Observatory: Fossils of New Species Discovered in England


University of Leicester


A view of Pauline avibella, a shrmplike marine creature, from a computer-generated model.







A tiny, fossilized crustacean that lived 425 million years ago has been discovered, remarkably intact, in a rock formation in Herefordshire, England. Paleontologists say it represents a new genus and species, belonging to a class of shrimplike marine creatures called ostracods.




Despite their age, the two specimens were well preserved. They included the shell and the soft parts of the animal, including its body, limbs, eyes, gills and alimentary system.


“It gives us a really special insight into the biology of these animals,” said David Siveter of the University of Leicester in England. He and colleagues from the University of Oxford, Imperial College and Yale discuss the findings in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.


The researchers determined that the animal had large eyes and seven pairs of limbs, with the front two pairs adapted for swimming.


It probably used these limbs to swim near the water’s bottom rather than in the water column, Dr. Siveter said.


Analyzing the fragile fossil posed a challenge. “We couldn’t grab it from the rock because it’s so delicate and small,” Dr. Siveter said. “And we couldn’t X-ray it because there wasn’t enough density contrast between the rock and the fossil.”


So the researchers used physical tomography, grinding minute slices off the fossils and capturing an image of each new section. The process, permitted by international guidelines for establishing new species, destroys the fossils themselves but yields detailed data to produce a computer-generated model.


The crustacean is named Pauline avibella, after Dr. Siveter’s deceased wife, Pauline.


Read More..

News Analysis: Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World



At the global treaty conference on telecommunications here, the United States got most of what it wanted. But then it refused to sign the document and left in a huff.


What was that all about? And what does it say about the future of the Internet — which was virtually invented by the United States but now has many more users in the rest of the world?


It may mean little about how the Internet will operate in the coming years. But it might mean everything about the United States’ refusal to acknowledge even symbolic global oversight of the network.


The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other nations signed it. And other participants in the two weeks of talks here were left wondering on Friday whether the Americans had been negotiating in good faith or had planned all along to engage in a public debate only to make a dramatic exit, as they did near midnight on Thursday as the signing deadline approached.


The head of the American delegation, Terry Kramer, announced that it was “with a heavy heart” that he could not “sign the agreement in its current form.” United States delegates said the pact could encourage censorship and undermine the existing, hands-off approach to Internet oversight and replace it with government control.


Anyone reading the treaty, though, might be puzzled by these assertions. “Internet” does not appear anywhere in the 10-page text, which deals mostly with matters like the fees that telecommunications networks should charge one another for connecting calls across borders. After being excised from the pact at United States insistence, the I-word was consigned to a soft-pedaled resolution that is attached to the treaty.


The first paragraph of the treaty states: “These regulations do not address the content-related aspects of telecommunications.” That convoluted phrasing was understood by all parties to refer to the Internet, delegates said, but without referring to it by name so no one could call it an Internet treaty.


A preamble to the treaty commits the signers to adopt the regulations “in a manner that respects and upholds their human rights obligations.”


Both of these provisions were added during the final days of haggling in Dubai, with the support of the United States. If anything, the new treaty appears to make it more intellectually challenging for governments like China and Iran to justify their current censorship of the Internet.


What’s more, two other proposals that raised objections from the United States were removed. One of those stated that treaty signers should share control over the Internet address-assignment system — a function now handled by an international group based in the United States. The other, also removed at the Americans’ behest, called for Internet companies like Google and Facebook to pay telecommunications networks for delivering material to users.


Given that the United States achieved many of its stated goals in the negotiations, why did it reject the treaty in an 11th-hour intervention that had clearly been coordinated with allies like Britain and Canada?


In a Dubai conference call with reporters early on Friday, Mr. Kramer cited a few remaining objections, like references to countering spam and to ensuring “the security and robustness of international telecommunications networks.” This wording, he argued, could be used by nefarious governments to justify crackdowns on free speech.


But even Mr. Kramer acknowledged that his real concerns were less tangible, saying it was the “normative” tone of the debate that had mattered most. The United States and its allies, in other words, saw a chance to use the treaty conference to make a strong statement about the importance of Internet freedom. But by refusing to sign the treaty and boycotting the closing ceremony, they made clear that even to talk about the appearance of global rules for cyberspace was a nonstarter.


It may have been grandstanding, but some United States allies in Europe were happy to go along, saying the strong American stand would underline the importance of keeping the Internet open.


