Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Growing Insulin 251

McLuhanesque writes "The Globe and Mail reports that a Calgary biotech firm has developed a process to turn genetically modified safflower oil into human insulin in commercial quantities. The process reduces capital costs by 70% and product cost by 40%. 'SemBioSys says it can make more than one kilogram of human insulin per acre of safflower production. That amount could treat 2,500 diabetic patients for one year and, in turn, meet the world's total projected insulin demand in 2010 with less than 16,000 acres of safflower production.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Growing Insulin

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @11:06PM (#15747669)
    As a type 1, insulin dependent, diabetic, I really don't care. I want a cure. I don't want more externally produced insulin, I want to make it myself again.
    • by Atmchicago ( 555403 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @11:25PM (#15747728)

      I understand that a cure is viewed as better than a treatment, but you can't just pick to find a cure, or pick to find a treatment. Reducing the costs of producing human insulin, and at the same time gaining additional scientific knowledge should be of great use. Who knows, perhaps a cure to type I diabetes is now one step closer?

      • No, the cure is now several steps further out. As long as insulin prices would remain high then a cheap-to-produce cure would have an extremely strong market position. With a dramatic cut in the cost of insulin a cure that cost the same amount to produce is less interesting to pursue.
        • by jcr ( 53032 ) <.moc.cam. .ta. .rcj.> on Thursday July 20, 2006 @12:10AM (#15747858) Journal
          With a dramatic cut in the cost of insulin a cure that cost the same amount to produce is less interesting to pursue.

          What utter nonsense. Even if insulin was cheaper than air, who in the world would lose interest in not having to monitor his blood sugar and take injections, risk blindness, amputation, and all other hazards of diabetes?

          • The insurance companies, of course... It's them that are running the show here in the US.
            My out of pocket costs are probably 4x or 5x of what I used to pay '98. In fact, I'm using cheaper insulin now, because I'm not using insulin pens anymore.

            After all, do you really think that the out of pockets costs will drop because the supply of insulin has gotten much cheaper?

            - YAIDP (Yet Another Insulin Dependent Person).
            • by jcr ( 53032 ) <.moc.cam. .ta. .rcj.> on Thursday July 20, 2006 @03:28AM (#15748305) Journal
              The insurance companies, of course...

              They're the ones who would benefit financially from not having to pay for complications of diabetes. It seems that you don't have much understanding of the economics of insurance. Curing diabetes will save tens of billions of dollars, no matter how cheap insulin gets.

              • by smatthew ( 41563 ) on Thursday July 20, 2006 @08:21AM (#15748899) Homepage
                amen - I spend (well, the insurance company spends) much more on test strips than on insulin.

                Retail: a bottle of insulin is $20. That lasts me approximately 14 days
                In those 14 days I will use between 70 and 140 test strips, which cost about $.50 a piece. So lets say $50.
                Also - in those 14 days I will use 5 sets of supplies for my insulin pump. At $17 a pop, that's $85

                Out of that total $155, the insulin is only 13% of the cost. Granted the insurance company doesnt pay retail for anything, and I absorb a small fraction of the cost through deductibles, but it will still end up only being 13% of the cost of the daily supplies.

                And let's not talk about the $5,000 insulin pump that only works for 4 years, or all the doctors visits, blood work, ER visits if I become sick......

                A cure for Type 1 diabetes would save the insurance companies a fair amount of money in the mid-term, and extremely large amounts of money in the long term.

      • I understand that a cure is viewed as better than a treatment, but you can't just pick to find a cure, or pick to find a treatment.

        To some degree what you're saying is true. But that doesn't mean that there aren't directions that are far more likely to lead to a cure, and other directions that are far more likely to lead to better treatments. I think it's pretty obvious that research on producing insulin cheaper is far more likely to produce a better treatment, and pretty unlikely to lead to a cure.

        Who kn
      • by CarpetShark ( 865376 ) on Thursday July 20, 2006 @07:31AM (#15748756)
        There are multiple cures already available, but they haven't been widely performed for numerous reasons. Pancreas transplants are considered too risky to do unless there is already a major operation (such as kidney transplant) required. Islet cell replacement required cells from aborted foetuses, last I heard.

