The Lede: Assad Denies Starting War in New Interview

Last Updated, Thursday, 3:48 p.m. The Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, denied in an interview broadcast last week on German television that he was responsible for starting the bloody conflict tearing his country apart.

The interview, featured in a new documentary on the conflict in Syria by the filmmaker Hubert Seipel, was conducted in English but later overdubbed in German for broadcast on the network ARD. Mr. Seipel, whose previous film, “I, Putin,” was also a portrait of a strongman, provided The Lede with clips from the documentary in which Mr. Assad’s remarks can be heard in the original English.

The filmmaker said recently that he wanted to speak directly to Mr. Assad because “misinformation and psychological warfare make up a large part of the Syrian civil war.” He explained in an e-mail to The Lede that he was frustrated by watching Syria’s war unfold in YouTube clips selectively edited by the two sides. So, he said, “my intention was just to let Assad speak about his point of view, so that our viewers can make their own judgment in what kind of a separate world he lives.”

Below is a transcript of Mr. Assad’s remarks (in occasionally idiosyncratic English).

On Chemical Weapons: “Have you heard that any country used chemical weapon to fight terrorism? I haven’t heard about it. This is W.M.D weapon of mass destruction. How can I use it to fight groups, small groups of terrorists spreading everywhere, especially in the cities? You fight them in the suburbs. You just mentioned that you hear the shelling in the suburbs, you don’t hear it in the desert, or in far area from the cities. So this is not realistic and not logical. I think they use it as pretext maybe to have more pressure or to have an aggression against Syria.”

On Foreign Fighters: “You cannot talk about good situation while you have assassination and killings of innocent people by terrorists coming from abroad, and some of them are Syrian, to be frank and clear about the situation. But the most important thing is about do they have incubator in the society or not. This where it could be very bad or worse or where you don’t have no hope.”

‘We Didn’t Launch the War’: “We didn’t launch the war and we didn’t choose which kind of war because we didn’t choose it anyway. You have terrorists coming with very sophisticated armaments, nearly all kinds of armaments that they can carry with them and started killing people, destroying infrastructure, destroying public places, everything. How do you defend them? You defend them according to the aggressions that you have, according to the tactics that they use. So they use heavy weaponries. You have to retaliate in the same way.“

On Reforms: “Well the criteria that you used to talk about the speed of reform, nobody has criteria. When you drive your car you know that this is the law here, 100 kilometer, let’s say, per hour. Well about the reform, does anyone has criteria or certain meter? So it’s subjective.”

On Turkey’s Missile Defense: “This is part of the missile shield that they started a year ago in Turkey, but the Turkish didn’t want to say that this is a part of it because many Turks refuse that Turkey is part of this program. The second aspect of it that Erdogan has been trying hard to rally the Turks and to muster support to his policy against Syria, something that he failed. So he distributed the Patriot on our border just to give the impression that Turkey is in danger because Syria may think of attacking Turkey, which is not realistic.”

On Peace Talks: “We started right away discussing the conflict in Syria and I concentrated mainly on the violence. If you want to succeed (I mean I was talking to Kofi Annan at the time.) If you want to succeed, you have to focus on the violence part of your initiative. If you don’t stop the violence, if you don’t stop the terrorists coming to Syria through different countries, mainly Turkey and Qatar, if you don’t stop the money coming inside Syria in order to stoke the fire – the whole initiative will fail. So that was the core of our discussion in the first meeting.”

On His Future: “If it’s about me as president, the decision should be by the Syrian people. If the Syrian people doesn’t want you as president what would you do here? How can you succeed? It should be through national dialogue, and whatever this national dialogue decide, we are going to adopt as a government, of course including me.”

On the Houla Massacre: “The people who were killed in the massacres are state supporters loyal to the government, so how could a militia, loyal to the government, killing people, loyal to the government? This is contradiction, unrealistic. Actually militia of the terrorists coming to that city or to that village and committed the massacre, and they took the photos and put it on YouTube and on the TVs and they said this is the government, which was not realistic. Actually it was committed by the gangs, by the terrorists.”