Read More..

Aid: African Children Still at Risk of Pneumonia Despite Ceramic Stoves





Small ceramic indoor stoves, such as those sold by women in AIDS self-help groups in Africa, do save fuel and cut down on eye-irritating smoke, a new study has found — but they do not save children from pneumonia.


The study, published in The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, compared 168 households in rural Kenya that used either “upesi jiko” stoves or traditional three-stone indoor fires. The former — the name means “quick stove” in Swahili — has a locally made ceramic firebox that sells for $3. Clay and mud must be built up around it to insulate it and support the pot.


Since it uses less wood, it saves local forests. But it has no chimney, so the smoke stays indoors.


Biweekly visits by researchers found that children in both the stove and open-fire homes got pneumonia equally often. Pneumonia is a leading cause of death for infants in poor countries, and a 2008 study showed that the fine particles and toxic gases in cooking smoke inflame their lungs, doubling the pneumonia risk.


Two years ago, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton committed $50 million in American aid to help the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves get 100 million efficient stoves into households by 2020. But experts are still divided over which stove to pursue; chimneys do not solve all the problems, and stoves with fans burn more cleanly but are expensive and fragile.


Read More..

Aid: African Children Still at Risk of Pneumonia Despite Ceramic Stoves





Small ceramic indoor stoves, such as those sold by women in AIDS self-help groups in Africa, do save fuel and cut down on eye-irritating smoke, a new study has found — but they do not save children from pneumonia.


The study, published in The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, compared 168 households in rural Kenya that used either “upesi jiko” stoves or traditional three-stone indoor fires. The former — the name means “quick stove” in Swahili — has a locally made ceramic firebox that sells for $3. Clay and mud must be built up around it to insulate it and support the pot.


Since it uses less wood, it saves local forests. But it has no chimney, so the smoke stays indoors.


Biweekly visits by researchers found that children in both the stove and open-fire homes got pneumonia equally often. Pneumonia is a leading cause of death for infants in poor countries, and a 2008 study showed that the fine particles and toxic gases in cooking smoke inflame their lungs, doubling the pneumonia risk.


Two years ago, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton committed $50 million in American aid to help the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves get 100 million efficient stoves into households by 2020. But experts are still divided over which stove to pursue; chimneys do not solve all the problems, and stoves with fans burn more cleanly but are expensive and fragile.


Read More..

Frequent Flier: Intrepid on the Set, but Rattled by Frail Planes





WHEN I was a teenager, I was a competitive martial artist. I participated in a lot of tournaments, so flying isn’t new to me. After serving in the Marines from 1989 to 1994, I moved to Vancouver and joined a martial arts school.







Leslie McMichael

Steve McMichael





Q. How often do you fly for business?


A. Maybe once or twice a week, it depends. Sometimes it’s just once or twice a month. I log about 75,000 miles a year.


Q. What’s your least favorite airport?


A. Wellington International in New Zealand.  Landings can be really rough sometimes due to very strong crosswinds.


Q. Of all the places you’ve been, what’s the best?


A. Kona, Hawaii. It’s just gorgeous.


Q. What’s your secret airport vice? 


A. I have a Starbucks in one hand, my iPhone in the other, and probably annoying the travelers around me by Skype-ing with my kids.





One afternoon, I was looking out the window of my apartment and I saw David Duchovny walking down the street. I called a friend and told him about seeing the “X-Files” guy. My friend then told me how huge the television and film industry was in Vancouver.


I heard about an audition for the “Ninja Turtles” TV series here. I went and did a front flip over a stuntman who was about six feet tall. I got the job and have been working in the stunt industry ever since.


I really enjoyed flying when I was younger. I’m 42 years old now and I’m not crazy about it. Maybe it has to do with being older and having a family. The one thing I really do like about flying is that it shows you just how connected we are.


I was traveling to New Zealand quite a bit since I was working on “The Hobbit” as the film’s sword master. On one of the connecting flights I was taking on my way back home, I noticed one of the flight attendants trying to get my attention. He spotted my stunt crew jacket and wanted to ask me if I was a stuntman. It turned out that the flight attendant knew the stunt coordinator who gave me my first full-time job as a double for the lead actor in a TV series.


Meeting people isn’t always that great. I was chatting with a seatmate, who turned out to be the former wife of a producer of a show I was working on. She wouldn’t stop complaining about the guy. I wanted to change seats. She just wouldn’t stop talking and telling me details about the marriage I did not want to know. There were no empty seats, and it turned into what seemed like the longest flight from Los Angeles to Vancouver ever.


