Cause you to trust doctors or drugmakers less : 0%

Cause you to seek medical information from soures other than doctors or drugmakers : 0%

Reassure you that drugmakers are better able serve patients : 0%

Not change your feelings in any way : 100%

Drug companies should be free to set prices as they see fit : 60%

Drug prices should be the same in all countries : 0%

Drug price increases should be tied to inflation : 0%

Drug prices should be set by the government : 40%

NIH should dramaticly increase spending on Alzheimer's research without directing money away from other disease areas : 20%

NIH should dramaticly increase spending on Alzheimer's research even if it means cutting back on other disease areas. : 60%

Funding is adequate : 20%

Too much is being spent : 0%

More than $1.5 billion : 0%

$1 billion to $1.5 billion : 33%

$500 million to $1 billion : 0%

$200 million to $500 million : 33%

Less than $200 million : 33%

Yes, consumers should have access to lower priced drugs : 100%

No, there's no way to safeguard consumers : 0%

made the deal of the century : 0%

made a crafty buy : 33%

paid a fair price : 0%

overpaid : 66%

will rue the day : 0%

Wall Street loves biotech. : 0%

Wall Street loves biotech when it isn't a therapeutics company. : 0%

No, companies are being more realistic about pricing. : 50%

Nine IPOs does not a trend make. : 50%

Smart move : 37%

No choice : 12%

Boneheaded : 50%

Good news : 50%

Nice thought : 37%

Cheap talk : 0%

Empty rhetoric : 12%

Yes and it will be a big hit. : 25%

Yes, but it will be a dud. : 75%

Not going to happen. : 0%

No way : 7%

I'd prefer not : 23%

Without reservation : 46%

If the Colonel made it extra crispy : 23%

Getting to hear company presentations : 16%

It stimulates ideas and gives me a good read on the industry : 16%

The parties : 33%

I can meet anyone I need to in San Francisco that week : 33%

A banner year : 37%

Good, but not great : 25%

Better than 2010 : 25%

Brother, can you spare a dime? : 12%

Science : 40%

Cost : 60%

Sign me up : 0%

For the right money : 28%

Couldn't pay me enough : 71%

Piece of cake : 66%

Fat chance : 33%

IPOs : 0%

Acquisitions : 50%

Approvals : 25%

Job cuts : 25%

The biotech IPO market : 20%

FDA drug reviews : 30%

Big Pharma job cuts : 40%

M&A deals that wouldn't close : 10%

Needs to be expanded : 40%

Is fine : 20%

Needs to be pared back : 20%

Needs to be repealed : 20%

Yes : 8%

They won't be able to repeal it, but they will gut it : 25%

They will be able to kill a handful of provisions, but leave it largely untouched : 58%

They will fail : 8%

It's a lock : 0%

comme ci comme ça : 20%

Slim to none : 80%

Snowball in Hell : 0%

It doesn't have a choice. : 33%

Only if it provides strong revenues. : 0%

Only if it provides near-term products. : 33%

An acquisition will not solve its problems. Lechleiter is right. : 33%

Big dollar settlements have been ineffective and this is necessary to stop violations. : 50%

This should only be done in the most egregious cases. : 25%

The FDA soultion is disproportional to the problem : 25%

Sunny : 0%

Partly cloudy : 0%

Cloudy with a chance of rain : 71%

Stormy weather : 28%

We need to provide new incentives to get people to become doctors : 20%

The government should provide new funding to train physicians : 0%

New technologies need to be embraced to alter delivery of care to change the role of doctors : 20%

All of the above : 60%

Diabetes is any even bigger market opportunity now : 0%

FDA will raise the safety bar on approving new diabetes drugs : 0%

Drugmakers will need to get use to more and more public scrutiny of once private data thanks to lawsuits : 33%

FDA plans to use new powers to restrict drug sales : 0%

All of the above : 66%

Burdensome regulatory hurdles : 57%

Increased tax burden from healthcare reform : 0%

Reimbursement uncertainties : 0%

Global competition : 42%

Without hesitation : 10%

I'd be willing to try it : 40%

No thanks : 40%

Only with genetically modified lemon : 10%

Yes, for $73 to $75 a share : 16%

Yes, for $70-$73 a share : 33%

Yes, through a hostile takeover : 33%

No deal : 16%

None at all : 33%

It will energize supporters to fill the void with private funding : 0%

It will slow the field modestly : 16%

It will have a devastating impact on the field, weaken the U.S. role in it, and discourage scientist from pursuing stem cell research : 50%