The full film, with German narration, also includes interviews in English with Kofi Annan, the former United Nations envoy, and Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister. After the documentary was broadcast, the Russian foreign ministry posted video and a transcript of Mr. Lavrov’s complete conversation with Mr. Seipel online.

---

Read More..

Tool Kit: Some Premium Headphones Amplify Celebrities Over Sound

If you are planning a $200 splurge on premium headphones — as millions of people are this year — who will give you the most for your money? Maybe a rapper like Dr. Dre, 50 Cent, Nick Cannon or Ludacris?

Or will you get better sound with headphones branded by rockers like Motörhead or inspired by the reggae artist Bob Marley?

Maybe headphones associated with the sports stars Tim Tebow and Michael Phelps or the reality television star Nicole Polizzi, better known as Snooki, produce even better sound?

This is how headphones are marketed these days — affinity headphones, if you will. The sequins, rhinestones, feathers and faux leopard print on Ms. Polizzi’s $60 headphones attract buyers as much as their sound quality does. Headphones are in high demand. The Consumer Electronics Association estimates 79 million were sold last year, and it predicts 10 percent more than that will be sold this year. But the category of headphones costing more than $100 is growing even faster — 64 percent, according to market analysts at the NPD Group.

That is wonderful news for retailers who feel their profit margins squeezed on laptops, televisions and most other electronic products. “Retailers can make more on a high-end pair of headphones than they can make selling a smartphone in many instances,” said Ross Rubin of Reticle Research, a consumer electronics research firm.

Knowing what’s behind the marketing can help a consumer avoid the hype when choosing a product. Headphone designers estimate the cost of making a “fashion headset” selling for $200 is as low as $14. “I would have guessed $20 to $22,“ said Tim Hickman, whose California Headphone Company and Fanny Wang Headphone Company brands are made in China.

“When you look at a $300 Beats headphone, how much does it cost to tool the enclosure, how much does it cost to stamp the thing out?” said John Chen, director of sales for the audio manufacturer Grado Labs. “Stamping it out is pennies.”

“I wish that were true,” said Noel Lee, founder of Monster Products, which until December produced Beats by Dr. Dre headphones. “I’m going to say it’s in the $40 and up range to make a quality product.” (Monster also makes those $80 HDMI cables at electronics stores, the ones that cost much less at Monoprice.com.)

The growth in pricey headphones is yoked to the growth of tablets and phones. IPods and other media players come with basic earphones, but the expanded menu of music and video apps now available encourage people to replace those with higher-quality headphones.

“What is really pushing premium headphones is not just the growth in mobile smartphones and tablets, but video and music services like Netflix and Spotify, that make people want a better listening device,” said Benjamin Arnold, a consumer electronics industry analyst for NPD. “It’s serious consumption rather than 30-second YouTube clips.”

The rush into premium headphones was set off in 2008 by the Beats by Dr. Dre brand, which marketed headphones like Air Jordan basketball shoes. (HTC, the Taiwanese cellphone maker, was once the majority shareholder of the Beats venture and still owns a 25 percent interest.) Headphones had traditionally been sold on technical specs like frequency response, but Beats created appealing designs in an array of colors. It also tweaked the headphones with brain-rattling bass.

Monster lost the rights to make the Beats, but has introduced 12 of its own headphones, none with a celebrity name on the brand, although some have celebrity endorsers. NPD found that celebrity endorsement was extremely or very important to 30 percent of consumers, and was the top factor driving purchases of headphones costing more than $100. Consumers say they want sound quality, but brand counts heavily too.

“Basically good-enough sound is good enough if everything else is in line, like brand and color,” Mr. Arnold said. “You see young people walking around the mall with them around their necks. They aren’t even on their ears.”

Not all headphones work on the same economics as the fashion brands. Classic brands like AKG, Shure, Audio-Technica, Grado and Klipsch still market based on realistic sound and value. With no celebrity endorsers to share profits and a nearly unlimited shelf life, because the style doesn’t change with fashion, the marketing model is different.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: February 21, 2013

An earlier version of this article misstated the ownership stake of HTC, the Taiwanese cellphone maker, in the Beats venture. It is 25 percent, not a majority.

Read More..

