The head of the mandala is comprised of the administrative complex on the top of the hill while the main research center travels from south to north and wraps around a central courtyard. Attracted to the notion that scientists need peaceful and intuitive spaces in which to foster their inner creativity, Malik Architecture added several water features throughout the campus. These also serve to harvest and circulate water and have been positioned so that wind drafts will wash over them to create a cooling effect.
Apart from the laboratory which has to be kept consistently cool, most of the rooms are naturally ventilated and stay cool thanks to their North/East orientation. Perhaps the most impressive feat is the way light is harvested, particularly throughout the pergola-covered avenues, so that very little electricity has to be used. The bricks are made from recycled materials, which finished in terra cotta-colored paint evokes the ambience of an ancient village. Malik Architecture has been celebrated on Inhabitat before. We think it’s easy to see why.
+ Malik Architecture
Pharmaceutical companies get a bad reputation. Of course government regulation of the industry does far more harm than good. Since the turn of the century, the upward trend of terminally ill communities being denied access to experimental drugs by the FDA has been well documented. Sure some drugs were dangerous such as Phen Phen, but for all the failures lie many more successes. Add to this disturbing trend, FDA approval process which is daunting, to say the least, for those smaller drug companies who lack the requisite hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to complete all three phases of a clinical drug trials. Advances in technology allow new chemical compounds to be identified by drug companies a great deal faster and in higher quantities than in previous decades, subsequently lowering the cost of research and development on the front-end. If not for the high cost of FDA approval therapies would enter the marketplace much sooner. The net loss of life when you factor in the potentially lethal side effects of unapproved drugs which the FDA approval process protects the general public from, and the lives lost waiting for prospective drugs to be approved (on average, 10 – 15 years); what's worse the cost of doing nothing or the cost of doing something? A Phase I trial consisting of stem cell treatments for 13 ALS patients has been approved by the FDA. The other 30,000 or so ALS patients in the continental United States have to wait 18 months for the Phase II trial (I was informed by a doctor working on the Phase I trial) and hope to be one of a lucky dozen or so chosen. But because of the high death rate of ALS, within two to five years from diagnosis, most ALS patients diagnosed even recently will die well prior to this treatment ever being approved by the FDA (if it is approved at all). Most people aside from certain decision makers at the FDA would find it difficult to argue against granting people dying of incurable diseases access to experimental (albeit possibly dangerous) drugs irrespective of the potential side effects. The rational response is....he or she already has one foot in the grave so who does it hurt? We own our bodies, don't feel so confident in something approved by the FDA, just because we have food clearly certified by the USDA doesn't stop some people from eating roadkill.