Stunt work does push the boundaries, but safety is obviously very important. I realize flying is safe, but I don’t like not being in control.


I remember flying to Bucharest to work on a Jean-Claude Van Damme film. I was catching my connecting flight in Amsterdam and I was surprised by the age of the small, crowded airplane I was supposed to board. It was ancient and the fabric was ripped off the seats.


I was making my way down the aisle and I passed an older woman who was holding a chicken. I thought for a second maybe it was a fake chicken, but the thing clucked and ruffled its feathers, so I knew it was a live chicken. I turned to my co-worker and said, “We’re going to die.” Actually the flight was O.K. and the chicken was a good passenger, much more relaxed than me.


I was flying from Calgary to Vancouver recently. When we reached cruising altitude, the plane turned around and started rapidly descending. The pilot announced there was a crack in the cockpit window and we were heading back to Calgary. I was with my family, so my wife and I tried to stay strong for the kids, but we were both worried.


Actually, I was the one who was most worried. My kids and wife were doing pretty well. When we landed, I told them I was driving to Vancouver. I’m sure my kids thought I was just being funny. I wasn’t.


By Steve McMichael, as told to Joan Raymond. E-mail: joan.raymond@nytimes.com.



Read More..

Syrians Face a Bread Shortage in Aleppo and Elsewhere


Tyler Hicks/The New York Times


A bakery in Aleppo. The price has shot up from 15 Syrian pounds, about 21 cents, for a bag of about eight flat, pitalike loaves to more than 200 pounds, nearly $3.







GAZIANTEP, Turkey — Jalal al-Khanji, the closest thing the Syrian city of Aleppo has to a mayor, hopes to organize elections there within two weeks, but he fears that residents with empty stomachs are in no mood for an experiment in democracy.




Since late November, bread has been scarce, with a lack of fuel and flour shutting most bakeries in Aleppo.


“We cannot hold elections while people are hungry; we have to solve that problem first,” he said in an interview in this southern Turkish city, where many leaders of Aleppo’s civil society have sought refuge. “People are angry, frustrated and depressed. They can understand how countries like France and Britain and the United States might hold back on the issue of weapons, but not on the issue of bread and diesel.”


The revolution that erupted across Syria in March 2011 only slowly engulfed Aleppo, Syria’s commercial capital. Long after major cities were convulsed by demonstrations, Aleppo’s residents still showed up in Gaziantep by the busload every weekend to scour the malls.


The armed struggle for the city began in earnest last July.


In August, the prominent doctors, engineers, pharmacists and businessmen sheltering here established the Aleppo Transitional Revolutionary Council, a kind of city government in exile for the liberated portions of the city. Mr. Khanji, 67, a civil engineer with a long history of opposing the Syrian government, serves as its president.


Dividing their time between Gaziantep and Aleppo, council members found the chaos convulsing their city worrisome. What if all the competing militias on the ground, even if nominally part of the loosely allied Free Syrian Army, continued to fight for the spoils even after the government’s forces were driven from the city?


They decided the remedy was an elected council of about 250 members who would run both the city and the province of Aleppo, roughly one representative for every 20,000 people in the liberated areas. The council would choose a smaller group to actually govern the city.


The idea is for the council to serve as a liaison between the military and the civilian populations. “If civilian life is not organized, if we cannot do anything, then the chaos will continue,” said a 29-year-old businessman who is also on the transitional council. Several members of the council declined to give their names because they still travel to government-controlled areas.


About 65 percent of the villages have already chosen their representatives, he said, but the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo forced a postponement of the choice of about 150 representatives from the city itself.


The transitional council is in the process of establishing a 500-member police force and runs a few courts, but members view the bread crisis as their first big test. “We represent a civil government to some extent, so if we cannot solve this problem there will be a lack of trust in such rule in the future,” said the businessman.


There is also competition. While about 70 percent to 80 percent of the Free Syrian Army commanders in the province have agreed to support the elected council, election organizers said, opponents include jihadi groups hostile to the very idea of democratic elections.


One such prominent group, Jibhat al-Nusra, which the United States sought to ostracize last week by labeling it a terrorist organization, has been distributing bread in and around Aleppo.


