Not that this news will make anyone feel better, but Harvard University is richer than ever before. The unversity's endowment grew more than $5 billion during the 2007 fiscal year to reach a whopping $34.9 billion.

Am I the only one who is shocked by that? Just for comparison, the GDP (or purcashing power) of Burkina Faso, which is as you know, an entire country, home to 14 million people, is $18.76 billion.

The rich of course get richer because they can afford the best. The company that manages the Harvard endowment apaprently posted a 23% return on its investments. I don't suppose they'd consider managing my measly portfolio.

Posted by Apoorva Mandavilli at 03:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

What's the drug of choice in your city? Cocaine? Methamphetamine? Or a simple cup of java?

Turns out it's a lot easier to find out than lurking in alleyways or crashing hipster parties. Scientists from Oregon State University have figured out a way to test an entire city for its drug use — legal and illegal.

The scientists sampled about a teaspoon of water from the sewers — because that's eventually where what people consume ends up — of 10 American cities and tested them for 15 different drugs.

The results, which they presented the Amercan Chemical Society meeting in Boston on Tuesday, are not all that surprising in the end. Here are a few gems:

Most Americans are not too wild and crazy, and their drug of choice is caffeine. People in the midwest are a little more conservative and don't seem to indulge too much in meth use. One city with a heavy gambling industry — Las vegas, anyone? — shows meth levels five times higher than other cities.

I have no doubt New York has its share of drug use, what with all our models, actors and and hyperactive investment bankers. How do you think your city would fare?

Posted by Apoorva Mandavilli at 03:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

You know that really, really fast rattling off of side effects at the end of every drug ad on TV? That's there because companies are requried to present a "balanced" picture of the risks and benefits.

But seriously, who can understand a word beyond the rapid-fire "You may experience nausea, headache, blah blah, blah" or read fast enough to decipher the side effects that rapidly scroll down?

Well, apparently the FDA is planning a study with 2,000 people to see whether people are too distracted by the cheery ads to notice the risks. To which I say, Duh. This is such a sadly obvious stalling tactic: "Look, we're doing this study, and we can't take any action till our analysts have told us what it all means."

It's also damage control. Last week, a report in the New England Journal of Medicine said that in 2006, the FDA sent 21 warnings to companies about their ads, down from 142 in 1997. The amount companies have spent on ads went up a whopping 330% during that same time.

Here's another sad little fact that the Associated Press mentioned in its coverage of this issue: The U.S. is one of two industrialized countries that permit TV drug ads -- the other is New Zealand.

Posted by Apoorva Mandavilli at 03:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

A rather and confusing and counter-intuitive report came out earlier this week, when scientists announced that uncircumcised men who wash their penis after sex are increasing their risk of AIDS.

This is of course contrary to all common sense. Washing after sex, and hygeine generally, is always presented as the way to avoid sexually transmitted infections. So it's not clear why the longer the men waited to wash after sex, the lower their risk of HIV infections became.

Unfortunately, the scientists didn't ask the men how exactly they washed, according to the New York Times, which reported the story on Tuesday. This could be important because the soaps used in Africa are more irritating than the ones in the US, for example, and could be contributing to the bizarre observation. The researchers say it's also possible that vaginal secretions, which are acidic, may be harming the virus. The latter seems unlikely to me — surely if vaginal secretions offered some protection, women would not now be the brunt of the epidemic?

In any case, resolving this seemingly contradictory study is important so public health workers can spread the right message about cleanliness — and not unwittingly put men even more at risk.

Posted by Apoorva Mandavilli at 02:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)