Living With Cancer: Arrivals and Departures

After being nursed and handed over, the baby’s wails rise to a tremolo, but I am determined to give my exhausted daughter and son-in-law a respite on this wintry evening. Commiserating with the little guy’s discomfort — gas, indigestion, colic, ontological insecurity — I swaddle, burp, bink, then cradle him in my arms. I begin walking around the house, swinging and swaying while cooing in soothing cadences: “Yes, darling boy, another one bites the dust, another one bites the dust.”

I kid you not! How could such grim phrases spring from my lips into the newborn’s ears? Where did they come from?

I blame his mother and her best friend. They sang along as this song was played repeatedly at the skating rink to which I took them every other Saturday in their tweens. Why would an infatuated grandma croon a mordant lullaby, even if the adorable one happily can’t understand a single word? He’s still whimpering, twisting away from me, and understandably so.

Previously that day, I had called a woman in my cancer support group. I believe that she is dying. I do not know her very well. She has attended only two or three of our get-togethers where she described herself as a widow and a Christian.

On the phone, I did not want to violate the sanctity of her end time, but I did want her to know that she need not be alone, that I and other members of our group can “be there” for her. Her dying seems a rehearsal of my own. We have the same disease.

“How are you doing, Kim?” I asked.

“I’m tired. I sleep all the time,” she sighed, “and I can’t keep anything down.”

“Can you drink … water?” I asked.

“A little, but I tried a smoothie and it wouldn’t set right,” she said.

“I hope you are not in pain.”

“Oh no, but I’m sleeping all the time. And I can’t keep anything down.”

“Would you like a visit? Is there something I can do or bring?” I asked.

“Oh, I don’t think so, no thanks.”

“Well,” I paused before saying goodbye, “be well.”

Be well? I didn’t even add something like, “Be as well as you can be.” I was tongue-tied. This was the failure that troubles me tonight.

Why couldn’t I say that we will miss her, that I am sorry she is dying, that she has coped so well for so long, and that I hope she will now find peace? I could inform an infant in my arms of our inexorable mortality, but I could not speak or even intimate the “D” word to someone on her deathbed.

Although I have tried to communicate to my family how I feel about end-of-life care, can we always know what we will want? Perhaps at the end of my life I will not welcome visitors, either. For departing may require as much concentration as arriving. As I look down at the vulnerable bundle I am holding, I marvel that each and every one of us has managed to come in and will also have to manage to go out. The baby nestles, pursing his mouth around the pacifier. He gazes intently at my face with a sly gaze that drifts toward a lamp, turning speculative before lids lower in tremulous increments.

Slowing my jiggling to his faint sucking, I think that the philosopher Jacques Derrida’s meditation on death pertains to birth as well. Each of these events “names the very irreplaceability of absolute singularity.” Just as “no one can die in my place or in the place of the other,” no one can be born in this particular infant’s place. He embodies his irreplaceable and absolute singularity.

Perhaps we should gestate during endings, as we do during beginnings. Like hatchings, the dispatchings caused by cancer give people like Kim and me a final trimester, more or less, in which we can labor to forgive and be forgiven, to speak and hear vows of devotion from our intimates, to visit or not be visited by acquaintances.

Maybe we need a doula for dying, I reflect as melodious words surface, telling me what I have to do with the life left to be lived: “To love that well, which thou must leave ere long.”

“Oh little baby,” I then whisper: “Though I cannot tell who you will become and where I will be — you, dear heart, deliver me.”

---

Susan Gubar is a distinguished emerita professor of English at Indiana University and the author of “Memoir of a Debulked Woman,” which explores her experience with ovarian cancer.

Read More..

Living With Cancer: Arrivals and Departures

After being nursed and handed over, the baby’s wails rise to a tremolo, but I am determined to give my exhausted daughter and son-in-law a respite on this wintry evening. Commiserating with the little guy’s discomfort — gas, indigestion, colic, ontological insecurity — I swaddle, burp, bink, then cradle him in my arms. I begin walking around the house, swinging and swaying while cooing in soothing cadences: “Yes, darling boy, another one bites the dust, another one bites the dust.”

I kid you not! How could such grim phrases spring from my lips into the newborn’s ears? Where did they come from?