        I understand that each group of researchers will have their own specialisations, and that not everyone COULD work on a cure, even if there was no need for improved/cheaper insulin (which there is). I heartily agree with the grandparent poster though; insulin is a poor substitute for a normal life, and a cure would be MUCH better, so it would be nice to see the main focus going on that. The medical fees that entire nations pay for insulin, needles, swabs, glucometers, diagnostics strips, tablets, etc. -- often four or more of most of these things per day, per patient, at £0.50 per diagnostic strip alone, must make up a pretty large profit for medical companies. I really don't mean to accuse people of being motivated by money, but I do often wonder if this doesn't sometimes subtly cloud their sense of what's really best for the sufferers.
        • Pancreas transplants aren't used because they're unreliable, the pancreas is often rejected, there aren't anywhere near enough transplants, the immuno-suppressants interfere with insulin, and the immuno-suppressants are quite dangerous.

          Islet cell transplants are interesting: No, they don't require aborted fetus cells, but stem cells cultured from miscarriages could be the source of stem cells for one of the most promising approaches. Stem cells are not rejected by the body: I haven't seen anything about thi
      • I've got some diabetic relatives who've discussed this with me. Cheaper insulin is great, but hardly a cure, and the fiscal savings would be good. But the so-called "human insulins" when they came out were a vast disappointment to diabetics: they don't last as long as the animal insulins, and they contribute to unawareness of low blood sugars, and they cost quite a lot more.

        Diabetes is also several different diseases: Type 2 diabetics usually have insulin resistance, and Type 1 diabetics usually have a comp
        • Human insulins, or those made from rDNA, are vastly better than animal ones. The fact they don't last long is a GOOD thing for those on insulin pumps. Short-acting insulin is ideal for pumps and insulin pumps are the best way to administer insulin because they behave like a real pancreas. For those who can't afford or don't want a pump, combining Lantus (24-hour insulin) with with Novolog or Humalog (short acting) is the best way to mimic the functions of a pump or pancreas. All in all, the 1970s called
          • This is complete balderdash. The ultra-fast-acting insulins, such as Humalog, are not that fast because they're human. They're fast because they're modified away from normal insulin of any species. The processing to create this could be done on animal insulins, or be engineered into this safflower approach, as easily as it is done for E. Coli insulin producing bacteria now. And an insulin pump with its direct connection to the body is so fast that it matters very little which fast-acting insulin you use, wh
    • You'll get your cure to diabeties around the same time I get my cure for colour blindness.
    • You know what, as someone with diabetes in his family, I'm looking more towards closer and more reasonable steps, such as pairing a continuous (and implantable) blood sugar monitor combined with an insulin pump...i.e. an artificial pancreas than curing diabetes.

      *Then* we can complain about getting people off insulin, and re-growing pancreatic cells from stem cells, and a whole bunch of other things that will cure this disease.
    • My father is self employeed (to note, anyone that talks of govt assistance go check what assitance you can get as a business owner - you know: they are all rich and can afford anything) and has to get his own insurance. As a diabetic that has had bypass surgery that is not easy - what he can get pays for no medicine at all. It will only pay for in patient surgery.

      His monthly insulin bill is around 600 dollars a month (total medication is ~1500, insurance is another ~900). While I'm sure that he would also l
    • How about here. [harvard.edu] Its the closest to a real cure for type 1 so far, and oddly, Denise Faustman [harvard.edu] has had trouble getting federal funds for what is arguably a real cure for type 1 diabetes. Makes one wonder where the FDA's priorities are - cures or selling maintenance for chronic illness.

  • by rubycodez ( 864176 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @11:09PM (#15747676)
    on how many diabetics are *produced* from an acre of sugar cane or corn used to make corn syrup. Just so we can see if it all balances out.....
    • Yeah, maybe there could be less sugar produced in the world and perhaps, this could make the consumption drop. But in my opinion, that's not what's making people become diabetic.

      What's making them become diabetic is:
      • poor nutrition habits
      • poor exercice habits
      • more importantly, the FACT that everything has suger in it.

      Seriously, if you start checking the ingredients in the food you buy, you'll notice that everything has sugar in it. Even things that should not. This article [www.cbc.ca] sums it up nicely.

      • Just because everything has sugar in it, doesnt mean it's always the same sugar. We went from cane sugar, to beet sugar, to corn syrup, to high fructose corn syrup, and eventually genetically modified high fructose corn syrup, so in theory it might not even be corn syrup anymore.

