquated and stifling regulations and policies presently handcuff the evolution of molecular medicine. Huber, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, pleads for reforming the drug licensing system and advocates a culture of discovery and creativity that is willing to take risks and invest patiently in the future. He cites Herceptin for breast cancer, Gleevec for chronic myelogenous leukemia, and a cocktail of antiviral agents for HIV as examples of the might of molecular medicine. He blames a muddled and often self-contradictory legal regime which includes federal government agencies (notably the FDA), insurance company guidelines, judges, and trial lawyersfor suffocating the advancement of molecular science. Presently, the development of new drugs and vaccines is often a dawdling, more expensive than necessary, and sometimes volatile process. Although Huber's discussion of the topic is at times dense, his ardor for invigorating pharmaceutical progress is apparent on every page of this scholarly work.(Reprinted with permission of Booklist, copyright 2013, American Library Association.)