I blame his mother and her best friend. They sang along as this song was played repeatedly at the skating rink to which I took them every other Saturday in their tweens. Why would an infatuated grandma croon a mordant lullaby, even if the adorable one happily can’t understand a single word? He’s still whimpering, twisting away from me, and understandably so.

Previously that day, I had called a woman in my cancer support group. I believe that she is dying. I do not know her very well. She has attended only two or three of our get-togethers where she described herself as a widow and a Christian.

On the phone, I did not want to violate the sanctity of her end time, but I did want her to know that she need not be alone, that I and other members of our group can “be there” for her. Her dying seems a rehearsal of my own. We have the same disease.

“How are you doing, Kim?” I asked.

“I’m tired. I sleep all the time,” she sighed, “and I can’t keep anything down.”

“Can you drink … water?” I asked.

“A little, but I tried a smoothie and it wouldn’t set right,” she said.

“I hope you are not in pain.”

“Oh no, but I’m sleeping all the time. And I can’t keep anything down.”

“Would you like a visit? Is there something I can do or bring?” I asked.

“Oh, I don’t think so, no thanks.”

“Well,” I paused before saying goodbye, “be well.”

Be well? I didn’t even add something like, “Be as well as you can be.” I was tongue-tied. This was the failure that troubles me tonight.

Why couldn’t I say that we will miss her, that I am sorry she is dying, that she has coped so well for so long, and that I hope she will now find peace? I could inform an infant in my arms of our inexorable mortality, but I could not speak or even intimate the “D” word to someone on her deathbed.

Although I have tried to communicate to my family how I feel about end-of-life care, can we always know what we will want? Perhaps at the end of my life I will not welcome visitors, either. For departing may require as much concentration as arriving. As I look down at the vulnerable bundle I am holding, I marvel that each and every one of us has managed to come in and will also have to manage to go out. The baby nestles, pursing his mouth around the pacifier. He gazes intently at my face with a sly gaze that drifts toward a lamp, turning speculative before lids lower in tremulous increments.

Slowing my jiggling to his faint sucking, I think that the philosopher Jacques Derrida’s meditation on death pertains to birth as well. Each of these events “names the very irreplaceability of absolute singularity.” Just as “no one can die in my place or in the place of the other,” no one can be born in this particular infant’s place. He embodies his irreplaceable and absolute singularity.

Perhaps we should gestate during endings, as we do during beginnings. Like hatchings, the dispatchings caused by cancer give people like Kim and me a final trimester, more or less, in which we can labor to forgive and be forgiven, to speak and hear vows of devotion from our intimates, to visit or not be visited by acquaintances.

Maybe we need a doula for dying, I reflect as melodious words surface, telling me what I have to do with the life left to be lived: “To love that well, which thou must leave ere long.”

“Oh little baby,” I then whisper: “Though I cannot tell who you will become and where I will be — you, dear heart, deliver me.”

---

Susan Gubar is a distinguished emerita professor of English at Indiana University and the author of “Memoir of a Debulked Woman,” which explores her experience with ovarian cancer.

Read More..

Via Video, a Front-Row Seat to a Fashion Show

As the Belstaff runway show began in New York City last week, buyers, designers and bloggers crowded into their seats, jotted notes and took smartphone photos as the models strutted by.

But it was another crowd, outside the tents, that Belstaff executives were particularly interested in this season. For the second time, it was live streaming its fashion show. And the Web viewers were not just potential fans, they were data sources to help Belstaff predict which of the runway items might be hits in stores this summer.

“If you can have a bit of information that helps you beat the market and pick more winners,” said Damian Mould, Belstaff’s chief marketing officer, “you’d be stupid not to take it.”

Fashion Week, which wrapped up last week in New York and moved on to London and Milan this week, used to be an insular industry event. Buyers and editors attended and made calls as to what their customers would want months from now.

But that has changed. Fashion houses in recent years started to sidestep the middleman by giving the public a front-row seat via webcam video. While that was more of a marketing tool at first, live streaming — and other ways to give consumers digital access to runway fashion — is now being seen as a research opportunity.

As more brands offer live videos of the shows, regular viewers see exactly what the buyers and editors are seeing, and influence what will be made by pausing on an outfit or posting Twitter messages about a particular style.