This is overdue and will help push the benefits of personalized medicine to patients : 100%

People will reject these test because of concerns about privacy : 0%

People will complain that payors are trying to use these tests to deny access to medicines : 0%

The agency will succeed in doing this : 33%

It can only do this by improving the science it uses : 66%

It will be necessary to strike a balance between these two goals : 0%

A strong general market : 0%

A hot life sciences IPO : 75%

A pick up in M&A activity : 0%

An act of God : 25%

Helped focus management on improving shareholder value : 57%

Distracted management from doing what they need to do to foster long-term growth : 42%

It's a done deal : 23%

There'll be a fight for the company : 53%

Not going to happen : 23%

Repairing the industry's public image : 50%

Improving relationships with lawmakers : 50%

Protecting the industry from pricing pressures : 0%

Renewing PDUFA : 0%

Regulation prohibiting synthetic biology is needed until we know we can control it. : 20%

Strict reporting and monitoring needs to be put into place : 60%

Regulations are not necessary and will only slow advances : 20%

Good Hollywood material, but no real danger here : 0%

Obesity is far more complex than many other diseases and finding an effective drug is a far greater challenge than people initially thought. : 20%

Modest results won't justify the safety risks for most people : 10%

You'd be better off buying a good pair of sneakers and getting your ass in gear than waiting for a magic pill. : 70%

Pay-for-delay deals should be stopped. They push the cost of healthcare higher than it needs to be and harms patients. : 50%

They are legitmate settlements and often result in generic versions of drugs coming to market faster than they otherwise would : 50%

Progress has been rapid and impressive since then : 0%

There's a lot of information to unravel and drug development is a slow process, but we're making acceptable progress : 75%

Progress in developing therapies based on this knowledge has been too slow : 25%

Understanding genetics : 9%

Changing behavior : 90%

A good idea that will benefit the health of the nation, save lives, and cut healthcare costs : 50%

A solution where there is no problem : 0%

An inappropriate intrusion by government : 50%

Yes. It's accerlerated the approval of new drugs. : 25%

It's been a mixed bag, but the industry would be worse off without it : 75%

No. The FDA has become too reliant on these fees and the industry doesn't get what it pays for : 0%

A new industrial revolution : 28%

An intense ethical debate : 0%

The creation of potentially life-threatening organisms we will be unable to control : 0%

All of the above : 71%

Yes : 16%

Not without scientific evidence reviewed by the FDA to substantiate any claims about their utility : 32%

Such tests should only be available through doctors trainied to interpret the results and counsel patients : 51%

Henri Termeer : 33%

Carl Ichan : 33%

Both : 0%

Neither : 33%

To explore possible partnerships : 60%

To raise money : 20%

To learn about trends in the industry : 0%

Deep dish pizza, great blue, Cubs baseball, and the kids are home : 20%

Vatican to Finance Stem Cell Research : 62%

Three Life Science Companies Complete IPO : 37%

Very positive : 16%

positive : 33%

neutral : 33%

negative : 16%

Very negative : 0%

Save billions and push healthcare in the right direction : 28%

Not change people's behaviors : 42%

Squeeze the finances of corporations and insurers : 28%

Make vaccine company stocks soar : 0%

It's a non-event : 0%

It will depend on the outcome on an appeal : 20%

It will lead to the end of being able to patent genes and will have sweeping effects on the industry : 20%

It will force companies to rethink business strategies, but while it might put a scare in investors, it will ultimately not have a big impact : 60%

