Think you pay too much for prescription drugs? An interesting study released today in PLoS Medicine, an online journal, offers a bit of global perspective: For tens of millions of people around the world, buying a basic drug like the antibiotic amoxicillin is a road straight to poverty. 

The authors of the report took the cost of four basic drugs used to treat fairly ordinary conditions -- diabetes, high blood pressure, asthma, and bacterial infection. Using pricing information from 16 lower- and middle-income countries, they calculated how poverty rates would rise after patients purchased the drugs. The results, while not terribly surprising, do provide a blockbuster portrayal of what we've long known anecdotally. Buying brand name amoxicillin, for example, would push an additional 34 percent of Uganda's population into poverty levels of less than $1.25 a day. Even middle-income Indonesia would see an additional 39 percent of its population become poor from purchasing the drugs.

What's to be done? One answer has been the creation of consortiums to donate and subsidize the purchase of drugs, but that system isn't without drawbacks either. Another forthcoming study, one of whose authors is FP contributor Roger Bate, finds that corruption in the donated drug industry sees a solid percentage (6.5 percent in the study) of the anti-malarials sold off onto the market, rather than going to the government clinics where they were sent. 

Of course in many ways, these studies are two sides of the same coin. Medicines are too expensive for their consumers in many a country -- and hence, the profit from selling them is (in relative terms) enough to entice people to put their medicine up on the black market. Want one more externality? Fake drugs. Patients in desperate need of a pill are susceptible to the temptation of a cheaper version -- even if it's not guaranteed to be real.

Yesterday I touched on Fidel Castro's apology for anti-gay measures that occurred under his rule -- including detaining gays in forced labor camps -- calling it a "great injustice." But this is not Castro's only clarification of late. The former Cuban leader seems hellbent on crafting his legacy in a more positive light. Why the re-emergence, and why the rehabiliation campaign, now?

As revealed in La Jornado Monday, Castro was "at death's door" in 2006. At the time,  speculation was rife that he had already died. Thus, it makes sense that Castro is pushing himself in the limelight -- faced with death, the old revolutionary wants to clean up his name while he has a chance. There's certainly also a chance that he has mellowed in his later years. As he's no longer facing the threat of assassination, his stress levels have also probably declined some.

Perhaps most interesting are the pictures of Jeffrey Goldberg -- yes, that Jeffrey Goldberg -- accompanying the old revolutionary on various stops throughout Cuba. How Goldberg -- rather than, you know, a journalist with a background in Cuban affairs -- came to be side-by-side with Castro is a total mystery. But I'm sure we can look for Goldberg to illuminate his trip in the near future -- though I imagine it'd garner a lot less interest than some of his other recent writings. (Council on Foreign Relations expert Julia E. Sweig was also on the trip.)

In addition to his comments on gay rights, Castro said during a press conference with Goldberg that he is by no means an anti-Semite:

I was never anti-Jewish and I share with him a deep hatred against Nazi-Fascism and the genocide perpetrated against the Jewish people by Hitler and his followers.

President Barack Obama has made tentative steps to end the hostility between Cuba and the United States, and Castro's words may be a recognition of that. While his brother is now president, it's obvious that Fidel's words carry great weight in the island nation. Maybe it's time for Obama to launch a more audacious foreign policy venture, one that may even bear some results: a direct meeting with Castro. Perhaps the old U.S. nemesis could aim to improve relations in his last years. More importantly, it'd prove that engagement is -- as it should be -- still a part of the Obama administration's strategy, and it would send another signal to the rest of the world that, if you are reasonable, the United States will deal with you.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev may be on Twitter, but he was not amused when Kirov's regional governor Nikita Belykh decided to post his thoughts during yesterday's State Council session. (Many thanks to the Wall Street Journal for translating the highlights.)