“The so-called terrorists are the ones who have been giving us bread and distributing it fairly,” said Tamam Hazem, a spokesman in Aleppo’s news media center, reached via Skype. “Free Syrian Army battalions have been trying to help, but they just don’t have the same kind of experience.”


Council members pleaded for outside help to counter the jihadists’ efforts. “They are offering bread to people to obtain their sympathy and respect,” said Mr. Khanji, the council’s president. “Prolonging the Syrian crisis will allow the extremist cells in Syria to grow and become more difficult to remove in the future.”


Hania Mourtada contributed reporting from Beirut, Lebanon, and Sebnem Arsu from Kilis, Turkey.



This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: December 16, 2012

An earlier version of this article misstated the prewar price, in Syrian pounds and the dollar equivalent, of an eight-loaf bag of bread in Syria. It is 15 Syrian pounds, or about 21 cents; not 25 Syrian pounds, or about 33 cents. The error was repeated in the picture caption with the earlier version.  



Read More..

Is Google Abusing Its Market Power? Former Legal Allies Disagree


Peter DaSilva for The New York Times


The Googleplex (Google Corp. headquarters) in Mountain View, Calif. Susan Creighton is helping to defend the company against antitrust accusations.







In the digital economy, 14 years is an eternity. Fast-shifting technology means that companies, once feared and seemingly invincible, fade, while new powers rise to dominance, raising fresh sets of concerns.




Exhibit A: In the spring of 1998, the federal government and 20 states filed a landmark antitrust suit against Microsoft. A few months later, Google was founded.


Now Google is the subject of major antitrust investigations in the United States and Europe.  In the United States, regulators are expected to announce a decision within days to sue or settle, and under what terms. The European decision will come soon as well.


Much has changed over the years, but two lawyers who helped build the case against Microsoft are playing important roles once again. But this time, Gary L. Reback and Susan A. Creighton are on opposite sides.


The two lawyers, and the positions they have taken, point to some striking similarities yet also significant differences between the two high-stakes investigations — and why the pursuit of Google has proved challenging for antitrust officials.


In 1996, Mr. Reback and Ms. Creighton were partners, representing Netscape, the pioneering Web browser company. They wrote a 222-page “white paper,” laying out Microsoft’s campaign to use its dominance of personal computer software to stifle competition from Netscape, the Internet insurgent. After Netscape sent their report to the Justice Department, the head of the antitrust division ordered an investigation.


Mr. Reback is now an attorney at Carr & Ferrell in Silicon Valley, where he represents several companies that have complained to the government about Google. He does not represent Microsoft, though that company is a born-again champion of antitrust action, against its rival Google.


In Google, Mr. Reback sees a familiar pattern — a giant company trying to hinder competition and attack new markets. Google, he says, is unfairly using its dominant search engine to favor the company’s offerings in online shopping, travel and local listings and thus stifle competition from Web sites that rely on Google search for traffic.


“From my perspective, it’s an instant replay of the Microsoft case,” Mr. Reback said in a recent interview, though he would not comment for this article. “It’s the same playbook.”


Not to Ms. Creighton, a partner in the Washington office of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, who is in Google’s corner. She has testified before Congress on Google’s behalf and negotiated with the Federal Trade Commission, the agency conducting the antitrust investigation, and where she was a senior official during the Bush administration.


“Google’s conduct is pro-competitive,” Ms. Creighton declared in her Senate testimony last year. “Far from threatening competition, Google has consistently enhanced consumer welfare by increasing the services available to consumers.”


Ms. Creighton hits two main themes in Google’s defense. The first is the consumer benefit of all Google’s free services. The second is that the cost to consumers of switching to Internet alternatives like Microsoft’s Bing search engine, the Expedia travel site or Yelp local listings is “zero,” she said. Or, as Google repeatedly says, competition is “just a click away.”


In the late 1990s, Microsoft had its version of both arguments. Microsoft bundled a free Web browser into its Windows operating system — an added feature at no cost, surely a consumer benefit. In its trial testimony, Microsoft showed that millions of people had downloaded the competing Netscape browser onto Windows — a rival product just a double-click away.


But in the trial, the evidence taken as a whole portrayed a wide-ranging effort by Microsoft to crush Netscape. It is not an antitrust violation for a powerful company to gain a dominant share of one market and then expand into other markets. The legal issue is the tactics the dominant company employs to expand its empire.


Read More..