The sky is falling : 0%

This Old House : 50%

Clean Sweep : 12%

Nip/Tuck : 12%

Extreme Makover : 25%

Healthcare reform legislation : 14%

Patent reform legislation : 28%

Biosimilar legislation : 14%

FDA policies : 14%

Capital markets activity : 28%

It will pass before the break : 44%

It will pass, but not by March 26 : 11%

The votes won't be there before or after the break : 44%

Doing great : 0%

Just in need of an exciting deal to spark it : 0%

Ready to roll with some encouraging economic news : 75%

Not ready for primetime : 25%

Restore your faith in Democracy : 0%

Have you wondering why the Democrats don't move to reconciliation to push the bill through : 44%

Cause you to require medical care as a result of banging your head against the wall : 33%

Get you packing your bags for Canada : 22%

Fit as a fiddle : 10%

In need of serious rehab : 40%

In the intensive care unit : 40%

Dead on arrival : 10%

Masterpiece Theater : 0%

Crossfire : 0%

Survivor : 0%

Gilligan's Island : 66%

The Jerry Springer Show : 33%

Outperform the general market in 2010 : 14%

Perform in line with the general market in 2010 : 57%

Underperform the general market in 2010 : 28%

leave copies of the study on your wife's pillow : 70%

trade your statins for Viagra : 20%

trade your cardiologist for a mistress : 10%

House Democrats pass the Senate version of the bill. : 10%

New, less ambitious legislation is drafted. : 40%

They take it in pieces. : 40%

Dead and gone. : 10%

This will happen : 0%

It's gamesmanship to get other industry concessions : 75%

It will derail healthcare reform : 25%

Without a doubt : 60%

It will perform in line with the general market : 20%

It will lag the major indices : 20%

Putting on the Ritz : 25%

Putting on the Ritz cracker : 75%

Industry : 16%

Labor : 16%

Republicans : 50%

Moderate Democrats : 0%

Progressive Democrats : 16%

Less than 10 : 50%

10 to 20 : 25%

20 to 30 : 25%

More than 30 : 0%

Yes with a meaningful public option : 0%

Yes with no meaningful public option : 40%

No : 60%

Yes, because of the meat's high content of L-tryptophan : 37%

Yes, I get drowsy whenever I stuff my self so much that blood gets redirected to my stomach instead of my brain : 12%

I say it's the turkey, but it's actually all the wine : 12%

I just pretend to nod off to avoid talking to the relatives : 25%

Not at all : 12%

Yes, there is an occupational risk and I wouldn't want Santa sidelined Christmas Eve : 60%

A little peppermint scented hand sanitizer would do a lot more good : 40%

No, the fat man should take a number like everyone else. : 0%

The FDA should put into place strict guidlines and enforce them : 60%

Current marketing guidelines are adequate : 0%

The FDA will be unable to police the online world : 40%

Can't get enough : 0%

No more than usual : 60%

The only thing to fear is fear itself : 40%

Seasonal vaccine and H1N1 : 42%

H1N1 only : 0%

Seasonal vaccine only : 14%

No : 42%

Bank on it : 0%

Most likely : 50%

Same as general market : 50%

Not likely : 0%

No way, no how : 0%

Patients : 28%

Doctors : 7%

Hospitals/HMOs : 28%

Pharmaceutical Companies : 21%

Insurance Companies : 14%

Yes, this is important to the health of our nation and economy : 33%

Yes, but the reforms being debated won't deliver the best quality care : 33%

No, I'm happy with the way things are : 11%

No, I'm over taxed : 22%

Happy to do it : 85%

I will check the "No" box : 14%

Yes, it could help fund healthcare initiatives. : 61%

Yes, it will discourage unhealthy habits. : 23%

It unfairly singles out soft drinks for causing an epidemic of obesity. : 15%

Government shouldn't tell people what to eat or drink. : 0%

Absolutely : 8%

It's possible : 58%

Unlikely : 33%

No way, no how : 0%

was a home run : 66%

offered needed clarity on his position and will help push legislation through : 33%

came up short on specifics : 0%

failed to move the discussion forward : 0%

His own bill : 50%

A detailed set of items that must be included in any legislation : 50%

Some general principles for healthcare reform : 0%

Nothing more than he's done : 0%

It will help bring both sides of the aisle together to pass legislation. Can you say Kumbaya? : 0%

It will unite the Democrats, who will now push through legislation in his memory. : 66%

It will fail without Kennedy there to get Democrats to fall in line. : 0%

It will fail without Kennedy there to reach across the aisle to strike a needed compromise. : 0%

