Animal Mimicry-- The Art of Deception

Mimicry is an art.

Human seeks to mimic animal call, other humans, a certain repertoire for the purpose of hunting, defence, or simply to entertain. But even a seasoned mimicry artist of our world would have paled in comparison to some of the masters of mimicry of the animal kingdom.

For them, mastering the art of mimicry is a matter of life or death.

A Stick Insect. Image:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phasmatodea

Most animals mimic to defend themselves. Some to attract mate, and some, for example chameleons
and alligator snapping turtles mimic(or camouflage) for food.

An Alligator Snapping Turtle. Image: www.itsnature.org

Yesterday I read this article about a phorid fly, Vestigipoda longiseta, from southeast Asia, that mimics ant larvae.

Image:http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/adult-fly-mimics-ant-larva/

The long “grubworm” part of the body is simply the enormously elongated and unpigmented abdomen of the adult. This has all evolved from an ancestor that looks pretty much like the flies you know.

You can imagine why natural selection would favor this resemblance: the ants tend and feed the larvae, and mistake the flies for their own brood. It’s a lifetime of free lunches! The ants also protect the flies and carry them (like they carry their own larvae) when a colony is on the move.

An adult of V. longiseta being carefully carried by an Aenictus ant. Image: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/adult-fly-mimics-ant-larva/

Why can’t the ants detect these intruders? Well, they’re not terribly harmful, getting just a bit of food from the colony, so there’s probably not strong selection to weed them out. Ants, of course, have pretty bad vision, so they probably can’t see the intruders as different from their own brood. There’s probably chemical mimicry going on here as well: the hydrocarbon molecules on the fly’s cuticule may well resemble the compounds on ant larvae, so that the ants, who “taste” these hydrocarbons, are fooled by chemical mimicry.

Another master of mimicry that I would like to introduce to you all is the Mimic Octopus. Read my previous post~

A Mimic Octopus. Image: zmescience.com

And another one which really amazes me is the Superb Lyrebird. I remember watching a video about the mimicry power of this bird when I was in Form 2, and I thought it was fake. Given the handicapped technology of that time, and the level of maturity of the audience, I was unable to record the episode for further review.

A Superb Lyrebird. Image:cae2k.com

Nevertheless, I found this video on youtube yesterday. Watch as Sir David Attenborough (Sir David Attenborough is a fantastic naturalist; down-to-earth, full of knowledge, a titan of science) relates the ability of this bird to mimic the call of every other birds, including other sounds it hears: chainsaw, camera shutter, cars... FOR REAL!

A planthopper mimicking a leaf. Image:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mimicry_of_Siphanta_acuta_edit1.jpg

Image:falkenblog.blogspot.com

Image:http://conservationreport.com/2008/11/08/

Caterpillar mimicking a snake to scare off birds. Image: www.amnh.org

Dead-leaf butterfly. Image:http://conservationreport.com/2008/11/08/

How Mosquitoes Fly In The Rain

Have you ever wondered how insects, especially small ones like mosquitoes and flies survive the downpour?

Raindrops pose hazard to mosquitoes because of their relatively large mass and speed. A mosquito is around 2~5mm in length, weighs around 2mg, and flies at 1m/s. On the other end, a drop of rain has 1~4mm radius, weighs 2~50 times the weight of a mosquito, and travels at 5~9m/s. Putting that into perspective, it's like us getting hit by a blob of water with the size of a shopping cart, weighs 3 tons and travels at 18~32 km per hour.

It's an irony that the delicate blood-sucking parasite thrives in wet, rain-laden tropical country like Malaysia. Wouldn't they be crushed to death by the raindrops?

Image: en.wikipedia.org

Mechanical engineer David Hu of the Georgia Institute of Technology who thought of this question placed some mosquitoes in a cage and exposed them to water drops. Slow motion footage showed that rather than dodging the water drops, the insect flew right into the them.

Since the mosquitoes were so lightweight, the raindrops lost very little momentum upon impact. By minimizing resistance, the insect minimized the impact of collision. So instead of flattening the insect, the water drops simply spun the mosquitoes away, though the insects recovered soon afterward.
It's like an asteroid hitting a piece of paper: the paper is so lightweight that it's just pushed aside.

And nature has given mosquitoes a helping hand: mosquitoes are designed to be hydrophobic, thanks to the hairs on the mosquitoes' body. The hairy surface increases the wing's surface area, and thus its energetic cost of wetting. Thanks to this hydrophobicity, low speed drops simply bounce off the insect.

