www.lesswrong.com/posts/evakCi7A7Yqb3F8qi/the-dream-machine
2 corrections found
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation’s “venture philanthropy” investments that funded the development of the first cystic fibrosis drugs back in the 1990’s.
This mixes up two different eras of CFF funding. The first CF drugs were approved before the Foundation adopted its venture-philanthropy model in 1998–2000.
Full reasoning
The timeline on the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation’s own site contradicts this.
- CFF says that by the late 1990s, two important CF drugs had already been approved.
- It then says that in 1998 Robert Beall “landed on an idea known as venture philanthropy,” and that in 2000 the Foundation made its first large investment under that model with Aurora/Vertex.
- A separate review article states that dornase alfa (Pulmozyme) was the first drug targeted specifically for CF patients and was FDA approved in 1993.
So the “first cystic fibrosis drugs” of the 1990s were not funded by CFF’s later venture-philanthropy investments. CFF absolutely did support major CF drug development, but the venture-philanthropy program came after those first 1990s approvals and is better associated with later CFTR-modulator breakthroughs such as ivacaftor/Kalydeco.
3 sources
- Our Venture Philanthropy Model | Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
By the late 1990s, two important CF drugs that helped battle some of the devastating symptoms of CF had been approved... By 1998... Robert J. Beall... landed on an idea known as venture philanthropy... In 2000, the Foundation made its first large investment.
- Advances in the Cystic Fibrosis Drug Development Pipeline
Dornase alfa (Pulmozyme®), the first drug targeted specifically for CF patients, was FDA approved for use in 1993 and remains a standard of care therapeutic in CF.
- Dornase Alfa (Pulmozyme®) | CFF Clinical Trials Tool
A Phase 3 clinical trial showed improvement in lung function and reduction in pulmonary exacerbations. It received FDA approval in 1993.
In the early 20th century, they were the sole American provider of telephone service
AT&T was dominant, but it was not the only U.S. telephone provider. Thousands of independent telephone companies operated in the early 1900s.
Full reasoning
This overstates Bell/AT&T’s market position.
Historical sources show that the Bell System was not the sole U.S. telephone provider in the early 20th century:
- A National Park Service history of the Bell Telephone Laboratories Building says that after Bell’s patents expired, independent telephone companies proliferated, and by 1904 there were 6,000 independent telephone companies in operation across the United States.
- AT&T’s own historical materials likewise say that after the 1894 patent expiration, independent competitors sprang up and within a decade there were about 6,000 independent providers.
- The FCC has also described U.S. local telephone service as being provided by both independent telcos and AT&T’s operating companies for much of the 20th century.
So Bell/AT&T may have been the leading or dominant provider, but calling it the sole American provider is factually incorrect.
3 sources
- National Register of Historic Places Registration Form: Bell Telephone Laboratories, Manhattan (National Park Service)
By 1904 there were 6,000 independent telephone companies in operation across the United States, and Bell had 1.3 million telephones in service.
- AT&T Heritage: Inventions and Innovations (AT&T)
When Bell telephone patents expired in 1894, independent companies sprang up to challenge Bell companies, and within 10 years, 6,000 independent providers served 1.5 million customers.
- In the Matter of Connect America Fund et al. (Federal Communications Commission)
For much of the twentieth century, local services were provided by incumbent LECs, including independent telcos and the AT&T BOCs.