Perhaps it's the sweet California air, but the pervasive (though not universal) pessimism in biopharma these days is really bumming me out.  Consequently, I'd like to discuss three potential responses to difficult industry problems.

Barack Obama’s presidency has had profoundly negative consequences for our national security. From debilitating cuts in defense budgets, to gutting national missile defense efforts, to his unwillingness to acknowledge a continuing war against terrorism, to his inability to stem the nuclear proliferation threats posed by North Korea and Iran....the picture is bleak.

The Global Fund is to be commended for its transparency, but it has failed to act on the information it has gleaned, and continues to allow its funds to be used by governmental distribution systems known to be corrupt.

Foreign policy and national security will take center stage tonight as Republican presidential hopefuls tackle questions from American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation scholars live on CNN.

While the United States has more or less effectively taken advantage of the opportunities afforded by China’s rise, its record on addressing the challenges posed by that rise is shakier. These challenges, of course, are great and threaten to directly impinge on U.S. national security interests.

Denial of access by al Shabaab militants, and in some cases by other armed militias, is the single greatest obstacle to the provision of humanitarian assistance in Somalia.

Case studies of European states--Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Poland, and Sweden--suggest the need for greater defense cooperation and pooling of military resources among European states.