Dr. William F. House, Inventor of Cochlear Implant, Dies





Dr. William F. House, a medical researcher who braved skepticism to invent the cochlear implant, an electronic device considered to be the first to restore a human sense, died on Dec. 7 at his home in Aurora, Ore. He was 89.




The cause was metastatic melanoma, his daughter, Karen House, said.


Dr. House pushed against conventional thinking throughout his career. Over the objections of some, he introduced the surgical microscope to ear surgery. Tackling a form of vertigo that doctors had believed was psychosomatic, he developed a surgical procedure that enabled the first American in space to travel to the moon. Peering at the bones of the inner ear, he found enrapturing beauty.


Even after his ear-implant device had largely been supplanted by more sophisticated, and more expensive, devices, Dr. House remained convinced of his own version’s utility and advocated that it be used to help the world’s poor.


Today, more than 200,000 people in the world have inner-ear implants, a third of them in the United States. A majority of young deaf children receive them, and most people with the implants learn to understand speech with no visual help.


Hearing aids amplify sound to help the hearing-impaired. But many deaf people cannot hear at all because sound cannot be transmitted to their brains, however much it is amplified. This is because the delicate hair cells that line the cochlea, the liquid-filled spiral cavity of the inner ear, are damaged. When healthy, these hairs — more than 15,000 altogether — translate mechanical vibrations produced by sound into electrical signals and deliver them to the auditory nerve.


Dr. House’s cochlear implant electronically translated sound into mechanical vibrations. His initial device, implanted in 1961, was eventually rejected by the body. But after refining its materials, he created a long-lasting version and implanted it in 1969.


More than a decade would pass before the Food and Drug Administration approved the cochlear implant, but when it did, in 1984, Mark Novitch, the agency’s deputy commissioner, said, “For the first time a device can, to a degree, replace an organ of the human senses.”


One of Dr. House’s early implant patients, from an experimental trial, wrote to him in 1981 saying, “I no longer live in a world of soundless movement and voiceless faces.”


But for 27 years, Dr. House had faced stern opposition while he was developing the device. Doctors and scientists said it would not work, or not work very well, calling it a cruel hoax on people desperate to hear. Some said he was motivated by the prospect of financial gain. Some criticized him for experimenting on human subjects. Some advocates for the deaf said the device deprived its users of the dignity of their deafness without fully integrating them into the hearing world.


Even when the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology endorsed implants in 1977, it specifically denounced Dr. House’s version. It recommended more complicated versions, which were then under development and later became the standard.


But his work is broadly viewed as having sped the development of implants and enlarged understanding of the inner ear. Jack Urban, an aerospace engineer, helped develop the surgical microscope as well as mechanical and electronic aspects of the House implant.


Karl White, founding director of the National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management, said in an interview that it would have taken a decade longer to invent the cochlear implant without Dr. House’s contributions. He called him “a giant in the field.”


After embracing the use of the microscope in ear surgery, Dr. House developed procedures — radical for their time — for removing tumors from the back portion of the brain without causing facial paralysis; they cut the death rate from the surgery to less than 1 percent from 40 percent.


He also developed the first surgical treatment for Meniere’s disease, which involves debilitating vertigo and had been viewed as a psychosomatic condition. His procedure cured the astronaut Alan B. Shepard Jr. of the disease, clearing him to command the Apollo 14 mission to the moon in 1971. In 1961, Shepard had become the first American launched into space.


In presenting Dr. House with an award in 1995, the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation said, “He has developed more new concepts in otology than almost any other single person in history.”


William Fouts House was born in Kansas City, Mo., on Dec. 1, 1923. When he was 3 his family moved to Whittier, Calif., where he grew up on a ranch. He did pre-dental studies at Whittier College and the University of Southern California, and earned a doctorate in dentistry at the University of California, Berkeley. After serving his required two years in the Navy — and filling the requisite 300 cavities a month — he went back to U.S.C. to pursue an interest in oral surgery. He earned his medical degree in 1953. After a residency at Los Angeles County Hospital, he joined the Los Angeles Foundation of Otology, a nonprofit research institution founded by his brother, Howard. Today it is called the House Research Institute.


Many at the time thought ear surgery was a declining field because of the effectiveness of antibiotics in dealing with ear maladies. But Dr. House saw antibiotics as enabling more sophisticated surgery by diminishing the threat of infection.