It changes nothing. : 33%

Without it, there is no healthcare reform : 70%

50-50 chance : 30%

Unlikely : 0%

No way, no how. : 0%

Government : 25%

Insurance company : 66%

HMO : 8%

Physician : 0%

People in your will : 0%

A well orchestrated attack by opponents of reform : 57%

The passion people feel over the issue : 42%

Yes : 41%

No : 16%

No, but it should be : 41%

Industry : 33%

Republicans : 33%

Other Democrats : 33%

could reduce cognitive decline? : 83%

could reduce cognitive decline but has other ill effects that make drinking bad for you overall? : 16%

could increase cognitive decline? : 0%

has no effect on cognitive decline? : 0%

Acetaminophen (such as Tylenol) : 18%

Ibuprofen (such as Advil) : 63%

Naproxen sodium (such as Aleve) : 9%

Ketoprofen (Orudis KT) : 0%

Acetylsalic Acid (Asprin) : 9%

Help doctors and consumers gain a better understanding of FDA decisions and help protect patients who might be using a drug for an off-label use when the agency declines expanded use of an existing drug. : 85%

Undermine drug companies by disclosing valuable information to competitors and make it harder to raise capital. : 14%

It's a must : 50%

It's a plus : 16%

Don't know : 16%

No way : 16%

Yes : 35%

No : 64%

Large caps : 0%

Mid caps : 20%

Small caps : 40%

All caps : 20%

No caps : 20%

We should use whatever science is available to combat disease. : 50%

The United States follow the lead of 44 other counties and prohibit human inheritable genetic modification. : 50%

Allow it to do its job more effectively. : 33%

Will undermine its mission by making the agency more dependent on those it regulates. : 66%

Absolutely : 10%

Likely : 30%

Unlikely : 50%

No way : 10%

I don't have the budget : 100%

I don't want to go to Atlanta : 0%

I Have scheduling conflicts : 0%

I never go : 0%

I still have all the pens I need from the last time I went : 0%

Reassuring : 40%

Adequate : 60%

Perplexing : 0%

Unnerving : 0%

$100,000 or more : 0%

$50,000 or more : 0%

$10,000 or more : 9%

$1,000 or less : 54%

No interest : 36%

Is appropriately cautious and will minimize problems : 50%

Is too restrictive and will impede research : 50%

Absolutely : 0%

Hope so : 60%

Don't think so : 40%

Sucker's rally : 0%

Comparative effectiveness will benefit us by eliminating wasteful healthcare spending. : 71%

Comparative effectiveness will hurt us by providing payors with a blunt tool to cut spending at the expense of patient access to new drugs. : 28%

Good idea : 84%

Bad idea : 15%

is largely symbolic and will not change much : 14%

will hurt funding by causing states and philanthropists to cut spending : 0%

will unleash much needed federal spending : 85%

Such legislation would undermine the FDA and discourage innovation : 60%

The FDA is incapable of fully protecting the public and this would restore to consumers an important means of redress. : 40%

$86.50 to $90 : 11%

$90 to $95 : 22%

$96 to $100 : 33%

$100 to $105 : 33%

$106 to $112. : 0%

No deal : 0%

Kathleen Sebelius : 50%

Ed Rendell : 0%

Jennifer Granholm : 0%

John Kizhaber : 0%

Bill Bradley : 8%

Phil Bredesen : 25%

Someone else : 16%

Merck : 44%

GlaxoSmithKline : 0%

Sanofi-Aventis : 33%

Novartis : 0%

Johnson & Johnson : 11%

Bristol-Myers Squibb : 11%

Yes, the nation is ready for univesal care. : 45%

He will only be able to get peices of reform through during his first year. : 18%

Pressing economic concerns and the complexity of healthcare reform will not make this possible in the first year. : 18%

It's not going to happen. : 18%

Absolutlely : 0%

A slight uptick : 87%

Absolutely not : 12%

Increase them to innovate our way out of this mess. : 10%

Hold the line : 40%

Everything's got to get cut : 50%

A groundbreaking step others should follow to protect the integrity of reserach. : 33%