        Genetically engineered food, is it safe? I wouldnt be surprised if it caused diabetes. My advice, don't eat so much corn. If you must deal with corn, use ethanol.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Just wanted to point out that sugar (or too much sugar that is) is a contributing factor for the less serious Type II Diabetes, but the more serious Type 1 or Juvenile Diabetes is not caused by too much sugar, and some may take offense at the suggestion that they brought such a terrible disease upon themselves, especially when many develop the disease as young children.
    • For the case of Type I insulin-dependent diabetics which are the primary group this technology advance would benefit: None

      There are two main types of diabetes (with a couple of oddball variants that are rare, diabetes mellitus describes the final symptom of elevated bloodsugar, there are a few possible root causes of that symptom, which determine the type). Type I is known as insulin-dependent or juvenile diabetes (because it is rarely diagnosed past the age of 20). It is caused by the immune system attacking the beta cells of the pancreas. Eventually all beta cells die and the body can no longer produce any insulin, so it must be provided from an external source. Type I is generally considered to be the "severe" form of diabetes because of this fact. Prior to the discovery of insulin, average life expectancy after diagnosis was 1-2 years, and the disease killed younger children faster than teenagers. Oh, it was a rather slow, painful, and unpleasant death too. Essentially no matter how much you ate and drank, your body would slowly dehydrate and starve.

      Type II is usually referred to simply as adult-onset diabetes, because until recently, it has been unheard of for young people to develop it. (A high prevalence of childhood obesity is changing this). In Type II diabetes, the body does produce insulin, but for various reasons it is not enough, whether it is due to reduced capacity or increased demands beyond normal capacity, or a combination of both. Most of the time, once diagnosed, Type II diabetes can be managed solely with oral medication which increases the body's sensitivity to the insulin it does produce, and in many cases controlled solely with diet and exercise. (Losing weight can often cause Type II diabetes to disappear.) It is extremely rare for Type II to require external insulin rejections. Interestingly enough, while Type II is less "severe", this very fact makes it far more dangerous because it frequently goes undiagnosed for long periods of time, and the elevated bloodsugars do damage to various parts of the body.

      This is definately an interesting development, but how will this company deal with patented "designer" insulins such as Lantus (from Aventis Pharmaceutical, a special "peakless" insulin used to provide a long-acting baseline insulin dose), and Novolog/Humalog, two "extremely rapid acting" insulins that actually take effect FASTER than injecting normal human insulin. FYI, "human insulin" is insulin produced by genetically engineered bacteria that is identical to human insulin, it is NOT extracted from humans, unlike pork and beef insulins which were extracted from the pancreases of pigs and cows respectively. While I'm sure their technology will work with Lantus and Humalog/Novolog, I don't know how the companies that produce the above three will react to this. Most likely they'll license the technology from this new company (if it works) or vice versa... I hope so.
      • Mod parent up (Score:2, Informative)

        by lbrandy ( 923907 )
        Too much ignorance in this thread. Diabetes is one of the most misunderstood diseases in existence.
        • There are also a lot of insulin resistant diabetics who must take insulin, and they tend to take far *more* insulin than a classic Type 1 diabetics. Since Type 2 diabetics outnumber Type 1 by about 20 to 1, even a small percentage of Type 2 diabetics taking so much insulin easily doubles the requirement for insulin worldwide.
      • Type II is usually referred to simply as adult-onset diabetes, because until recently, it has been unheard of for young people to develop it. (A high prevalence of childhood obesity is changing this).

        This "childhood obesity" could very well be affected by the high consumption of HFCS-sweetened sodas and food products, right?
        Just TRY finding a soda that doesn't contain it in the US - the only ones I've found are the Italian fruit sodas at Target. And I've found only one brand of bread that's baked sans HFCS

        • Just TRY finding a soda that doesn't contain it in the US
          Presumably the diet sodas?