When his brother returned from West Germany with a surgical microscope, Dr. House saw its potential and adopted it for ear surgery; he is credited with introducing the device to the field. But again there was resistance. As Dr. House wrote in his memoir, “The Struggles of a Medical Innovator: Cochlear Implants and Other Ear Surgeries” (2011), some eye doctors initially criticized his use of a microscope in surgery as reckless and unnecessary for a surgeon with good eyesight.


Dr. House also used the microscope as a research tool. One night a week he would take one to a morgue for use in dissecting ears to gain insights that might lead to new surgical procedures. His initial reaction, he said, was how beautiful the bones seemed; he compared the experience to one’s first view of the Grand Canyon. His wife, the former June Stendhal, a nurse, often helped.


She died in 2008 after 64 years of marriage. In addition to his daughter, Dr. House is survived by a son, David; three grandchildren; and two great-grandchildren.


The implant Dr. House invented used a single channel to deliver information to the hearing system, as opposed to the multiple channels of competing models. The 3M Company, the original licensee of the House implant, sold its rights to another company, the Cochlear Corporation, in 1989. Cochlear later abandoned his design in favor of the multichannel version.


But Dr. House continued to fight for his single-electrode approach, saying it was far cheaper, and offered voluminous material as evidence of its efficacy. He had hoped to resume production of it and make it available to the poor around the world.


Neither the institute nor Dr. House made any money on the implant. He never sought a patent on any of his inventions, he said, because he did not want to restrict other researchers. A nephew, Dr. John House, the current president of the House institute, said his uncle had made the deal to license it to the 3M Company not for profit but simply to get it built by a reputable manufacturer.


Reflecting on his business decisions in his memoir, Dr. House acknowledged, “I might be a little richer today.”


Read More..

Dr. William F. House, Inventor of Cochlear Implant, Dies





Dr. William F. House, a medical researcher who braved skepticism to invent the cochlear implant, an electronic device considered to be the first to restore a human sense, died on Dec. 7 at his home in Aurora, Ore. He was 89.




The cause was metastatic melanoma, his daughter, Karen House, said.


Dr. House pushed against conventional thinking throughout his career. Over the objections of some, he introduced the surgical microscope to ear surgery. Tackling a form of vertigo that doctors had believed was psychosomatic, he developed a surgical procedure that enabled the first American in space to travel to the moon. Peering at the bones of the inner ear, he found enrapturing beauty.


Even after his ear-implant device had largely been supplanted by more sophisticated, and more expensive, devices, Dr. House remained convinced of his own version’s utility and advocated that it be used to help the world’s poor.


Today, more than 200,000 people in the world have inner-ear implants, a third of them in the United States. A majority of young deaf children receive them, and most people with the implants learn to understand speech with no visual help.


Hearing aids amplify sound to help the hearing-impaired. But many deaf people cannot hear at all because sound cannot be transmitted to their brains, however much it is amplified. This is because the delicate hair cells that line the cochlea, the liquid-filled spiral cavity of the inner ear, are damaged. When healthy, these hairs — more than 15,000 altogether — translate mechanical vibrations produced by sound into electrical signals and deliver them to the auditory nerve.


Dr. House’s cochlear implant electronically translated sound into mechanical vibrations. His initial device, implanted in 1961, was eventually rejected by the body. But after refining its materials, he created a long-lasting version and implanted it in 1969.


More than a decade would pass before the Food and Drug Administration approved the cochlear implant, but when it did, in 1984, Mark Novitch, the agency’s deputy commissioner, said, “For the first time a device can, to a degree, replace an organ of the human senses.”


One of Dr. House’s early implant patients, from an experimental trial, wrote to him in 1981 saying, “I no longer live in a world of soundless movement and voiceless faces.”


But for 27 years, Dr. House had faced stern opposition while he was developing the device. Doctors and scientists said it would not work, or not work very well, calling it a cruel hoax on people desperate to hear. Some said he was motivated by the prospect of financial gain. Some criticized him for experimenting on human subjects. Some advocates for the deaf said the device deprived its users of the dignity of their deafness without fully integrating them into the hearing world.


Even when the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology endorsed implants in 1977, it specifically denounced Dr. House’s version. It recommended more complicated versions, which were then under development and later became the standard.


But his work is broadly viewed as having sped the development of implants and enlarged understanding of the inner ear. Jack Urban, an aerospace engineer, helped develop the surgical microscope as well as mechanical and electronic aspects of the House implant.