On retail fashion Web sites like Lyst and Moda Operandi, designers are allowed to track consumers’ early orders to gauge demand before they make clothes. And a handful of brands, like Burberry, are allowing regular customers to order runway clothes as the shows are live streamed.

Increasingly, the public is weighing in on fashion — and designers are listening. “It’s creating a commercial opportunity around an event that was previously an industry event,” said Aslaug Magnusdottir, the chief executive of Moda Operandi.

Mass-market apparel has long embraced the Web, but high fashion brands were wary of even having e-commerce sites a few years ago, fearing that would cheapen their brands. Now, the embrace of the Twitter-using public is causing some tension in the high-fashion world, where buyers’ tastes used to reign supreme.

“Of course the buyer knows their customer,” said Mortimer Singer, chief executive of the retail consulting firm Marvin Traub Associates, “but I think it’s hard to ignore when someone turns around to you and says, by the way, we got 50 preorders of this style.”

Live streams are an important way of measuring customer interest. They became popular a few years ago and are now regularly syndicated on fashion blogs and style sites.

“It’s not only what consumers are watching, but the devices they’re on, the geographies that they’re in, the engagement — what part of the video stream was of most interest, where did they abandon the video,” said Jay Fulcher, chief executive of Ooyala, which makes a video player that streamed Fashion Week shows, including those for DKNY, Marc Jacobs, Oscar de la Renta, Belstaff and Tory Burch.

According to B Productions, which produced the video for those shows, brands’ live-stream viewership has grown by about 20 to 40 percent every year, and the data is becoming more precise.

“It’s not just that they stopped watching five minutes in,” said Russell Quy, president of BLive by B Productions, “but we’re able to attach that to an actual outfit.”

Belstaff, a British brand known for its outerwear, gathered data via the live stream of its recent women’s show in a few ways. It syndicated the live streams on a number of fashion sites.

By looking at Twitter mentions timed to the live stream, the company saw that the first five looks — new twists on classic jackets — drew enthusiastic responses.

“I’ve informed the buying team of that interest, so I know they’re going to buy big and deep in that category when the product comes in,” Mr. Mould said.

Read More..

Russian Mother of Adopted Boy Who Died in U.S. Wants His Brother Back

MOSCOW — The Russian mother of two young boys who were adopted by a Texas couple requested on Wednesday that the younger child be returned to her, after his brother died under unclear circumstances in a case that has given new impetus to a long-running controversy over foreign adoptions.

The older boy, Max Shatto, 3, died in a West Texas hospital in late January. His birth mother, Yulia A. Kuzmina, pleaded with President Vladimir V. Putin in a letter on Wednesday to restore her parental rights concerning the younger boy, Kirill, 2.

Russian social services officers took the children away from Ms. Kuzmina in 2011, when Kirill was an infant, saying that she was unfit to raise them because of alcohol addiction. The American couple, Alan and Laura Shatto of Gardendale, Tex., adopted the two boys from a Russian orphanage late last year. Texas officials have received complaints that Max was physically abused and are investigating his death.

“I am the birth mother of Maksim Kuzmin, murdered in the United States by his adoptive family, the Shattos,” Ms. Kuzmina wrote, referring to Max by his pre-adoptive Russian name. “These people have my second son. I accept my guilt before the children, have found work and have the ability to provide for the child. Help me please, don’t allow the death of my second child, Kirill.”

The case has revived an aggressive campaign in Russia to curb adoptions by foreigners, and particularly by American families. The country banned adoptions of Russian orphans by Americans in late December. Opponents criticized the move, saying Russian authorities were using children for political leverage during a period of tense relations with the United States.

Russian investigators say Ms. Shatto beat Max to death, and count him as one of 20 Russian children who were adopted by American families and then died over the past 20 years. On Wednesday, Russia’s chief investigator said he had opened 11 criminal cases in Russian courts against American parents who were acquitted by American courts in connection with such deaths.

In an interview on Russian state television Wednesday, Ms. Kuzmina said she was returning home from a store with sweets for the children in 2011 when she learned that social services had taken Maksim and Kirill away.