Image: rationaldiscoveryblog.com

Moreover, insects are blessed with hard exoskeleton to help them withstand the impact. And mosquitoes could withstand sudden acceleration of up to 300Gs. If we were in a comparable situation we wouldn't even survive past 2Gs.

Thanks to its tiny weight and hydrophobicity, the evil parasite lives to suck another victim.



info:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWyoy44oV3Q
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/mar/31-how-mosquitoes-survive-in-a-downpour
http://inkfish.fieldofscience.com/2012/06/why-you-cant-kill-mosquito-with.html

Why Do We Cry When We Cut Onions?

I hate cutting onions. Actually, I used to hate cutting onions. Now I am not bothered by the tears. Onions were just too good to give up over a few tears.


When we cut open an onion, we allow an enzyme called alliinases to react and break down amino acid to generate sulphenic acid. At this point the chemical still remains on the cutting board-- so how does it get to our eyes?

Image: diyhealthtips.com

A second enzyme called lachrymatory factor synthase or LFS later mix with sulphenic acidto form, get ready for this, propanethiol S-oxide. Propanethiol S-oxide is a volatile gas, and it travels readily in the air. When the gas reaches your eyes, it mixes with water in your eyes to form sulfuric acid. This prompts our eyes to release water to irrigate the irritating invader.

The natural reaction to the Propanethiol S-oxide invasion is to shut your eyes. This, of course, is not a good idea if you are cutting an onion. Rubbing your eyes is a bad idea, since your hands are likely full of the tear-making onion juice, and by rubbing your eyes you are actually transferring the sulphenic acid to your eyes, in addition to the sulfuric acid induced by the Propanethiol S-oxide gas.

Image: funadvice.com

So how do you keep from crying? I believe there are many methods out there, or some traditional methods passed down from mom to child. One that I have tried and works is from WikiHow.  It suggests briefly freezing the onion, using a sharp knife, and cutting near a strong fume hood. Downside- I never prepare far enough in advance and freeze the onion.

Another tried and true, if not inconvenient method is to cut underwater.  I believe the water dilutes the chemicals making it a cry free experience. But then who has the time, space and inclination to cut onions underwater every time?

Otherwise, I'll stick to wearing goggles. This works like a charm, is quick and ideal for the lazy chef.

Image: trianglevisions.com

info: 
http://www.sciencebob.com/questions/q-onion_tears.php http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaqs/f/onionscry.htm http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaqs/f/onionscry.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion#Eye_irritation

Who Really Invented The Computer?

In the process of beginning to teach my son about computer programming we came upon the topic of computer.  An obvious requirement for learning to program. As an Apple family, we have only Macintosh computers.  But my son asked who invented the computer.

No, it wasn't Steve Jobs.

While Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs did lay the groundwork for the home computer revolution, they cannot be credited with the device itself.

Some people might say Alan Turing, the guy who, in the 1930s, laid the foundation for computational science.

Back in college I was a dual computer science and marine science major.  I did actually take a rather dry course on the history of the computer.  Going back into the early days of vacuum tubes and electro mechanical counting machines, even some discussion of the ancient abacus. But one name came up over and over. Charles Babbage.

 Did an eccentric mathematician named Charles Babbage conceive of the first programmable computer in the 1830s, a hundred years before the idea was put forth in its modern form by Alan Turing?

Charles Babbage? Yeah it got me wondering too, and thinking... after all a small software retail chain was names after him until its demise in the 1990's.

Image: en.wikipedia.org

I wiki-ed the guy and here's some fact about him:

He was born 1791 and died 79 years later. He was born in London into a quite well-off family. Smart but constantly plagued by health problem, he loved mathematics and was a member of the Ghost Club, a club concerned with investigating the supernatural.

In Babbage's time, numerical tables were calculated by humans who were called 'computers', meaning "one who computes". At Cambridge, he saw the high error-rate of this human-driven process and started his life's work of trying to calculate the tables mechanically. He began in 1822 with what he called the difference engine, made to compute values of polynomial functions..... using the method of finite differences, it was possible to avoid the need for multiplication and division.-- wikipedia.

Babbage, however, didn't manage to build his machine due to cost overrun and political disagreements. He did, however, completed the plan of the machine, and the Science Museum in London actually built the machine in 1991, and guess what, it actually works.

Image: computerhistory.org

So Babbage did came up with the concept of computer in 1800s. But he didn't actually build it. So can he really be called the Father of Computer? I'll leave it to you to decide.

