TASK DEFINITION: Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
PROBLEM: Does the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an American bastion of serious scientific research with dozens of Nobel laureates among its alumni, really offer its over-achieving students something called a “Pirate Certificate”? That’s the claim that the History Hustle Facebook page makes in a widely-shared January 2018 meme that reads: Want to be a pirate? Massachusetts Institute of Technology awards official “Pirate Certificates” to students who complete courses in archery, pistol shooting, sailing and fencing. It’s true. Since the Fall semester of 2011, the university’s Physical Education department has been handing out physical “pirate certificates” to any student — undergraduate or graduate — who has successfully completed courses in archery, fencing, pistol/rifle shooting and sailing. The department appears to hold frequent “Pirate Induction” days; and its Facebook page shows a fairly steady stream of extremely happy-looking MIT students showing off their new pirate certificates, invariably dressed in pirate garb, some of which appears to be provided by the school for the occasion. The certificate itself is made of “faux parchment,” according to the Slice of MIT alumni blog, and has this tongue-in-cheek wording: This document certifies that the below-mentioned salty dog has fulfilled the Physical Education General Institute Requirement by completing Archery, Fencing, Pistol and Sailing [and] therefore is no longer a lily-livered landlubber. And so, MIT Physical Education Confers upon [STUDENT’S NAME] The Pirate Certificate, with all its privileges and obligations. Given at the swashbucklin’ Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Ahoy, Avast and finally, Arrrrrr! Jacob Hurwitz — a 2014 MIT graduate and proud owner of the document shown above — told us that the pirate certificate was a “legend” that had “been around” forever, with some students reputedly printing off t-shirts claiming to be pirates, after completing the four key physical education courses. “As best as I can tell,” Hurwitz told us by email, “the pirate’s license was probably a joke invented by students” before being made official by university authorities. A survey sent out to students in late 2010 shows that the pirate certificate had been requested by a “student focus group,” and that the names “pirate award” and “pirate degree” were also considered. Despite not fulfilling the criteria by completing the four physical education prerequisites, Matt Damon became the most famous recipient of the MIT pirate certificate to date, when he attended the university’s graduation ceremony in 2016 and delivered the commencement address:

SOLUTION: "MIT offers a ""pirate certificate"" to students who complete four physical education courses."

PROBLEM: The release does not mention cost. The FDA evaluates drugs without consideration of cost, so it’s understandable that they wouldn’t comment on it — and that’s why we’re rating this Not Applicable. But let’s be real here: The value of a new drug is a function not just of how well it works, but its cost-effectiveness. So we look forward to the day when any news release about a new drug — even one from the FDA — will include some mention of cost in its message. This release gives the preliminary results from a single study of 310 patients. Because the drug is experimental, long-term results haven’t been studied. Of the 310 patients enrolled in the lone trial upon which the approval is based, 14.8 percent showed some shrinkage of tumors during the assessment period lasting from 2.1 to about 13.8 months. For a subset of patients who were classified as having a positive response to PD-L1 expression, the response was 26 percent. As noted above, tumor shrinkage doesn’t always lead to improvements in survival or quality of life. It is a surrogate endpoint — a substitute — for the main outcome which is survival. Although this drug looks promising, to be fully transparent about its benefits as currently known, the release should have explained this. As noted in the “Summary,” another larger study is underway to assess the drug’s impact on extending life and improving quality of life. The release includes a description of side effects of this treatment. The most common ones included fatigue, decreased appetite, nausea, urinary tract infection, fever (pyrexia) and constipation. The release also mentions that patients taking the drug have an increased risk of infection and serious side effects that are “immune-mediated.” We would have liked a bit more context on what this term means for patients. The release outlines that this is the very first clinical trial of this compound for safety and efficacy, and under which regulatory paths the drug was assessed, including “breakthrough therapy designation, priority review status and accelerated approval.” We’re giving this release the benefit of the doubt and rating it Satisfactory for its bare bones description of the trial (and since we already addressed the lack of long-term survival data in the “Benefits” section.) As it stands, the results from the small trial were preliminary and short-term and did not reflect long-term survival. We would have liked to see a reference or link to the completed trial where one could look at the results to assess independently or learn more about the outcomes. We think the release should have provided more data on the patient demographics, the treatment regimen (dosing amount and schedule) as well as the range in tumor reduction. There is no disease mongering. This release describes the approval of a new drug by a regulatory agency, but we’d still like to know who sponsored the study that’s the basis for the approval. It’s not enough to state who markets the drug. The release does not give us very much information about alternatives. These patients had already received other therapy and their cancer had recurred, so it is implied that they had no other alternatives. But this isn’t stated very clearly. We can assume (and it seems evident) that the platinum-based therapy that the patients didn’t respond to initially is the usual treatment. The FDA’s approval of a drug clears the way for the drug sponsor to scale up production and begin marketing and selling the product. (The FDA doesn’t state this explicitly but it can be inferred.) A NYT article said the drug would be available in about two months. The release clearly states this product is first of its kind for this type of cancer. We found no unjustifiable language.

SOLUTION: FDA approves new, targeted treatment for bladder cancer

PROBLEM: The truck, which was stolen earlier this month while en route from a distribution center in Kentucky to a specialty distributor, was carrying the anemia treatment Procrit, the rheumatoid arthritis drug Remicade and the cancer medicine Doxil. The theft was reported to local and federal law enforcement offices, as well as to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but the transport trailer and products have not been recovered, the company said. J&J units Centocor and Ortho Biotech have recalled just the products with lot numbers that match those that were on the stolen truck. “If the stolen product were to be reintroduced into distribution channels, the companies cannot guarantee that products were stored at appropriate temperatures, nor can the companies guarantee the products were not damaged,” J&J said in a statement. “A voluntary withdrawal of products with lot numbers corresponding to that of the stolen product minimizes the possibility of inadvertent use of stolen product by physicians and, therefore, the overall risk to patients,” it said. The amount of stolen and withdrawn product represents a very small proportion of the total product within the distribution channel, J&J said, adding that it does not expect a disruption in product availability for patients. The companies discontinued shipment of products with lot numbers matching the stolen products on May 7. Health-care providers and patients who received those drugs from an authorized distributor on or before May 7 should consider the product safe for use, J&J said.

SOLUTION:
J&J recalling certain lots of drugs after theft.