Entity

Time filter

Source Type

Fraser, United States

Rawson N.S.B.,Eastlake Research Group | Rawson N.S.B.,Fraser Institute | Rawson N.S.B.,McMaster University
Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology | Year: 2013

Background New drug approvals in the US and Canada were reviewed in short-term studies in the 1990s. A database of drugs approved in both countries between 1992 and 2011 exists allowing for a longer time horizon to assess trends. Objective To compare review times of drugs approved in the US and Canada over the 20-year period and their duration on the respective markets until any serious safety risk arose. Methods Data on submission and approval dates and review type were obtained from the regulatory agencies. Results 454 drugs were approved in both countries in the 20-year period for which the US median approval time was shorter than the Canadian median by >6 months (382 versus 574 days). Nevertheless, in 2007-11, the median approval times were closer in the two countries (302 and 356 days, respectively). 3% of the drugs were discontinued for safety reasons in both countries. The 10-year survival rate without a serious safety warning was significantly lower in Canada (58.4%) than in the US (69.3%). Being approved in 2002-11 with a shorter review time had the greatest impact on a drug receiving a serious safety warning. Conclusions Overall, new drug approval times in the two countries in the last five years were closer, although some important differences remain so that Canadians still wait longer for some new drugs to be approved. The survival rate of a drug without a serious warning decreased substantially in the last decade in both countries, especially in drugs approved with shorter review times. © 2013 Canadian Society of Pharmacology and Therapeutics. All rights reserved.


Wood J.,Fraser Institute
Environmental and Resource Economics | Year: 2013

This paper investigates the effects of financial relief programs, commonly referred to as 'bailouts', on pollution. A partial equilibrium soft budget constraint model of the firm is developed to identify the effect of bailouts on the emission decisions of firms. The results from the model indicate that the expectation of bailouts increases ex ante emissions. A more stringent emissions tax is required to achieve the same level of emissions if bailouts are available than if bailouts are not available; however, a tradable permit system will maintain the same emissions level if bailouts are available as when bailouts are not available. © 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.


Murillo C.A.,Alberta Energy Research Institute | Angevine G.,Fraser Institute
Geopolitics of Energy | Year: 2011

This article is a summary of a recently released study by the authors as part of a series produced by the Fraser Institute1 (FI) in the course of developing a Continental Energy Strategy (CES) for North America. This series was conceived in 2008 through the vision of two former Canadian premiers, Ralph Klein (Alberta), and Brian Tobin (Newfoundland and Labrador), in collaboration with the Fraser Institute's Senior Energy Economist, Dr. Gerry Angevine.


Several papers in the last few years claim to show that particular energy efficiency programs and policies do not work or are too expensive. We have commented on some of these in blog posts (see here, here, and here), noting that some of them do have useful insights, but also that many of them make serious mistakes. In recent months, there have been signs that such criticisms may be abating or softening. For example, the E2e project, a source of several of these critical studies, is turning toward some commercial and industrial programs, which tend to have lower costs than the residential programs they have been criticizing. Initial results from one of their residential studies (abstract available here under Allcott) have found that residential weatherization programs are of borderline cost-effectiveness when considering only energy cost savings. This finding is consistent with other studies on these programs (see residential retrofits here), leaving researchers to debate the other benefits of these programs such as improved resident comfort and health. Unfortunately, not everyone is taking a more measured approach. There are some questionable studies about automobile fuel economy that we will be commenting on in a forthcoming blog post. And, just last week, a study was published by the Fraser Institute in Ontario implying that efficiency programs there are not cost effective. Their conclusion is not based on data from Ontario, but cites previous critical studies of other programs, in particular a controversial study from 1992. Their analysis ignores or downplays other more recent studies that found much lower costs. Since we expect some studies like this to continue, we thought it would be useful to prepare a paper reviewing a few of the recent studies, identifying useful findings, but also pointing out  a variety of recurring mistakes, such as misunderstanding the programs and markets they are examining or unreasonably extrapolating their findings to areas they did not study. This short paper, which we are releasing today, is written for people who are not evaluation experts, but who are trying to understand what conclusions they should take from these studies. That said, we acknowledge that not all energy efficiency programs are stellar, and that sound evaluation is critical in identifying what is working well and what needs improving. We conclude our new paper with suggestions for constructively moving forward, such as the need for academic economists and energy efficiency evaluation experts to better understand where the other side is coming from, and to explore opportunities to find a middle ground, potentially even working on some projects together. With cooperation and combined expertise, energy efficiency studies can achieve their intended purpose: to understand what works, and to improve what falls short.


"Climate denier Professor Ross McKitrick has resigned as chairman of the academic advisory council of Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), according to a statement released by the charity. The senior fellow of the ExxonMobil- and Koch-funded Fraser Institute in Canada told DeSmog UK he had informed Lord Lawson at the GWPF in September that he intended to stand down citing increased work commitments. The academic confirmed his stepping down had nothing to do with the high-profile investigative sting by Greenpeace last month which raised serious concerns about the council’s claims to conduct peer reviews of its publications. McKitrick said: “I decided [to step down] late last summer, because of other commitments I had. And so, I notified them at the beginning of September that I would be leaving at the end of December.”" "Era Of Climate Science Denial Is Not Over, Study Finds" (Guardian) "Remember When Lord Lawson Brought Climate Denial to the House of Lords?" (DeSmog UK) "How One UK Climate Denial Think Tank's Links to ExxonMobil Led to its Downfall" (DeSmog UK)

Discover hidden collaborations