I am quite certain Mr. Babbage did not imagine a world of iPhones and iPads, and wireless internet. But his early ideas did pave the way for these devices.

info: http://techland.time.com/2011/11/10/who-really-invented-the-computer/

Pufferfish toxin

The Pufferfish is considered the second deadliest vertebrate in the world, after the Golden Poison Frog. The common image we have of this creature is that it inflates when threatened. I have kept these fish in an aquarium, and in my experience they rarely puff out in captivity.

What makes the Pufferfish, also called the Fugu so popular is the lethal toxin in its liver, skin and the ovaries, and the fact that the Japanese treat it as a delicacy. Pretty ironic I guess? By the way it is extremely expensive and prepared only by trained, licensed chefs who, like all humans, occasionally make mistakes.

Image: blogs.bootsnall.com

Almost all pufferfish contain tetrodotoxin, a substance that makes them foul tasting and often lethal to fish. To humans, tetrodotoxin is deadly, up to 1,200 times more poisonous than cyanide. The toxin paralyzes the muscles, including the muscles in our diaphragm, which is essential for breathing. The victim eventually dies of asphyxiation. There is enough toxin in one pufferfish to kill 30 adult humans, and there is no known antidote. Tetrodotoxin has been isolated from widely differing animal species, including western newts of the genus Taricha (where it was formerly termed "tarichatoxin"), pufferfish, toads of the genus Atelopus, several species of blue-ringed octopuses of the genusHapalochlaena (where it was called "maculotoxin"), several sea stars, certain angelfish, a polyclad flatworm, several species of Chaetognatha (arrow worms), several nemerteans (ribbonworms) and several species of xanthid crabs.

Tetrodotoxin molecule

Image: gastroville.com

Negative aspects aside, Puffer Fish makes cute companion.

Of course, don't go around scaring puffer fish because a puffer fish could only perform a limited number of inflation in its life.

Image: animals.nationalgeographic.com

When a Pufferfish is threatened, it will pump itself up by taking 35 gulps or so in the course of 14 seconds. Each gulp draws in a big load of water thanks to some peculiar anatomic changes in the muscles and bones. The entire fish balloons as it continuously takes water into its stomach.

The stomach expands to nearly a hundred times its original volume, and the fish's spine, already slightly curved, bends into an upside-down U shape, and all other internal organs become squeezed between the fish's backbone and its rapidly expanding stomach. Meanwhile, the fish's skin is pushed out, obscuring most of the puffer's features-http://divingintaganga.blogspot.com/2010/09/how-and-why-pufferfish-inflate.html

Image: Sally J. Bensusen. American Museum of Natural History.

Sometimes they have difficulties expelling water from their stomach, and hence they actually risk dying every time they inflate. I guess we should record a default video showing one individual inflating itself on a public website to prevent curious divers/swimmers/fishers going around harming more Pufferfish. Pufferfish belong to family Tetraodontidae is a family of primarily marine and estuarine fish of the order Tetraodontiformes. The family includes many familiar species, which are variously called pufferfish, puffers, balloonfish, blowfish, bubblefish, globefish, swellfish, toadfish, toadies,honey toads, sugar toads, and sea squab. They are morphologically similar to the closely related porcupinefish, which have large external spines (unlike the thinner, hidden spines of Tetraodontidae, which are only visible when the fish has puffed up). The scientific name refers to the four large teeth, fused into an upper and lower plate, which are used for crushing the shells of crustaceans and mollusks, their natural prey.

With all of this, many people still consider Fugo to be a delicacy , especially in Japan.


info:
http://www.aquaticcommunity.com/predatory/pufferfish.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugu
http://divingintaganga.blogspot.com/2010/09/how-and-why-pufferfish-inflate.html

Fireflies glow

How does a firefly produce it's glow?

The simplest answer would be bioluminescence. But that alone doesn't explain the mechanism and the rationale of exposing your whereabouts to potential predators at night.

Fireflies are familiar, but few realize that these insects are actually beetles, nocturnal beetles. Most fireflies are winged, which distinguishes them from other luminescent insects of the same family, commonly known as glow worms.

Glow worm. Image:barryjnorthern.blogspot.com

There are about 2,000 firefly species, thriving in a variety of warm environments, as well as in more temperate regions. Fireflies love moisture and often live in humid regions of Asia and the Americas. In drier areas, they are found around wet or damp areas that retain moisture.

