Actually, the real reason is probably that due to high fuel prices, people switched to smaller cars and fuel prices dropped again in the 80s. Once fuel prices dropped, the solar power was considered too expensive by comparison, especially in the 80s 'money is everything' culture. If you read the article, it says that even now, the power is four times the price of regular 'non-clean' power.
As for the cancer drug, I have yet to see a legitimate article claiming that it isn't being developed, just a lot of articles speculating that it might not be. I'd imagine that if the American Cancer Society, for example, didn't jump on this and fund the research, there'd be hell to pay with a lot of their donors.
What purplkat said. Also, the cancer drug IS being researched in humans.
http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/ "The University of Alberta’s DCA Research Team is set to launch clinical trials on humans in the spring of 2007 pending government approval. Knowing that thousands of cancer patients die weekly while waiting for a cure, Dr. Michelakis and his team are working at accelerated speed, condensing research that usually takes years into months. Fundraisers at the University of Alberta are determined to raise the money to allow this next phase of research to begin. Once Health Canada grants formal approval, the University of Alberta’s Research Team will begin testing DCA on patients living with cancer. Results with regards to the safety and efficacy of treatment should be known late this year."
The articles talking about worries about it not being researched were referring to the fact that because no pharmaceutical company owns the patent on it, no company would be willing to privately fund it, such that individual donations, cancer society donations, and government grants will have to make it happen entirely on their own. Normally drug development is funded by pharmaceuticals hoping to make a buck off a patent.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-10 03:17 pm (UTC)As for the cancer drug, I have yet to see a legitimate article claiming that it isn't being developed, just a lot of articles speculating that it might not be. I'd imagine that if the American Cancer Society, for example, didn't jump on this and fund the research, there'd be hell to pay with a lot of their donors.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-10 03:57 pm (UTC)http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/
"The University of Alberta’s DCA Research Team is set to launch clinical trials on humans in the spring of 2007 pending government approval. Knowing that thousands of cancer patients die weekly while waiting for a cure, Dr. Michelakis and his team are working at accelerated speed, condensing research that usually takes years into months. Fundraisers at the University of Alberta are determined to raise the money to allow this next phase of research to begin. Once Health Canada grants formal approval, the University of Alberta’s Research Team will begin testing DCA on patients living with cancer. Results with regards to the safety and efficacy of treatment should be known late this year."
The articles talking about worries about it not being researched were referring to the fact that because no pharmaceutical company owns the patent on it, no company would be willing to privately fund it, such that individual donations, cancer society donations, and government grants will have to make it happen entirely on their own. Normally drug development is funded by pharmaceuticals hoping to make a buck off a patent.