Science education

Steve Hodson writes that the extreme cost and limited earning potential of acquiring a scientific education in the U.S. limit student interest (C&EN, March 20, page 4). I wholeheartedly agree. Making that education free, however, is not the best solution.

My fiancée is an assistant professor in France, where this is effectively the case. She sees many students who do not take their education seriously. She is also struck by the motivation of many American students she has worked with. Having lived and worked on both sides of the Atlantic with people from all over the world, we agree that studies in the physical sciences should be encouraged and made much more affordable here, but not so affordable that they are taken for granted.

We would also do well to retain foreign scientists, rather than treating foreigners with suspicion, forcing them to wait years before they are allowed to come and go freely, or simply booting them out once they have completed their studies. Many choose to return to homes in India and China, where their expertise is properly appreciated, and they become our competition. Our treatment of highly trained would-be immigrants is shortsighted and cruel.

Hodson also writes that our high drug costs subsidize drug discovery and lower costs for nations that do not pay their fair share, and he reminds us that pharmaceutical companies pursue profit, not social benefit. As this industry is one of the most profitable in existence and Merck was able to set aside nearly $1 billion to fight Vioxx litigation, I can only agree. Regardless, it is unacceptable to deny needed medicine to those genuinely unable to pay.

The pharmaceutical industry continues to benefit from taxpayer-funded breakthroughs at universities and government labs, but the rise of direct-to-consumer advertising means they spend more than ever on marketing. Consequently, we are the most medicated population on Earth, yet less healthy than those in many other industrialized nations. Someone medically unqualified and legally forbidden to buy a drug on their own should not be encouraged to "ask a doctor," because they have been conditioned to believe that the advertised drug will make them happy; such advertising should again be banned.

Daniel F. Schmidt
Dracut, Mass.

Hodson's letter sounds like the typical drug company propaganda. Some people don't seem to be able to interpret financial statements. Nobody objects to drug companies making profits; what is objectionable are the obscene profits after research, advertising, and all other costs.

The average Fortune 500 company is doing well if it can show a profit of 8-10% of sales; drug companies consider 20% profit marginal. This has nothing to do with the cost of bringing new medications to market, something they really don't do very often, because they spend more time and effort on repackaging existing products or bribing doctors. All these profits are after costs and taxes. These companies are using monopoly practices that are permitted in no other industry.

Werner Zimmt
Tucson, Ariz.