Image: animals.howstuffworks.com

Fireflies have dedicated light organs that are located under their abdomens. The insects take in oxygen and, inside special cells, combine it with a substance called luciferin to produce light with almost no heat. Wow.

Firefly light is usually intermittent, and flashes in patterns that are unique to each species. Each blinking pattern is an optical signal that helps fireflies find potential mates, though we aren't sure exactly how the insects regulate this process to turn their lights on and off.

Image: animals.howstuffworks.com

Firefly light may also serve as a defense mechanism that flashes a clear warning of the insect's unappetizing taste. The fact that even larvae are luminescent lends support to this theory. Females deposit their eggs in the ground, which is where larvae develop to adulthood. Underground larvae feed on worms and slugs by injecting them with a numbing fluid. Adults eschew such prey and typically feed on nectar or pollen, though some adults do not eat at all.

Why do fireflies glow?

One reason that fireflies glow is to attract a mate. Males and females of the same species will flash signals back and forth as a way of communicating. Each firefly species has its own particular pattern. For example, the fireflies of one species will fly around in the night sky and dive steeply just as the flash begins and turn upward to make a distinctive J-shaped pattern of light. Female fireflies hang out on a tree branch or in the grass while the males fly around showing off their best flashes. When a female recognizes the flash from a male of the same species, she will answer with her best flash.

Another reason that fireflies glow is to avoid predators. Fireflies are filled with a nasty tasting chemical called lucibufagens, and after a predator gets a mouthful, it quickly learns to associate the firefly's glow with this bad taste! So not only does the flashing help attract a mate, but it also warns predators to stay away.

Other creatures with bioluminescence.

Other glowing animals would be those eerie-looking deep sea dwellers; angler fish, and certain species of shrimp and plankton.

Angler fish. Image: animals.nationalgeographic.com

Image: lukaj.net

info: 

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/dna/firefly/

animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/bugs/firefly?source=link_tw20110610firefly

Top Dogs of Big Pharma

 Top Dogs of the Pharmaceutical Industry

Summary

The pharmaceutical industry is comprised of over 40 pharmaceutical firms and biotech companies.  Many are international and global firms.  In total the industry represents billions of dollars in sales and employees hundreds of thousands of people worldwide.  Some of the largest members of the industry are as follows: Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Astra Zeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Abbot, Bayer, Hoffman-La Roche, Eli Lilly and for the biotech sector Amgen and Genentech.  In recent months there has been a number of consolidations and mergers.  Pfizer acquired Wyeth and Merck and Schering Plough merged in 2009 as well.  To battle the issues facing the industry it is likely other mergers and acquisitions will take place in coming years.  The top three in terms of product sales and size are Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson and now Merck.

Over the last 5 years, the pricing and other competitive strategies of pharmaceutical companies have been altered by revolutionary developments in information technology, new state drug substitution laws, federal legislation, and the emergence of market institutions that include health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). The industry has also undergone significant structural changes that include growth of the generic drug segment and substantial horizontal and vertical consolidation (e.g., acquisitions of PBMs by drug companies) by drug companies. There has been considerable industry consolidation within the past 5 years resulting in fewer but larger pharmaceutical firms innovating and developing new drug products.

The strategy of the industry as a whole has had to undergo a significant shift due to external forces like government regulation, worldwide economy, corporate social responsibility, as well as competition from developing nations. The market growth for new drugs is vast as numerous baby boomers enter their older years and will become the primary consumers of new drugs.  Combined buying power of many firms, insurances and groups like AARP also have forced the industry to react.

Key success factors like drug innovation, product quality, fostering trust and partnerships and alliances are all contributing the new strategy of the industry.

           

Overview of Business Strategy & Industry Attractiveness & Competitive Strength

The pharmaceutical industry is characterized by a number to top firms with eleven major multinational companies dominating the industry. As few as 3 years ago there were 15 major firms with earnings in the billions. Table 1.1 contains information about these major pharmaceutical companies that are sorted in the order of their 2009 revenues.

Table 1.1. Major pharmaceutical companies.