An important step for the clinic given the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest involving leading doctors. : 33%

A modest step. : 33%

A slick PR move and nothing more. : 0%

An inspired choice : 50%

Not a surprise : 30%

Poses problems for Obama on his conflicts-of-interest pledge : 20%

Rationing healthcare is immoral and should not be considered : 25%

Rationing healthcare is unnecessary : 0%

Rationing healthcare is something we will need to do in one way or another : 50%

Rationing healthcare is the solution and should be based on age as Callahan suggests : 25%

Steven Nissen, Cleveland Clinic cardiologist : 14%

Susan Wood, a former director of the FDA's women's health office : 28%

Joshua Sharfstein, Baltimore's health chief : 0%

Janet Woodcock, FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation Head : 28%

Frank Torti, FDA Chief Scientist : 14%

Other : 14%

More concerned about their belief in God : 0%

It is not a reason I vote for a candidate, but scientific ignorance is a disqualifier : 0%

It is an important area of policy that I study the candidates' positions on before voting : 25%

I will only vote for a candidate who will support increased investment in research and science education because that is our future : 75%

Inadequate funding : 16%

Cancer is more complex than originally thought : 50%

Emphasis has been placed in the wrong areas : 0%

Only now do we have the genetic understanding to make real progress : 33%

FDA : 40%

NIH : 0%

SEC : 0%

Treasury : 20%

Other : 40%

We're there : 10%

7500 or higher : 40%

6500 or higher : 40%

5500 or higher : 0%

Anybody's guess : 10%

(Don't Fear) The Reaper : 25%

You can't always get what you want : 0%

Not Fade Away : 25%

Dream On : 25%

I Believe I Can Fly : 25%

More than 30 : 0%

20-29 : 0%

10-19 : 42%

1-9 : 42%

None : 14%

Provide needed regulation and oversight : 80%

Stimulate investment in this area : 0%

Set off a public panic : 0%

All of the above : 20%

Economy : 71%

Healthcare : 7%

Iraq : 7%

Energy : 7%

Lipstick : 7%

Is understandable : 0%

Shows some parents don't understand science : 16%

Shows some parents don't trust science : 16%

Shows some parents don't trust the pharmaceutical industry : 66%

Already has : 16%

Great Risk : 50%

Moderate Risk : 25%

No Risk at all : 8%

McCain : 28%

Obama : 71%

Neither : 0%

More than $95 a share : 0%

More than $105 a share : 60%

More than $115 a share : 20%

More than $120 a share : 0%

More than $125 a share : 20%

This is not a threat. : 0%

It's important to stay ahead of the cheaters : 25%

This is already a problem. : 25%

I want to see someone run a three-minute mile. : 50%

use it rather instead of going to the gym? : 60%

workout out the old fashioned way? : 40%

An authoratative study : 42%

A government warning : 14%

Having friends or family who develop cancer irrefutably as a result of cell phone use : 28%

When you pry it from my cold, dead hands : 14%

Significantly outperform the general market : 44%

Modestly outperform the general market : 55%

Modestly underperform the general market : 0%

Significantly outperform the general market : 0%

Pad of logo-emblazoned Post-It notes : 10%

Lunch : 20%

Dinner with wine : 10%

Gas money : 40%

Honorarium of $500 or more : 20%

Other : 0%

Back to the Future : 25%

Much Ado About Nothing : 25%

Weird Science : 37%

The Island of Dr. Moreau : 12%

Yes : 75%

No : 25%

Yes : 0%

States need to be more aggressive financially : 12%

States need to be more aggressive in the policy arena : 12%

States need to be doing a lot more in every way to remain competitive : 75%

Learn about trends : 28%

Build contacts : 28%

Raise money : 0%

Make deals : 28%

The Journal of Life Sciences : 14%

take the pill : 40%

take the pill, but never with fish : 0%

take the pill, but wash it down with red wine : 30%

just be sure to drink plenty of red wine : 30%

Regulators finally giving safety the attention it deserves : 55%

A bow to political pressure at the expense of patient needs for new therapies : 44%