“I am guilty for everything that has happened,” she said through tears during the interview. “Now I want to take him back.”

Read More..

F.C.C. Moves to Ease Wireless Congestion

WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission on Wednesday took a step to relieve growing congestion on Wi-Fi networks in hotels, airports and homes, where Americans increasingly use multiple data-hungry tablets, smartphones and other devices for wireless communications.

The commission proposed making a large chunk of high-frequency airwaves, or spectrum, available for use by unlicensed devices, including Wi-Fi routers like those that many Americans use in their homes.

The agency’s five commissioners also expressed hopes that the new airwaves would unleash new innovations, just as unlicensed spectrum in the past has made possible such devices as cordless phones, garage door openers and television remote controls.

After a public comment period, the commissioners will try to issue final rules and regulations, a process that could take a year or more. But all of the commissioners expressed hope that the new airwaves could be put to use without unnecessary delay.

Possible roadblocks do exist, however, mainly because some of the airwaves proposed for the new applications are already in use by private organizations and government agencies, including the United States military.

Congress has mandated that the F.C.C. undertake the expansion of unlicensed spectrum, and the Obama administration has urged the freeing up or sharing of airwaves currently allocated to the federal government.

But various government agencies, including a division of the Commerce Department, have warned against allowing consumer uses to interfere with current applications.

Lawrence E. Strickling, assistant commerce secretary for communications and information, said in a letter to the commission that the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security and NASA use parts of the same airwaves for communication between aircraft and ground stations. Those communications enable activities like drug interdiction, combat search and rescue, and border surveillance.

Julius Genachowski, the F.C.C. chairman, said he was confident that the commission’s engineers would be able to work with the affected government and private entities to solve interference problems.

“It’s very important for the country that we all lean into this in a problem-solving way,” Mr. Genachowski said. “This is not a new challenge for the commission to address.”

While “it will require significant consultation with stakeholders” to avoid problems, he added, “consultation can’t be an excuse for inaction or delay.”

The commission also voted unanimously to approve a new regulation allowing consumers and companies to use approved and licensed signal boosters to amplify signals between wireless devices, like cellphones, and the wireless networks on which they operate.

Those boosters, millions of which are currently used in ungoverned applications, help consumers and businesses improve coverage where cell signals are weak. Boosters are also used by public safety departments to extend wireless access in tunnels, subways and garages.

The order, which takes effect March 1, creates two classes of signal boosters, for use by consumers and businesses, each with distinct requirements to minimize interference with wireless networks.

Read More..

Global Update: New Polio Strains That Protect Vaccine Factory Workers

Scientists have created new strains of polio intended to protect workers in factories that make polio vaccine. The new strains have the same ability to invoke an immune reaction as the live viruses now used to make vaccine do, but there is virtually no risk anyone will get polio if one of the new strains somehow escapes.

The research team, at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, is led by Eckard A. F. Wimmer, a molecular geneticist who made headlines in 1991 when he synthesized polio virus in the lab from its chemical components, the first time a virus had been made outside of living cells.

The world is very close to eliminating polio, which is now endemic to only three countries: Afghanistan, Nigeria and Pakistan. But to be sure the disease is gone, children will have to be vaccinated for several years after the last detected case.

Currently, factories making the injectable Salk vaccine used in the United States and Europe start with the dangerous wild-type viruses known as Types 1, 2 and 3. After growing a large batch, vaccine makers “kill” the virus with formaldehyde and prepare it for syringes. The finished product is safe, but if the growing live viruses ever escaped “because of a leak, an explosion, an earthquake, a tsunami, a flood,” Dr. Wimmer said, “the spill could spread like wildfire.”

Right now, polio eradication depends on large sweeps by volunteers putting drops of the oral Sabin vaccine into children’s mouths. It is easy to give, and it produces better immunity because it reaches the intestines, which are lined with receptors for the virus.

The Sabin vaccine has drawbacks, however: it contains a still-live virus that was mutated long ago so that it is usually too weak to produce disease. In rare cases, it can mutate back into a dangerous form that paralyzes or kills. And the vaccine is risky in children with immune-system problems. For those reasons, the World Health Organization plans to eventually phase it out.