Company	HQ location	Total Revenues in US $ (in millions)	Employees	Fortune 500 Ranking
Johnson & Johnson	NJ, U.S.	61,897	118,700	103
Pfizer	NY, U.S.	50,009	81,800	152
Roche	Switzerland	45,304	80,080	171
GlaxoSmithKline	UK	44,491	99,003	168
Novartis	Switzerland	44,267	96,717	183
Sanofi-Aventis	France	40,870	98,213	181
Merck	NJ, U.S.	33,478	101,530	378
AstraZeneca	UK	32,804	65,000	268
Abbott	IL, U.S.	30,765	68,838	294
Bayer Health Care	Germany	22,297	108,600	154
Eli Lilly	IN, US	21,836	40,500	435
Source: 2009 Annual Reports of the companies

The pharmaceutical industry is currently undergoing a period of very significant transformation. The majority of top pharmaceutical companies generate high returns, thus providing them with excess cash for further rapid growth – whether internal, or through mergers and acquisitions. Although size of the company on its own does not guarantee success, it gives a significant advantage, especially in pharmaceutical industry. Besides economies of scale in manufacturing, clinical trials and marketing, bigger companies can allow investments in more research and development (R&D) projects that diversify their future drugs portfolio and make them much more stable in the long term. As the result, top-companies in the industry were active participants of mergers and acquisitions, new joint ventures and spin-offs of non-core businesses.

The largest acquisitions in the industry during last years were the acquisition of Wyeth by Pfizer and acquisition of Schering Plough by Merck. Both acquisitions allowed these two U.S.-based companies to solidify their places among the elite of the pharmaceutical industry. In the past ten years, Pfizer also purchased Pharmacia and Johnson & Johnson purchased numerous biotech firms. In the past decade, European companies were even more aggressive in M&A activity than their American competitors – 3 out of 6 major European companies underwent mergers during the last several years: GlaxoSmithKline AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Aventis. In the past three years Schering Plough purchased, Organon, only to be purchased itself by Merck.  This rapid consolidation within the industry shows the strategy of innovation through acquisition employed by these top firms. 

Another form of structural change in the industry was establishing of new strategic alliances and joint ventures. So far as the research and development process for each drug take many years and requires significant investments, and the outcome of these investments of time and financial resources remains unclear until the final approval of the drug, “Big Pharma” companies are constantly looking for synergies that they can get from cooperation with their competitors. Last years gave multiple examples of such initiatives. For example, the alliances of Genetech and Roche, Vertext and Novartis, Amylin and Eli Lilly all show how the industry is working on strategic alliances. 

Finally, pharmaceutical companies in order to maintain strong sales growth and meet profitability expectations of their shareholders were actively selling low-profitability or non-core businesses. Quality is another key success actor for the industry.  In the past decade firms like Schering Plough and more recently Johnson and Johnson have had serious issues with quality control that have impaired their trust and respect with their stakeholders.  Fostering trust and further developing quality programs are part of the big pharmaceutical strategy.

Overview of Driving Forces

 The pharmaceutical industry showed high sales growth rates in the recent past, and a number of factors suggest that this trend will continue in the future if the industry chooses its strategy wisely, however the pharmaceutical industry faces some challenges from a number of forces and the industry must move to counter these forces.

First, due to numerous advancements in science and technology, including those in the health care industry, life expectancy in the developed countries has been steadily growing. As the result, growing proportion of elderly people promises further growth of demand for healthcare products. Moreover, according to various studies, a significant portion of elderly population in the United States and other countries does not receive proper treatment. For example, only about one third of the U.S. population who requires medical therapy for high cholesterol is actually receiving adequate treatment. As the population ages, groups like AARP, the government will have buying power to limit pricing options for the firms.

Although developing countries at the moment have a small portion of world pharmaceutical sales, these countries also have a significant potential for the pharmaceutical industry in the future. Fast growing economies in Asia, South America and Central & Eastern Europe suggest an increasing solvency of population and make these markets more and more attractive for pharmaceutical companies. Further reforms of legislation systems in the countries of these regions, especially regarding patent protection issues, will inevitably result in growing pharmaceutical sales. Generic drugs and illegal drugs made and marketed in developing nations threaten to impact sales of major blockbusters going off patent, or in the case of the illegal drugs, mimic drugs under present US patent protection. This threat of substitute products could have a significant impact on profitability.  There is a growing movement to limit the patent protection of pharmaceutical chemical entities.  The 20-year patent begins when the new chemical entity is first described.  A drug faces up to a decade in continued R&D before launch and must have an opportunity to recuperate the heavy R&D expenses and earn profits for the parent firm. According to industry statistics, only about one in ten thousand chemical compounds discovered by pharmaceutical industry researchers proves to be both medically effective and safe enough to become an approved medicine, and about half of all new medicines fail in the late stages of clinical trials.  If these laws change in an unfavorable manner, this would impact innovation and profitability of big pharma.   

Industry Attractiveness

The top firms for attractiveness are Merck and Roche.