The bizarre story, which really could have only happened in today's Russia, began when Dmitry Zelenin, governor of Russia's Tver region, noted "State Council. 1 Minute to session." But it was Belykh's  furious pounding out 140-character messages that made things interesting. He first noted:

10-15 people at the State Council are sitting with iPads. They used to sit with laptops. Darned stenographers ;)

(He immediately followed his own tweet by asking if they were in fact "doing other things.")

As Medvedev spoke, Belykh posted the tweet that started the brouhaha:

I support your idea of presidential Lycees, Dmitry Anatolievich. Kress. Actually, that was my idea ;(

At this point, Belykh was publicly reprimanded by Medvedev, who had got wind of the governor's feelings: "Nikita Yurievich Belykh is posting something on his Twitter page right now, during the State Council session, as if he has nothing else to do." You'd imagine, at this point, that Belykh would stop Tweeting and pay sharp attention to the rest of the session. You'd also be wrong, as Belykh blamed Medvedev's adviser Arkady Dvorkovich for narking on him:

There you go ;(. Dvorkovich leaked my reports to the President. Such are the costs of the information society ;(

It's clear that Dvorkovich himself was paying more attention to his feed than his boss as he playfully chided Belykh:

At least the record was set straight :)

Other attendees got in on the act, claiming that Belykh's list of followers was destined to rise as a result of the exchange. After the meeting, Medvedev responded to Belykh on his own (Russian-language) feed:

Yes, those are the costs of the information society. The important thing is that they don't distract from work, right?

As a side note, Medvedev's English-language feed follows President Barack Obama, the White House, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and the Kremlin's Russian feed, but only Obama and the White House have returned the favor.

Last weekend, one of China's most prominent science writers and watchdog journalists, Fang Shimin was brutally attacked. Fang -- who writes under the pen name Fang Zhouzi and is known for his droll wit, anti-fraud crusades, and exposés on scientific quackery -- has described the incident on his blog, New Threads. Science magazine published this summary:

According to Fang's account posted on New Threads, he came out of a teahouse near his apartment complex around 5 p.m. on Sunday with two TV journalists who had interviewed him about Li Yi, a Daoist abbot who has claimed to have performed supernatural feats. After Fang saw the journalists into a taxi, a man walked up and sprayed something in his face. When Fang ran across the street, a second man chased him with an iron hammer and threw it at his head. Fang dodged the hammer. The man picked it up and threw it again, hitting and bruising Fang in the back. After Fang ran into his apartment complex, the two men left and he called the police.

As Science went to press, Fang had not responded to a request for comment, and the unidentified assailants remained at large. Beijing's police department confirms it has opened an investigation.

In July, Foreign Policy ran an article about an attack on another science journalist in China, Fang Xuanchang. It's tragic to note the headline for that piece by Sam Geall is true once again, two months later: "A chilling attack on a controversial science journalist in Beijing bodes poorly for scientific progress."

Evan Osnos has more on the New Yorker's site:

As for the attack, Fang’s lawyer, Peng Jian, was quoted in the Christian Science Monitor saying he thought the attack was linked to his reporting on a private hospital in Zhengzhou, the capital of Henan Province, which specializes in a controversial operation on the nervous system to control urinary incontinence. As it happens, that was the same subject that Fang Xuanchang wrote about shortly before he was stalked and attacked on his way home. (That case remains unsolved.)

At the very moment that China is dedicating itself to spurring innovation, protecting those who call for world-class science standards would be a welcome innovation of its own. Catching the attackers in these cases is a natural way to start.

Exciting news, FP readers. The March/April 2010 issue of the print magazine was nominated for the American Society of Magazine Editors' (ASME) Best Cover of the Year Contest in the "Best News and Business" category.  This issue was our first-ever special on the future of combat and depicts a camo iPhone decked with digital-era war apps. So, stop what you're doing right now and go vote for FP!

According to Amazon:

"The Best Covers of the Year Contest honors the most memorable, compelling, and iconic covers of the last 12 months. The 72 finalists were selected from over 250 submissions and judged by a group of over 30 editors, art directors, and photo editors. The covers selected provide a vibrant snapshot of American culture, celebrity, and political preoccupations."