Age and health are both factors : 44%

Age doesn't matter, but I'm concerned about his health : 22%

Health doesn't matter, but I'm concerned about his age : 11%

A candidates age and health are not an issue for me : 22%

It's an important legal protection for drug makers : 62%

It's bad public policy : 37%

Yes : 11%

No : 88%

Accelerate the field of personalized medicine : 27%

Provide important safeguards in a brave, new world : 27%

Make the lawyers happy : 0%

All of the above : 45%

Yum, yum, get me some : 14%

I'll eat anything with ketchup : 7%

I only eat meat that's walked : 57%

In vitro or in vivo, I'm a vegetarian : 21%

An overdue protection : 38%

Harmful to industry : 15%

Election year politicking : 46%

The FDA will be too cautious in determining the risks, and slow the technology : 71%

The FDA will be too aggressive in advancing the technology without adequate safeguards : 14%

The FDA will hit a proper balance between safety concerns and patient benefits. : 14%

Yes : 21%

No : 78%

Yes, innovation will play a critical role in cutting healthcare spending : 87%

No, there's no relation between investment in research and healthcare costs : 12%

Assisted suicide should be legalized : 83%

Assisted suicide should be illegal, but passive euthanasia allowed : 8%

Risk of abuse would be too great to allow : 8%

Life is too sacred to allow : 0%

As big as they say : 72%

A problem, but no long-term damage : 27%

No threat at all : 0%

The federal government should encourage and fund such research. : 100%

The federal government should maintain current policies. : 0%

Dude, I forgot the last option. : 0%

Safety : 22%

Speed : 11%

Funding : 22%

Management : 44%

Stem cells : 25%

RNAi : 8%

Nanotechnology : 25%

Combination devices : 0%

Biofuels : 41%

1 year : 15%

3 years : 46%

5 years : 23%

10 years : 7%

It will never happen : 7%

Garnier is right that journalists need to be more sophisticated when they report scientific news? : 28%

reporters exacerbated the problems with Avandia? : 14%

he should worry less about the media and more about R&D? : 42%

all of the above? : 14%

Hillary Clinton : 20%

Barack Obama : 26%

John McCain : 20%

Mitt Romney : 33%

Iraq : 11%

Healthcare : 0%

The economy, stupid : 88%

Yes : 58%

No : 16%

I'm a vegetarian : 25%

Weak research and development : 28%

Tough regulatory environment : 28%

High cost of drug development : 28%

It is difficult to find safe and effective compounds not already approved : 14%

Fewer IPOs, and less money raised. : 22%

Fewer IPOs, but more money raised. : 44%

More IPOs, but less money raised. : 11%

More IPOs, and more money raised. : 22%

Pharmaceutical : 5%

Biotech : 33%

Medical Devices : 22%

Diagnostics : 38%

Patent reform : 22%

Follow-on / generic biologics : 22%

post-market surveillance : 44%

Comparative effectiveness : 11%

acquisitions and licensing deals : 30%

medical breakthroughs : 0%

restructurings : 10%

safety concerns : 60%

Yes : 77%

No : 22%

End : 15%

Shift to federal research spending on regenerative medicine : 25%

Continue because embryonic stem cell research will still need to proceed : 60%

Begin a diet and exercise plan : 61%

Take that trip around the world you always wanted to take : 0%

Do nothing because what will be, will be : 16%

Buy new running shoes and wear them while watching sports on TV : 22%

The public views them as the same industry : 55%

The public draws distinctions between the two : 44%

Yes : 25%

No : 25%

No, but it should be : 50%

Buy : 14%

Sell : 28%

Hold : 57%

Tax fattening foods. : 11%

Charge overweight people more for health insurance. : 16%

Do more to educate people about health and nutrition. : 50%

Encourage restaurants to provide healthier choices. : 5%

Let people eat what they want to eat. : 16%

Iraq : 58%

Healthcare Reform : 23%

The economy : 11%

Other : 5%

Hillary Clinton : 42%

John Edwards : 0%

Rudolph Giuliani : 14%

Barack Obama : 7%

Mitt Romney : 7%

Fred Thompson : 28%

Science : 15%

Investment : 0%

Business models : 15%

Reimbursement : 46%

Regulation : 23%

Yes : 71%

No : 0%

It will make no difference : 28%