		Market Attractiveness
		High	Medium	Low
Competitive Strength	High	Merck & Roche	Johnson & Johnson	Pfizer
	Medium	Astra Zeneca	Sanofi-Adventis	Eli Lilly
	Low	Abbot	Bayer	Glaxo Smith Kline

Looking at company size, pipeline, profit, and innovation as factors for attractiveness, and sales, quality, trust, and brand for competitive strength the top eleven firms show a wide distribution.  Of the major firms most posed for growth with the best strategy is Merck. Today, the new Merck has about 100,000 employees in 120 countries and 31 factories worldwide. Products include medications to treat cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, allergies, hepatitis, HIV as well as vaccines, animal health products and consumer health products.

Merck has recently completed many acquisitions to enhance its value to shareholders.  In November 2009 it merged with Schering Plough to enhance its pipeline of future drugs and augment its current product line. The pharmaceutical industry is evolving. Over the past ten years the industry has been attacked by societal, legislative, structural, competitive and technological changes. Technological advances, threats of increased regulation, government interference, and business and public cost containment pressures have caused firms in the pharmaceutical industry to actively seek new strategic responses and joint ventures.  Merck, amongst it peers has a strong drug pipeline, and has a strategy ta address the looming pitfalls the industry faces.

Another way Merck drives innovation is its human capital.  Its scientists and staff are the driving force to its success.  Having top talent is directly correlated with a high discovery of New Chemical Entities, which are the foundation for new drugs. Merck manages the staff by challenging them to achieve stretch goals and building their knowledge base through conferences and scientific conference participation.

Merck also innovates through applied science.  Merck will focus on a breakthrough product and try to find better ways to deliver the end result to the consumer in a way that lowers costs and maximizes profits.

Merck and Roche are at the top of the matrix for their superior earnings, drug pipeline and potential for growth in a variety of markets.  Pharmaceutical firms like GSK and Bayer have had disappointing earning, and have a minimal pipeline of new products thus impairing their attractiveness and competitiveness.

 

References

Adams C, Brantner V (2006). Estimating the cost of new drug development: is it really 802 million dollars?. Health Aff (Millwood) 25 (2): 420–8.

Bernard, Scott. (2009, October). Think different. Pharmaceutical Executive, 27-28.

Burgers, W.P., Hill, C.W.L. and Kim, W.C. (1993), A theory of global strategic alliances: the case of the global auto industry, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 6,  419-32.

DiMasi J. (2003) The value of improving the productivity of the drug development process: faster times and better decisions. Pharmacoeconomics 20 Suppl 3: 1–10.

Dubey, Rajesh, & Dubey, Jayashree. (2009). Pharmaceutical product differentiation. Journal of Medical Marketing, 9(2), 104-118.

Gilmartin, Raymond. (1999, January/February). Diversity and competitive advantage at merck. Harvard Business Review, 146.

Hadzovic, S. (1997). Pharmacy and the great contribution of Arab-Islamic science to its development, Medicinski Arhiv 51 (1-2), 47-50.

Jorde, T.M. and Teece, D.J. (1989), Competition and cooperation: striking the right balance, California Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 3, 25-37.

Klopffer, Walter. (2003). Life-cycle based methods for sustainable product development. International Journal of LCA, 8(3), 157-159.

Lin, Binshan, & Darling, John. (1999). Analysis of the formulation of strategic alliances: a focus on the pharmaceutical industry. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 99(3), 121-127.

Merck. (Producer). (2009). New Merck pipeline. [Web]. Retrieved from http://www.merck.com

Moynihan R. and Cassels, A. (2005). Selling Sickness: How Drug Companies are Turning Us All Into Patients. Allen & Unwin. New York.

Moynihan R (2005). Who pays for the pizza? Redefining the relationships between doctors and drug companies. 2: Disentanglement. BMJ: British Medical Journal. 326, 7400, 1193–1196.

Pringle, Fred, & Kleiner, Brian. (1997). Practices of excellent companies in the drug industry. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 10(1), 31-34.

Schilling M. (2008). Strategic Management of Technological Innovation, 2nd Edition. Columbus, OH. The McGraw-Hill Companies

SubbaNarasimha, P.N., Ahmad, Sohel, & Mallya, Sudhirkumar. (2003). Technological knolwledge and firm performance of pharmaceutical firms. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(1), 20-33.

Thompson, A. A., Strickland, A.J., and Gamble, J.E. (2008). Crafting and Executing Strategy: The Quest for Competitive Advantage (16th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.