          And I've found only one brand of bread that's baked sans HFCS - and it's $3/loaf.
          Bake your own.
        • Like someone else said, diet sodas don't contain HFCS (though most create a whole different health issue by containing aspartame - exceptions that use sucralose include Diet RC, Diet Rite, Diet 7UP, and Pepsi One). Regular Coke is made with sucrose instead (not that it's much better for you). Remember New Coke? That was their attempt to switch to HFCS and it failed. Companies like to use HFCS because it's cheaper than sucrose. All non-diet Pepsi-brand sodas are made with it.
    • Corn Syrup will be much much sweeter when we genetically engineer it. Just wait, it will be x1000 sweeter and more syrupy. Mmm Syrupy Syrup! We humans were designed like flies, it's in our genes.
  • by Spinn12 ( 989688 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @11:10PM (#15747679)
    As a nurse, with a specialization in diabetic care, I am always chomping at the bit for new technology with diabetes. It is sad that so many cases go untreated, ending in loss of limbs, eyesight and so much more. In the end, taxpayers get hit with the brunt of the bill, because the majority of those who do not treat their diabetes neglect to do so out of financial inability.

    For there to be a light at the end of this proverbial tunnel is amazing news. Let's hope that this continues to be researched, tried and brought to the general population with as little convolusion from outside sources as possible.

    Sadly, medicine is still business first and foremost. Some drug company will make a mint from this. Let's hope that someone somewhere has a conscience that won't allow them to make this treatment as financially restrictive as most everything else is.
    • ending in loss of limbs, eyesight and so much more.

      Not forgetting the most recent articles posted about the links to Alzheimers [upi.com]

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Even by the usual standards of economic illiteracy here, this is pretty dimwitted. It can only drive *down* the cost of insulin; a new route to making insulin can't possibly make it cost *more*.
      • a new route to making insulin can't possibly make it cost *more*.

        You mean in 16 years when the patent expires and anyone can do it, right?

        Most likely they'll charge the exact same as everyone else (ie, at least as much as the insurance companies will pay) and not one cent less. (And people whine that the government distorts the market...)
        • Most likely they'll charge the exact same as everyone else...

          Then why would anyone buy it from them? They're a new company, and while the product is chemically identical to the products from established companies, it's made in a new way, with the possibility of unforeseen new types of trace contaminants, et cetera.

          No one is going to change suppliers from the established companies to the new company unless they have a reason, and the only possible reason this new company can give them -- since the product i
          • No one is going to change suppliers from the established companies to the new company unless they have a reason, and the only possible reason this new company can give them -- since the product is identical -- is a lower price.

            Huh? Nobody goes out and just buys a drug for the hell of it, not legally anyway. Doctors prescribe drug X to a patient. Lots of doctors don't even care what X costs to the patient, maybe it's the only drug that will do, or maybe they just assume the patient has insurance that will
      • a new route to making insulin can't possibly make it cost *more*.

        Unless of course it bypasses regulatory hurdles allowing drug manufacturers to drop the older, lower profit method and/or they collude to use the new method as an excuse to raise prices.
    • This isn't treatment technology, it's production technology. All it will do is bring down prices. The real "light at the end of the tunnel" is the artificial pancreas, an insulin pump + CGMS. All the pieces are there; we just need a few more generations of CGMS tech and some good algorithms.
    • and more worried about the fanatics who go out of their way to stop genetic engineering, even on plants. No matter the benefit to man these nature nazis will destory, impede, and otherwise FUD even the most beneficial discovery.

      Drug companies will use this if their costs are lower and the chance for profit remains the same. I do have a question, why shouldn't the drug companies make money from something they work to create?

      If it was so damn important for a government to step in a take the work of a private

    • Sadly, medicine is still business first and foremost. Some drug company will make a mint from this.

      "Sadly"? I don't think so -- the profit motive has done more to advance medical science than altruism ever has. (Not to knock altruism, though. I say, let's get as much as we can out of both of 'em!)
  • by kahanamoku ( 470295 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @11:11PM (#15747680)
    what they NEED to work on is the way the body builds a tollerance to the insulin. After 20 years of using it, my dosages are up sixfold. if they crack the nut that stops the body from building up a tollerance to the insulin over time, they wont need to worry about diminished stock levels!
  • by Brickwall ( 985910 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @11:12PM (#15747687)
    As a type II, non-insulin dependent (yet) diabetic, I for one welcome our new safflower overlords.
  • In other news... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by woolio ( 927141 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @11:21PM (#15747713) Journal
    Meet the world's insulin consumption in 2010?