Karl White, founding director of the National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management, said in an interview that it would have taken a decade longer to invent the cochlear implant without Dr. House’s contributions. He called him “a giant in the field.”


After embracing the use of the microscope in ear surgery, Dr. House developed procedures — radical for their time — for removing tumors from the back portion of the brain without causing facial paralysis; they cut the death rate from the surgery to less than 1 percent from 40 percent.


He also developed the first surgical treatment for Meniere’s disease, which involves debilitating vertigo and had been viewed as a psychosomatic condition. His procedure cured the astronaut Alan B. Shepard Jr. of the disease, clearing him to command the Apollo 14 mission to the moon in 1971. In 1961, Shepard had become the first American launched into space.


In presenting Dr. House with an award in 1995, the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation said, “He has developed more new concepts in otology than almost any other single person in history.”


William Fouts House was born in Kansas City, Mo., on Dec. 1, 1923. When he was 3 his family moved to Whittier, Calif., where he grew up on a ranch. He did pre-dental studies at Whittier College and the University of Southern California, and earned a doctorate in dentistry at the University of California, Berkeley. After serving his required two years in the Navy — and filling the requisite 300 cavities a month — he went back to U.S.C. to pursue an interest in oral surgery. He earned his medical degree in 1953. After a residency at Los Angeles County Hospital, he joined the Los Angeles Foundation of Otology, a nonprofit research institution founded by his brother, Howard. Today it is called the House Research Institute.


Many at the time thought ear surgery was a declining field because of the effectiveness of antibiotics in dealing with ear maladies. But Dr. House saw antibiotics as enabling more sophisticated surgery by diminishing the threat of infection.


When his brother returned from West Germany with a surgical microscope, Dr. House saw its potential and adopted it for ear surgery; he is credited with introducing the device to the field. But again there was resistance. As Dr. House wrote in his memoir, “The Struggles of a Medical Innovator: Cochlear Implants and Other Ear Surgeries” (2011), some eye doctors initially criticized his use of a microscope in surgery as reckless and unnecessary for a surgeon with good eyesight.


Dr. House also used the microscope as a research tool. One night a week he would take one to a morgue for use in dissecting ears to gain insights that might lead to new surgical procedures. His initial reaction, he said, was how beautiful the bones seemed; he compared the experience to one’s first view of the Grand Canyon. His wife, the former June Stendhal, a nurse, often helped.


She died in 2008 after 64 years of marriage. In addition to his daughter, Dr. House is survived by a son, David; three grandchildren; and two great-grandchildren.


The implant Dr. House invented used a single channel to deliver information to the hearing system, as opposed to the multiple channels of competing models. The 3M Company, the original licensee of the House implant, sold its rights to another company, the Cochlear Corporation, in 1989. Cochlear later abandoned his design in favor of the multichannel version.


But Dr. House continued to fight for his single-electrode approach, saying it was far cheaper, and offered voluminous material as evidence of its efficacy. He had hoped to resume production of it and make it available to the poor around the world.


Neither the institute nor Dr. House made any money on the implant. He never sought a patent on any of his inventions, he said, because he did not want to restrict other researchers. A nephew, Dr. John House, the current president of the House institute, said his uncle had made the deal to license it to the 3M Company not for profit but simply to get it built by a reputable manufacturer.


Reflecting on his business decisions in his memoir, Dr. House acknowledged, “I might be a little richer today.”


Read More..

Advertising: Jell-O Ads Aim at Mayan Calendar’s End, Tongue in Cheek





ACCORDING to the Mayan calendar, at least as some have jokingly interpreted it, the world may end on Dec. 21, but before then the Jell-O brand is introducing a tongue-in-cheek commercial about its own effort to avert the apocalypse.




A commercial that will be introduced on Monday opens with a male voice-over explaining that the ancient Mayans made offerings to their gods of beans, corn and potatoes, all of which he calls boring.


“No wonder,” he says, “the gods decided to end the world.”


In the commercial an actor depicting a Jell-O executive in a khaki safari outfit is led through the jungle by guides. Some guides carry a large wooden crate, an offering, promises the voice-over, “that would finally appease the gods.”


When they reach a Mayan temple, they pry the lid off the crate to reveal that it is filled with cups of chocolate pudding.


“Jell-O pudding — the funnest sacrifice ever,” says the voice-over as the men stack the pudding into the form of a pyramid. “Fingers crossed, we’ll see you on the 22nd.”