Once that happens, factories around the world will have to make millions more doses of the injectable version, so five years ago, the W.H.O. began looking for safer seed strains of virus.

Dr. Wimmer and colleagues took a part of the virus’s RNA that is crucial for growth, mutated it to weaken it, and inserted it in another stretch of RNA that controls how virulent the virus is. That renders the virus less lethal. “If it were to get into the brain, it doesn’t do any harm,” he said.

And, he explained, even if the virus evolved to defeat that virulence-lowering mutation, it would simultaneously cripple its own ability to reproduce.

Now Dr. Wimmer’s team is working with the Crucell vaccine company to prove that the safer strains grow well in Crucell’s proprietary human cell line. Ideally, he said, the new vaccine will eventually be mixed with others like those for measles and diphtheria, and all will be delivered together in one painless shot by a jet injector.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: February 20, 2013

An earlier version of this article misstated the location of a university. It is in Stony Brook, not Stonybrook.

Read More..

Global Update: New Polio Strains That Protect Vaccine Factory Workers

Scientists have created new strains of polio intended to protect workers in factories that make polio vaccine. The new strains have the same ability to invoke an immune reaction as the live viruses now used to make vaccine do, but there is virtually no risk anyone will get polio if one of the new strains somehow escapes.

The research team, at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, is led by Eckard A. F. Wimmer, a molecular geneticist who made headlines in 1991 when he synthesized polio virus in the lab from its chemical components, the first time a virus had been made outside of living cells.

The world is very close to eliminating polio, which is now endemic to only three countries: Afghanistan, Nigeria and Pakistan. But to be sure the disease is gone, children will have to be vaccinated for several years after the last detected case.

Currently, factories making the injectable Salk vaccine used in the United States and Europe start with the dangerous wild-type viruses known as Types 1, 2 and 3. After growing a large batch, vaccine makers “kill” the virus with formaldehyde and prepare it for syringes. The finished product is safe, but if the growing live viruses ever escaped “because of a leak, an explosion, an earthquake, a tsunami, a flood,” Dr. Wimmer said, “the spill could spread like wildfire.”

Right now, polio eradication depends on large sweeps by volunteers putting drops of the oral Sabin vaccine into children’s mouths. It is easy to give, and it produces better immunity because it reaches the intestines, which are lined with receptors for the virus.

The Sabin vaccine has drawbacks, however: it contains a still-live virus that was mutated long ago so that it is usually too weak to produce disease. In rare cases, it can mutate back into a dangerous form that paralyzes or kills. And the vaccine is risky in children with immune-system problems. For those reasons, the World Health Organization plans to eventually phase it out.

Once that happens, factories around the world will have to make millions more doses of the injectable version, so five years ago, the W.H.O. began looking for safer seed strains of virus.

Dr. Wimmer and colleagues took a part of the virus’s RNA that is crucial for growth, mutated it to weaken it, and inserted it in another stretch of RNA that controls how virulent the virus is. That renders the virus less lethal. “If it were to get into the brain, it doesn’t do any harm,” he said.

And, he explained, even if the virus evolved to defeat that virulence-lowering mutation, it would simultaneously cripple its own ability to reproduce.

Now Dr. Wimmer’s team is working with the Crucell vaccine company to prove that the safer strains grow well in Crucell’s proprietary human cell line. Ideally, he said, the new vaccine will eventually be mixed with others like those for measles and diphtheria, and all will be delivered together in one painless shot by a jet injector.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: February 20, 2013

An earlier version of this article misstated the location of a university. It is in Stony Brook, not Stonybrook.

Read More..

American Executive Lashes Out at French Unions, Touching Off Uproar

PARIS — “How stupid do you think we are?”

With those choice words, and several more similar in tone, the chief executive of an American tire company touched off a furor in France on Wednesday as he responded to a government plea to take over a recently closed Goodyear factory in northern France.

“I have visited the factory a couple of times,” Maurice Taylor Jr., the head of Titan International, wrote to the country’s industry minister, Arnaud Montebourg, in a letter published in French newspapers on Wednesday. “The French work force gets paid high wages but works only three hours. They have one hour for their breaks and lunch, talk for three and work for three.“

“I told this to the French unions to their faces and they told me, ‘That’s the French way!’ ” added Mr. Taylor, a swaggering businessman who is nicknamed “the Grizz” by Wall Street analysts for his abrasive negotiating style.