Another good reason to vote: you could win a Kindle!

Last night, my best friend and I made a toast. Our generation has lived its entire adult life under the Iraq war. And everything -- from the way that we see global affairs, multilateral cooperation, conflict, and politics -- has been shaped by that conflict.

What that has meant for our generation, the late 20-somethings who were old enough to see their peers, family members, and many other young soldiers disappear into war, has of course varied from person to person. But here are some observations about how Iraq has colored the way we look at the world. 

1) We are starry-eyed multilateralists. For those of us who were just learning what activism meant when the war was launched, the lead-up to the Iraq War in the U.N. Security Council was front and center. I vividly remember Hans Blix's speeches before the panel; I remember Colin Powell's presentation as if it was yesterday. And I also remember the devastating critique of America launched in a speech by Kofi Annan, who at that point spoke for much of the world when he said that Washington had pushed too hard and too fast. So as a result, my generation has grown up respecting the United Nations, seeing it (and institutions like it) as offering a more just world. That's one reason, I believe, that the Save Darfur movement has gained so much momentum and was partially responsible for getting a peacekeeping mission authorized for western Sudan back in 2007. We are a generation of idealistic multilateralists -- and despite its flaws, we want our country to work with the U.N.

2) We care about civilian casualties. Credit this one to the countless scholars, journalists, and writers who have chronicled what it meant to be an Iraqi living through the Iraq war. But credit it also to Abu Ghraib prison, where we all saw the worst of war. And to the renewed emphasis on winning hearts and minds that American learned the hard way when Iraq and Afghanistan took turns for the worst.

If this observation is right, my generation could reshape public perception of warfare. For most of history, conflicts have been judged by the toll taken on one's own force with less regard for the local population. I don't think that pattern can hold. Wasn't anyone else struck by the fact that about 4,400 U.S. troops perished in Iraq -- and 100,000 Iraqi civilians did? Plus there's the 2 million refugees who have fled. That's not collateral damage; it's primary damage.

3) We don't like haters. September 11 showed us for the first time that there are people who hate America. But the aftermath has also taught us that aggression can make more trouble than it solves. And as such, we want leaders who take the high road -- who speak calmly and understand the diversity of both our country and our world. But speaking isn't enough; we want activist presidents who go out into the world to seek change -- and aren't afraid to admit if and where they were wrong.

4) We are used to thinking of America on the decline. My generation is in many ways the "rise of the rest" generation. The splits in the Security Council were just the beginnings of the decline of American hegemony in the world. Now there are economic signs (a whopping unemployment rate), military signs (we finished in Iraq but didn't really win), and moral signs (granted I haven't been around Washington for terribly long, but do you remember the last time Congress was so divided?) But more than that, my generation has watched the rise of China and India. We've been abroad and we've seen the momentum that a country like Poland or Chile or Brazil has captured. And when we come home, that's missing.

Of course, I am but a subset of my demographic group, and no one authorized me to speak on behalf of my peers. But like the generation that grew up in Vietnam, we will be the Iraq generation. What that means is not yet clear, but it begins now. It's day one of life with no Iraq War.

Exciting news,FP readers. The March/April 2010 issue of the print magazine was nominated for the American Society of Magazine Editors' (ASME) Best Cover of the Year Contest in the "Best News and Business" category.  This issue was our first-ever special on the future of combat and depicts a camo iPhone decked with digital-era war apps. So, stop what you're doing right now and go vote for FP!

According to Amazon:

The Best Covers of the Year Contest honors the most memorable, compelling, and iconic covers of the last 12 months. The 72 finalists were selected from over 250 submissions and judged by a group of over 30 editors, art directors, and photo editors. The covers selected provide a vibrant snapshot of American culture, celebrity, and political preoccupations."

Another good reason to vote: You could win a Kindle!