The commercial closes with the slogan Jell-O is introducing with the campaign: “Fun things up.”


The commercial, by Crispin Porter & Bogusky, of Boulder, Colo., part of MDC Partners, will run widely on television and online through Dec. 21.


On Dec. 22, Jell-O will introduce a second commercial that concludes the premise, and which will run only through Dec. 23. The brand declined to reveal the content of the second spot publicly for the sake of suspense.


Jell-O, which would not disclose the cost of the campaign, spent $37.4 million on advertising in 2011, down from $69.5 million in 2010, according to the Kantar Media unit of WPP.


Jell-O, which began as a gelatin-only brand, has been marketed increasingly as a treat for children. Memorable campaigns with Bill Cosby as spokesman introduced in the 1970s and spanning more than 25 years, for example, featured the comedian interacting with young children.


The strategy historically has been to induce “mom to buy the product for her kids, but then she and dad ate it as well,” said Dan O’Leary, senior director for marketing for Jell-O, a Kraft Foods brand.


That shifted around 2002, when, during the Atkins diet craze, Jell-O pudding, especially the sugar-free varieties, was marketed primarily to adults as a low-carb, high-protein treat. Consumption patterns changed, with “mom buying it for herself, but the kids not eating it as much,” Mr. O’Leary said.


Now, instead of pinpointing either children or adults, Jell-O is pitching the products as “desserts the whole family loves,” Mr. O’Leary said.


These days Jell-O, particularly the gelatin variety, has a “bad rap,” writes Victoria Belanger in “Hello, Jell-O,” a recipe book published in February that takes an unexpected gourmet approach, with recipes for molds like eggnog rum, sparkling Champagne and strawberries and watermelon basil agar.


“What people mostly think of when they think of Jell-O is cafeterias and hospital food,” Ms. Belanger, who publishes a blog, The Jello Mold Mistress of Brooklyn, said in an interview. Or, she added, “they think of Jell-O shots,” referring to the potent concoctions popular in college bars.


“It’s not thought of as being very classy, and it’s not that I think it’s super classy, but I’ve at least tried to elevate it,” said Ms. Belanger of gelatin desserts. “I still haven’t broken the cupcake barrier, but that’s a high bar to set.”


Pearle B. Wait, a carpenter in Le Roy, N.Y., created Jell-O in 1897, and it wasn’t long before the brand became as synonymous with gelatin desserts as Kleenex is with facial tissues and Q-Tips with cotton swabs.


Today, Kraft, which also owns the Knox unflavored gelatin brand, commands a 79.5 percent share of the market for gelatin dessert mixes, an 82.3 percent share for pudding, mousse and pie filling mixes, and a 56.2 percent share for refrigerated pudding, mousse, gelatin and parfaits, according to data for the 52 weeks ending Nov. 4 from SymphonyIRI Group, a market research firm.


According to Jell-O, sales of pudding products account for about 60 percent of revenue and gelatin products for 40 percent; ready-to-eat products in the dairy case account for about 55 percent of revenue, shelf-stable mixes for 45 percent.


To help update the brand, in September Kraft introduced Jell-O with Mix-Ins, which have a second container of dry ingredients fitted atop pudding cups. Intended to appeal to multigenerational palates, the varieties have associations to other desserts, including German chocolate cake, banana caramel pie and strawberry shortcake.


Newer recipes, meanwhile, try to increase what food marketers call usage occasions by including the powder mixes in dishes whose final form is neither pudding nor gelatin.


Recipes highlighted on the Jell-O Facebook page recently, for example, include a snack mix made with popcorn, pretzel twists, nuts and a glaze made with the brand’s black cherry gelatin. Another recipe for a blended coffee drink combines instant coffee, milk and vanilla pudding.


“We feel like the way to make both gelatin and pudding newsworthy and contemporary is by treating them more like ingredients,” said Mr. O’Leary, the brand manager.


As for the new advertising, Tony Calcao, an executive creative director at Crispin Porter & Bogusky, said the whimsical approach toward the Mayan calendar was meant to demonstrate the new tagline, “Fun things up.”


Jell-O carefully eschewed typical advertising assertions about the product being toothsome and wholesome, which Mr. Calcao said he appreciated.


“They could have asked to force in some health benefit or taste message about the pudding being made with real milk or containing no high fructose corn syrup, but they didn’t,” he said. “There’s no bite-and-smile in the work, and that’s good.”


Read More..