    In other news, pharmacutical companies are beginning to persuade food companies to put MORE SUGAR into foods....
    • In other news, pharmacutical companies are beginning to persuade food companies to put MORE SUGAR into foods....
      If only sugar caused diabetes.
  • by mbstone ( 457308 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @11:22PM (#15747719)
    ...implant the insulin-producing gene into Cannabis sativa L., there would be a product. Can I have some ice cream?
  • Sucks (Score:2, Insightful)

    by POKETNRJSH ( 944872 )
    Wow that's great and all but another type 1 here...I don't care where the insulin is coming from if it's not coming from ME. This is like our gas problems, why work on getting more gas when we could be working on not needing it at all? I'd rather see work done on a cure than temporary relief.
  • HFCS (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Midnight Warrior ( 32619 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @11:37PM (#15747764) Homepage

    Bring on the High-Fructose Corn Syrup [newstarget.com]. Drink more Dew. Drink more Sprite. Obey your thirst. Feed your kids drinks with less than 100% fruit juice.

    Tongue in cheak of course.

    Almost reminds you of the idea people have with introducing insects into non-native environments and the bug turns out to be hostile so they introduce a second bug to kill the first, but which turns out to be worse than the first.

    1. Farmer thirsty in corn field.
    2. Farmer tired of water and lemonade. Sees future in vending machines.
    3. Develops early soft drink laced with party enhancers.
    4. People like the buzz, but sugar is about all they can stand.
    5. Full out sugar drinks get people hyper. Farmer gets bizarre idea to melt corn into corn syrup.
    6. Farmer spits in corn syrup, calls it an enzyme [wikipedia.org].
    7. Scientist notes modified corn syrup is sweet and calls it high-fructose to cover up the farmer's spit and replaces sugar in soft drinks.
    8. Consumers fresh off the previous ingredient used to lace the drink, get hooked on zero calories.
    9. Diabetes Type II breaks out among all soft drink guzzlers.
    10. Scientist come out with new way to treat diabetes without addressing a major concern of how it all got started.
    11. No one will blame the soft drink makers.
    • Re:HFCS (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lbrandy ( 923907 ) on Thursday July 20, 2006 @12:00AM (#15747826)
      I realize that asking everyone to understand the nuances of every disease is a bit much, so I don't want to yell and scream too much. However, type I diabetics are the ones that need insulin injections. They are the ones that benefit from this. They did not get their diabetes from being overweight or from eating lots of sugar. It is an autoimmune reaction, and more than likely genetic.
    • by Surt ( 22457 )
      I'm a little confused about what you meant by:

      8. Consumers fresh off the previous ingredient used to lace the drink, get hooked on zero calories.

      Zero calorie drinks have neither sugar nor high-fructose corn syrup for sweeteners.

    • I'm getting a little tired of the demonization of high fructose corn syrup as some sort of poison on the country. There's nothing inherently wrong with HFCS, it's nearly identical to table sugar. The problem of obesity is one of people eating to many calories, and gaining weight. It's funny that the article you link to talks just as much about eating sugar as it does eating HFCS, but yet the demon is HFCS, not table sugar.

      Do you actually have any evidence that HFCS is directly causing obesity, and not ju
    • No one will blame the soft drink makers.

      Why should they? People need to take responsibility for themselves and their choices.

      If you guzzle sugar-laden crap - whether through lack of self-restraint or ignorance, that's on you, not on the people that make the stuff.

      • by njh ( 24312 )
        So say you eat berries that I sell. You eat them every day. Then your kidneys die and you spend the rest of your life in misery. Would it be fair for someone to say "If you guzzle these berries - whether through lack of self-restraint or ignorance, that's on you, not on the people that make the stuff.", given that you were ignorant? What if I suspected or knew the berries contained an incidious kidney poison?
  • Cross contamination (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fermion ( 181285 ) * on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @11:49PM (#15747795) Homepage Journal
    Despite what the labs says, we have seen probable cases of cross contamination between licensed seeds and unlicensed seeds. This has lead to hybrid plant, which are not necessarily a problem, and harassment of farmer who have been found in possession of the seeds, harassment because the guilt is assumed. So one wonders what will happen when 16000 acres of this stuff planted around the world. If cross contamination does occur, will the safe for average human consumption? Will the farmer's be harrased if the licensed seeds or plants are on thier properties?

