IF IT'S GOOD FOR THE AMERICANS. . .?? Le Monde informs its readers of recent efforts by pharmaceutical companies to fund short programs that will air on French television this weekend. Why is this interesting? Since 1989, European law prohibits pharmaceuticals from advertising prescription drugs. According to the article, proposals to alow advertising for AIDS, asthma and diabetes drugs have been weighed in the European parliament but ultimately rejected.

"A Heart That Beats" will air on France 2 and its affiliates on Saturday and Sunday after the evening news, and during the week at mid-day. The shows will use interviews with and testimonials of patients, doctors and nurses to extoll recent progress in medicine. The sponsorship of the ads will be clear (the article notes that the point of the shows is to allow the industry to have its logo associated with a "positive message"). Industry officials deny that they are trying to circumvent the regulations or to change prevailing european practices.

The pharmaceutical industry has invested 3.1 million euros in the project. (Click here for a currency converter) This amount is, quite simply, small potatoes compared to $2.1 billion that pharmas spent on advertising in the U.S. in 2000. Concerns over the intrusion of ads into the doctor-patient relationship, and over the added cost to consumers, have been voiced loudly since the FDA changed its policies and allowed the ads on radio and television.

Given all the reasons to be against prescription drug ads, I would hope that the French don't go down this slippery slope.

Die Zeit's Jochen Bittner reports on systemic weaknesses in Germany's response to recent terrorist threats. Al-Qaeda has issued direct threats against Germany and has recently claimed responsibility for a bomb at a synagogue on Djerba that killed 14 German tourists. According to Bittner, German security services have described Germany as a "soft target" (using the english words, no less). The article discusses German worries about small pox and dirty bombs in particular. The most significant deficiency that the article identifies is Germany's outdated information system: it is almost thirty years old, and attempts to upgrade it have been hampered by software bugs and funding difficulties. The project is now on hold.

The Times of India reports on a court curbing bill contemplated by the Vajpayee government. There is apparently a long history to these kinds of attempts (the article mentions "5 earlier occasions" where the government has had the option of moving forward on this bill, but doesn't give any more context). The bill would allow for a truth defense in cases of contempt.

The Indian Supreme Court issues the final version of its order prohibiting mining in the Aravallis. The area affected is a 250 km stretch of the mountain range in the states of Haryana and Rajasthan, where concerns over the water table and the future of the mountain range itself have been raised by environmentalists. In recent years, the Indian Supreme Court has often been a leader in the realm of environmental protection. In 2000, the Supreme Court again ordered polluting factories in New Dehli to be shut down, sparking protests over the loss of jobs. The 2000 orders were an attempt to implement orders dating back to 1993. The Court has also taken the lead in the area of traffic pollution: in 1998 it required buses in Delhi to be fueled with compressed natural gas.

I would love to see a study that attempts to determine the effectiveness of the Court's action here. American political science literature tends to doubt the effectiveness of courts acting alone (see Rosenberg, The Hollow Hope, and Epp, The Rights Revolution). But in a conversation with me in Delhi in 2000, a former government official -- and a relative of my girlfriend -- argued that the Indian Supreme Court has been rather effective in creating a constituency for itself among ordinary people, and that it might consequently have a broader effect than courts in the American context. His argument was three fold: (1) the Court has the advantage of appearing less corrupt than the other branches of government, (2) it has explicitly seen itself as taking up the cause of the "public interest" in many cases, and (3) it has made broad use of the contempt power in an attempt to enforce (1).

Der Tagesspiegel (Berlin) has a good piece on two recent press freedom case that have made it to the Bundesverfassungsgericht, Germany's constitutional court. The question at issue in these cases is whether or not authorities can listen in on cell phone conversations between journalists and criminals on the lamb.

State prosecutors learned that a journalist from Stern, a weekly news magazine, had telephone contact with Joachim Klein, a former member of the RAF, or Rote Armee Fraktion. Klein was sought for the murder of three people at an OPEC conference in Vienna in 1975. In the second case, two journalists for ZDF television news had contact with fugitive real estate tycoon Juergen Schnieder [scroll down to story on him]. Prosecutors listened in on cell phones and land lines of the journalists and of the television station were they worked. In both cases, the information led to the arrest of the fugitive.

The article also notes that around 10 000 Germans are subject to phone taps yearly. Has anyone got comparative data?

I don't know the relevant laws in the realm of German free speech law, but obviously the cases present a broad issue. In the context of threats from terrorists, for example, it is possible that one could condone the use of such wiretaps. Such was not the case here, obviously: a terrorist whose deeds lay two decades in the past and a man indicted for fraud hardly pose a grave threat to anyone's life and limb, and it would seem that any state interest in catching these folks should give way to the interest of journalists in protecting their sources.

The Neue Zuercher Zeitung has an interesting editorial caution concerning the promises of stem cell research. Apparently, a recent Swiss law requires the destruction of about 1000 embryos created through in-vitro fertilization; researchers have pressed for an extension of the time period so that existing projects can be continued. The NZZ argues that open and extensive debate is necessary to ensure that any law seeking a new extension won't appear "forced." And the paper cautions that the interest of women not to be pressured into donating embryos, and the interest of patients to have accurate information concerning the promises of stem cell research, should not be slighted. According to the paper, there is a danger that the benefits of stem cell research will be oversold.

The Times of India has weighed in on Bob Woodward's new book, Bush at War. The headline shows what's relevant for the folks in Delhi: "Bush feared al-Qaeda may use Pak nukes to attack U.S." The Times is interested mainly in the pressure that U.S. officials exerted on Musharraf to "fall in line with Washington's war on terrorism."

The best line:

"Woodward borrows from baseball lexicon to describe Powell’s tactic to soften up Musharraf. "Powell had in mind a pitcher’s brushback pitch to a particularly dangerous batter," he says. "High, fast, and hard to the head."

In cricketing terms, it would be a beamer or bouncer that bends back into the batsman."

Reason to be happy #1: Marstonalia is on line.

Reason to be happy #2: Die Zeit got a facelift. Loads faster. Cleaner pages. One complaint: the old version had a better graphic for "Mr. Check", the friendly online German dictionary superstar who went from being an inviting cartoon exclamation point to being a dorky German guy with a receding hairline, polka dot tie and sunglasses.

It turns out that I am an egalitarian, that I should vote for Social Democrat or "alternative parties" (like the Greens, I guess), and that my political preferences line up pretty well with readers of Die Zeit. I found this out by taking the following test on Die Zeit's webpage, Find out who you are!!. The questions were designed by Prof. Winand Gellner and Gerd Strohmeier. Question six, for example asks the following:

Not every member of society has success. What is the cause of the failure of individuals?

a) Humans are naturally good and are corrupted by established authorities and institutions

b) It is often quite difficult to figure out the causes of failure. Usually people who are socially and morally different from "normal" human beings end up failing in life.

c) Individual failure is caused by bad luck or incompetence of the individual in question. But everyone can obtain a new chance if he works hard for it.

??

Prof. Gellner and Mr. Strohmeier are not into subtlety, apparently.

Question seven:

Do you like risk?

a) Yes. Without risk, danger, and uncertainty there is no chance for success.

b) No. Decisions that could entail hidden, undesired or unalterable consequences should be avoided.

c) The decision whether or not to take a certain risk is best left to experts in the particular field to decide [for me].

??

"7b" is a sign of illness. "7c" shows evidence of some deep cultural divides: I cannot imagine any American I know actually picking it, but, somehow, it sounds just fine in German. Hmm.