My panel proposal is entitled How to Ensure a Diverse Tech Event:

Description
Social networking is supposed to be the ultimate facilitator of grassroots interaction between producers and consumers. In the tech space, these online interactions go offline at conferences and unconferences around the world. Social networking is supposed to level the playing field, but it’s still the rare tech conference that accurately reflects its real audience – the users, the consumers, the benefactors of technology. Are you hoping to attract more diverse audiences to your existing programming or are you tailoring your programming to diverse audiences? How can your product appeal to a diverse audience if you don’t have a diverse group developing it? Does your event allow affinity groups to connect in a meaningful way? Individuals, organizations, conference organizers, sponsors and bloggers will walk away with actionable steps they can take to diversify events. We’ll explore what event organizers like O’Reilly are doing to encourage new people to attend. We’ll explore the barriers individuals face when joining new online communities and when transitioning into offline participation, as well as opportunities for contribution within the community.

Questions Answered

1. Why is it not good enough that I already know the best and smartest people to speak on a topic?
2. How can I get diverse representation without merely showcasing a token?
3. How does diverse programming and attendance translate to a better event? i.e., Why should I bother?
4. What are event organizers sure that they’re doing right that they’re actually doing very wrong (and what should they do instead)?
5. Why are we even still talking about this?

So if you’d like to help me out and/or believe in the cause of expanding representation in the field of technology, click through, sign up/log in, and click the thumbs up. Thanks in advance.

(I have feelings about this whole thing.)

Steve Grossman starts:

When my Smartphone delivered an e-mail at 5:12 p.m. on Friday: “FDA approv…,” I knew that FDA had just announced something controversial. All public relations people (including those at FDA) have been taught that late Friday is the time to release stories you don’t want to receive much attention.

Indeed, it was the 5-day emergency contraceptive pill, Ella, that was approved.

And then:

… FDA has been a master of little-noticed decisions that create or re-position a disease category. With the new approval, they seem on relatively safe ground in deciding it is an emergency contraceptive. Apparently, there is a nuance as to whether the drug’s mechanism of actions solely delays ovulation or also makes the womb less receptive to implantation. There may be a theological difference, but I don’t see any practical difference.

And on the comparison of Ella to the more controversial RU-486/Plan B:

The main issues for FDA regarding Plan B were: should the drug be available over-the-counter (OTC) without the input of a prescribing physician and whether it should be available OTC for women under 18. In my opinion, these were not primarily scientific issues, but social and societal ones. It is completely unlike the current approval of Ella, which will be dispensed only by prescription and doesn’t raise the same societal issues or maybe doesn’t raise any at all.

Important facts to know, in case you find yourself in a discussion over Ella.

The politics of drugs are both fascinating and infuriating to me.

Bill Marler summarizes S.510, food safety legislation that passed the House last year and is making its way through the Senate now. The summary of the summary:

• USDA and FDA jurisdiction over foods remains unchanged
• Protections for farmers markets, cottage industries, and direct farm-to-market sales
• Appropriate produce safety standards
• Only facilities defined under the Bioterrorism Act need to register
• Small food processors assisted by legislation
• Flexibility for organic food
• Increased agriculture extension training opportunities
• Risk-based traceability

(via @kyledhebert)

The University of Michigan has announced it is banning continuing medical education (CME). Many university hospitals offer CME as a product. University physicians also partake in CME.

The Fighting Wolverines currently receive about $1,000,000 in such services. And in cash-strapped Michigan that ain’t chump change when libraries are being shuttered and teachers are losing their jobs.

One, “Fighting Wolverines”?!?! Uh, no. (Sorry, my alumnus dander is up.) Two, the University of Michigan is not suffering nearly as badly as the rest of the state, so that’s quite an extrapolation. This article isn’t the best-written reporting I’ve ever read for a variety of reasons. The title tells you nothing about the content of the article, it starts with a completely off-topic paragraph just to grab at the unrelated but big headline of the day, draws a tenuous analogy to the real topic, and includes not one iota of sourcing for the story, and leaves out a key detail which is that the CME it’s banning is specifically industry-funded CME.

But the ban is newsworthy. In fact, read this post at The Carlat Psychiatry Blog instead. Dr. Carlat blogs on “promoting honesty in medical education” (and has an interesting list of “pharma-skeptical” sites). This post fixes all the stuff I just complained about and refers back to a New York Times article with the following, much more helpful summary:

In the latest effort to break up the often cozy relationship between doctors and the medical industry, the University of Michigan Medical School has become the first to decide that it will no longer take any money from drug and device makers to pay for coursework doctors need to renew their medical licenses.

Related: ACCME – Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education “The ACCME’s Mission is the identification, development, and promotion of standards for quality continuing medical education (CME) utilized by physicians in their maintenance of competence and incorporation of new knowledge to improve quality medical care for patients and their communities.”

I especially liked this part:

8. “There is a need for useful healthcare-related social media tools/content/platforms/communities that pharma companies can help fill.” What? There are so many things wrong with this, I’m not sure where to begin. I’ll just cover two though for the sake of time. First, there is not a lack of these things. Again, check out all the communities on the Pharma and Healthcare Social Media Wiki. If your big idea does not add something well beyond what some of these existing, established 3rd party communities provide, it’s time to put that big idea in the trash bin.

It might not be fair, but here’s the reality. It’s harder for a pharma company than, say, a neutral 3rd party (like a patient) to create something in social media that people value. A lot harder. Why? Well, here’s the “not fair” part: people don’t like pharma companies. They are trusted about the same as oil and tobacco companies (and remarkably, less than banks). So, in order for a patient to be part of a pharma-controlled community, he or she would have to put this distrust aside and willingly share personal information about themselves, their disease, and their treatments with “big pharma.” Seem like a bridge too far? It should. There are still some unmet needs out there, but going it alone probably isn’t a winning strategy for most pharma companies. If you build it, unlike in Field of Dreams, people won’t come. Finding a trusted partner who is established and neutral might be the logical path.

TONS of resources here. Including a response to the oft-asked “What about adverse events?” question.

Blogging is an art form that is attempted by many and perfected by very few. Twin Cities Spark exists for only one reason: to Spotlight local Bloggers who have mastered their trade.

My profile appeared in February. I talk about how I got started in cityblogging, a little about my process, what other local blogs I like, what’s great about the Twin Cities, and a tidbit of advice for new bloggers.

Twin Cities Spark is the local arm of a national effort, and it’s staffed by freelance writer and editor Sara Duane. (Sara, by the way, is everywhere on the Twin Cities web. You’ve probably read her and you don’t even know it.) My thanks to Sara for reaching out.

It’s an aggregator of information about the FDA, it’s use of social media, and it’s regulation of social media use by the industries it oversees.

The Indira Gandhi International airport here will soon have a dedicated zone for storing imported and exported pharma products in controlled atmosphere till Customs checking is conducted.

The first-of-its-kind ‘pharma zone’ will ensure maintenance of the quality of the drugs and products being transported.

…

The pharma companies will have to pay for using the facility.

Customs is enough of a concern without worrying about if your product is being compromised by the storage conditions.

As part of the plan, FDA offer will Web-based videos about the agency’s tasks, such as how to find out if a drug is approved, and online forums where the public may question senior officials about how drugs and medical devices move to market. FDA will detail the services on its Web site.

The transparency project is part of the Obama administration’s Open Government Initiative, its plan to make federal agencies more accessible and to share information more widely. The FDA’s initiative is being led by Joshua Sharfstein, principal deputy FDA commissioner.