    Certainly like GM food, GM plant for medicine production is a great advancement. I just worry about these things getting into the wild, since the GM companies have had such a devil may care attitude in the past. Despite the statement of work for the public good, profits never seem to be cut in a effort to make the product safer, or the distribution widespread.

  • by jhylkema ( 545853 ) on Thursday July 20, 2006 @12:10AM (#15747859)
    The process reduces capital costs by 70% and product cost by 40%.

    And the consumer price will be increased by 20%.
    • And the consumer price will be increased by 20%.

      Not really-- according to TFA, the whole point of this new production process is that, being cheaper, it'll enable the manufacturers to sell it at prices below current retail, thus giving them a competitive advantage. If they did what you're suggesting, what would be the incentive for people to buy their more-expensive insulin over the varieties currently on the market?

      Knee-jerk rants about wicked capitalists and heartless pharmaceuticals aside, this seems li
    • by MourningBlade ( 182180 ) on Thursday July 20, 2006 @12:50AM (#15747942) Homepage
      And the consumer price will be increased by 20%.

      The insulin market is highly competitive. There's also many varities of insulin. If this one can't make a splash on price or on some other quality, it'll go nowhere.

      As much as I dislike the AMA-FDA/Congress-Insurance-Pharma cartel, in this instance it's not all that accurate.

  • by ShaunC1000 ( 928875 ) on Thursday July 20, 2006 @01:33AM (#15748059)
    as a type 1 diabetic it amazes me that there isn't a generic insulin yet. Synthetic insulin has been around for how long now? Luckily I have insurance that covers pretty much anything I need minus a small co-pay, but I know the supplies I need costs my insurance company hundreds a month. You would think insulin and test strips could be made on the cheap by now. I guess its way too profitable for that.

    Check out joinleenow.org - they need $11 million (they have $9 million so far) to test a possible treatment and cure using BCG, which I think costs $11 a vial. It amazes me how little support they're getting (maby because it could cure/treat diabetes on the cheap?). So far they have reversed 90% of type 1 diabetic mice.
  • Our late cat's insulin had to live in the refrigerator and even with that would lose some potency on a time frame of months.

    Presumably Eli Lilly extracts insulin from the E. Coli vats on a fairly quick time scale.

    So how is the insulin in these safflower plants supposed to survive a growing season outdoors?

    I'll let someone else make the "well, they're in Canada" joke.
    • Well, they're in Canada in a cell. Molecules inside a cell can survive for decades unchanged (e.g. your DNA). They can certainly manage it for a few months between planting and the harvest. Inside the cell they're coddled in exactly the right environment. But bring 'em out and put them in a bottle -- expose them to oxygen, light and varying temperatures -- and they start to decay.
    • It is not. Plants don't start making seeds in the end of the growing season. Seeds are already very good containers to store small amounts of protein and fats in. They are not designed that way, but have evolved into that because that is what gives plants a better chance to reproduce.
  • by Ancient_Hacker ( 751168 ) on Thursday July 20, 2006 @07:21AM (#15748733)
    Er, no. It's unlikely to be much cheaper. For several reasons:

    • The cost of insulin is likely to be dominated by the costs of research, marketing, distribution, insurance, and the other ingredients that go into the bottle, which control the speed of the insulin release.
    • This new technique is likely to be patented, which ups the production costs. The patents on the current kind of grown insulin will run out soon and then that price will drop, while this new one will stay up.
    • Products are priced to be competitive, not to greatly undercut the competition.
  • More like increases profit by 40%...
    • Price != cost.

      If their cost decreases by 40% and their price doesn't move, their profit goes up by a number that depends on how much profit they're making on it at the moment, only getting a 40% increase in profit if their current price is 200% of their cost.

      More likely, their cost will drop by 40%, and their price will drop by... say 15%, maybe 20%. Their profits still go up, but the consumer gets their insulin for less, and the competitors are at a 15%, 20% price disadvantage, ie the company gets more m
  • Worldwide demand for insulin is forecast to soar to 16,000 kg by 2010, from an estimated 4,000 to 5,000 kg last year, because more people are developing the disease and are being diagnosed earlier in their lives

    The increase in diabetes has been linked to obesity. It frustrates me that we put so much research and money into treating the symptoms and not the source. I admit it seems like a hard sell to convince people to become healthier, but I believe if there was a large ad campaign, discounts for he

Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration. -- Thomas Alva Edison