His decidedly undiplomatic assessment quickly struck a nerve in France, where concerns about declining competitiveness and the divisive tax policies of President François Hollande’s government have led some economists to ask whether the nation is at risk of becoming the next sick man of Europe.

Mr. Montebourg, who is known for lashing out at French corporate bosses without hesitation, initially seemed at a loss for words on how to respond to the American charge. “I do not want to harm French interests,” he said when asked about Mr. Taylor’s letter. Later, Mr. Montebourg released a letter to Mr. Taylor, calling the executive’s comments “extreme” and “insulting,” adding that they pointed to a “perfect ignorance” about France and its strengths, which continue to attract international investors.

French media outlets minced no words. “Incendiary!” “Insulting!” and “Scathing!” were just a few of the terms replayed on French newspaper Web sites and on the airwaves throughout the day. The French blogosphere lit up with hundreds of remarks condemning the “predatory“ American corporate culture that Mr. Taylor seemed to represent; other commentators who ventured to admit that there might be something to Mr. Taylor’s observations were promptly bashed.

And France’s main labor union wasted no time in weighing in.

Mickaël Wamen, the head of the Confédération Générale du Travail union at the Goodyear plant, in Amiens, said Mr. Taylor belonged in a “psychiatric ward.”

A spokesman for Mr. Taylor did not immediately respond to calls for comment. France’s 35-hour workweek, its rigid labor market and the influence that labor unions hold over the workplace have long been a source of aggravation for businesses. Last month, after a government report warning that French competitiveness was slipping, labor unions and business leaders struck a deal to overhaul swaths of the labor code, a move Mr. Hollande said was needed to burnish France’s international allure as a place to do business.

With unemployment above 10 percent and growth slowing, the government has also been desperate to avoid large-scale layoffs. Mr. Montebourg has even brandished the threat of nationalization to try to save jobs. PSA Peugeot Citroën, ArcelorMittal, Sanofi and Air France all announced big job cuts last year as Europe’s long-running debt crisis hit their bottom lines.

So it was no surprise that Mr. Montebourg approached Titan International last year to ask if it would take over the Goodyear factory, which was scheduled to close because of labor disputes and sagging profitability — a move that would threaten 1,173 jobs.

Titan had already considered taking over the Goodyear factory’s farm tire operations. But it dropped the plan in 2011 after union representatives opposed a deal, saying they suspected Titan would close production of passenger-vehicle tires if the group took over. Tensions between Mr. Taylor and the union were evident at the time in a Titan news release, which included Mr. Taylor’s observation that “only a nonbusiness person would understand the French labor rules.”

In January, Mr. Montebourg tried to entice Titan back to the negotiating table, saying he hoped unions would put “some water in their wine, that managers put some wine in their water, and that Titan would drink the wine and the water of both” and reach an accord.

But earlier this month, as union workers protested en masse at the Amiens site, with a large police presence, Goodyear told workers it would close the plant and cut its French work force by 39 percent.

In his letter, dated Feb. 8, Mr. Taylor explained his reasons for refusing to come back to the negotiating table. “Goodyear tried for over four years to save part of the Amiens jobs that are some of the highest-paid, but the French unions and the French government did nothing but talk,” Mr. Taylor wrote.

“Sir, your letter says you want Titan to start a discussion,” he added. “How stupid do you think we are? Titan is the one with the money and the talent to produce tires. What does the crazy union have? It has the French government.“

He said his company would seek to produce cheaper tires in India or China, and sell them back to the French. He predicted that Michelin, the French tiremaker, would not be able to compete with lower prices and would have to halt production in France within five years.

“You can keep your so-called workers,” he wrote. “Titan is not interested in the Amiens factory.”

In his response, Mr. Montebourg reacted strongly to what he called Mr. Taylor’s “condemnable calculation” and noted that France and its European partners were working to stop illegal dumping of imports.

“In the meantime,” he added, “rest assured that you can count on me to have the competent government agencies survey with a redoubled zeal your imported tires.”

Read More..