Question: What is planned to be reshaped?

Answer: curriculum

Many universities have decided to drop fossil fuel stocks from their investment portfolios, but the New School in New York City has decided to go a step further. <hl> The eclectic, historically progressive school said not only would it divest itself of all fossil fuel investments in coming years, but it is also reshaping the entire curriculum to focus more on climate change and sustainability. <hl> The school, which has a strong emphasis on the field of design, sees opportunities in meeting the challenge of climate change and economic growth, said Joel Towers, executive dean of Parsons the New School of Design.

Many universities have decided to drop fossil fuel stocks from their investment portfolios, but the New School in New York City has decided to go a step further. The eclectic, historically progressive school said not only would it divest itself of all fossil fuel investments in coming years, but it is also reshaping the entire <hl> curriculum <hl> to focus more on climate change and sustainability. The school, which has a strong emphasis on the field of design, sees opportunities in meeting the challenge of climate change and economic growth, said Joel Towers, executive dean of Parsons the New School of Design.


Question: What city is mentioned first?

Many universities have decided to drop fossil fuel stocks from their investment portfolios, but the New School in New York City has decided to go a step further. The eclectic, historically progressive school said not only would it divest itself of all fossil fuel investments in coming years, but it is also reshaping the entire curriculum to focus more on climate change and sustainability. The school, which has a strong emphasis on the field of design, sees opportunities in meeting the challenge of climate change and economic growth, said Joel Towers, executive dean of Parsons the New School of Design.

Answer: New York City

<hl> Many universities have decided to drop fossil fuel stocks from their investment portfolios, but the New School in New York City has decided to go a step further. <hl> The eclectic, historically progressive school said not only would it divest itself of all fossil fuel investments in coming years, but it is also reshaping the entire curriculum to focus more on climate change and sustainability. The school, which has a strong emphasis on the field of design, sees opportunities in meeting the challenge of climate change and economic growth, said Joel Towers, executive dean of Parsons the New School of Design.

Many universities have decided to drop fossil fuel stocks from their investment portfolios, but the New School in <hl> New York City <hl> has decided to go a step further. The eclectic, historically progressive school said not only would it divest itself of all fossil fuel investments in coming years, but it is also reshaping the entire curriculum to focus more on climate change and sustainability. The school, which has a strong emphasis on the field of design, sees opportunities in meeting the challenge of climate change and economic growth, said Joel Towers, executive dean of Parsons the New School of Design.


Question: Who is the dean of Parsons?

Answer: Joel Towers

Many universities have decided to drop fossil fuel stocks from their investment portfolios, but the New School in New York City has decided to go a step further. The eclectic, historically progressive school said not only would it divest itself of all fossil fuel investments in coming years, but it is also reshaping the entire curriculum to focus more on climate change and sustainability. <hl> The school, which has a strong emphasis on the field of design, sees opportunities in meeting the challenge of climate change and economic growth, said Joel Towers , executive dean of Parsons the New School of Design. <hl>

Many universities have decided to drop fossil fuel stocks from their investment portfolios, but the New School in New York City has decided to go a step further. The eclectic, historically progressive school said not only would it divest itself of all fossil fuel investments in coming years, but it is also reshaping the entire curriculum to focus more on climate change and sustainability. The school, which has a strong emphasis on the field of design, sees opportunities in meeting the challenge of climate change and economic growth, said <hl> Joel Towers <hl>, executive dean of Parsons the New School of Design.

The school, which has a strong emphasis on the field of design, sees opportunities in meeting the challenge of climate change and economic growth, said <hl> Joel Towers <hl> , executive dean of Parsons the New School of Design.


Question: What company was NXP a part of?

Both companies were previously parts of bigger corporations: NXP was formerly a division of Philips, while Freescale was a division of Motorola. Both were also owned by groups of private equity firms and returned to the public markets in rocky initial public offerings. Representatives for NXP and Freescale were not immediately available for comment. News of the discussions was reported earlier by Reuters.

Answer: Philips

<hl> Both companies were previously parts of bigger corporations: NXP was formerly a division of Philips , while Freescale was a division of Motorola. <hl> Both were also owned by groups of private equity firms and returned to the public markets in rocky initial public offerings. Representatives for NXP and Freescale were not immediately available for comment. News of the discussions was reported earlier by Reuters.

Both companies were previously parts of bigger corporations: NXP was formerly a division of <hl> Philips <hl>, while Freescale was a division of Motorola. Both were also owned by groups of private equity firms and returned to the public markets in rocky initial public offerings. Representatives for NXP and Freescale were not immediately available for comment. News of the discussions was reported earlier by Reuters.

Both companies were previously parts of bigger corporations: NXP was formerly a division of <hl> Philips <hl> , while Freescale was a division of Motorola.


Question: What company was Freescale a part of?

Answer: Motorola

<hl> Both companies were previously parts of bigger corporations: NXP was formerly a division of Philips, while Freescale was a division of Motorola . <hl> Both were also owned by groups of private equity firms and returned to the public markets in rocky initial public offerings. Representatives for NXP and Freescale were not immediately available for comment. News of the discussions was reported earlier by Reuters.

Both companies were previously parts of bigger corporations: NXP was formerly a division of Philips, while Freescale was a division of <hl> Motorola <hl>. Both were also owned by groups of private equity firms and returned to the public markets in rocky initial public offerings. Representatives for NXP and Freescale were not immediately available for comment. News of the discussions was reported earlier by Reuters.

Both companies were previously parts of bigger corporations: NXP was formerly a division of Philips, while Freescale was a division of <hl> Motorola <hl> .


Question: What groups owned them?

Answer: private equity firms

Both companies were previously parts of bigger corporations: NXP was formerly a division of Philips, while Freescale was a division of Motorola. <hl> Both were also owned by groups of private equity firms and returned to the public markets in rocky initial public offerings. <hl> Representatives for NXP and Freescale were not immediately available for comment. News of the discussions was reported earlier by Reuters.

Both companies were previously parts of bigger corporations: NXP was formerly a division of Philips, while Freescale was a division of Motorola. Both were also owned by groups of <hl> private equity firms <hl> and returned to the public markets in rocky initial public offerings. Representatives for NXP and Freescale were not immediately available for comment. News of the discussions was reported earlier by Reuters.


Question: Where they returned to the public market?

Answer: returned to the public markets

Both companies were previously parts of bigger corporations: NXP was formerly a division of Philips, while Freescale was a division of Motorola. <hl> Both were also owned by groups of private equity firms and returned to the public markets in rocky initial public offerings. <hl> Representatives for NXP and Freescale were not immediately available for comment. News of the discussions was reported earlier by Reuters.

Both companies were previously parts of bigger corporations: NXP was formerly a division of Philips, while Freescale was a division of Motorola. Both were also owned by groups of private equity firms and <hl> returned to the public markets <hl> in rocky initial public offerings. Representatives for NXP and Freescale were not immediately available for comment. News of the discussions was reported earlier by Reuters.


Question: Who reported this news?

Answer: Reuters.

Both companies were previously parts of bigger corporations: NXP was formerly a division of Philips, while Freescale was a division of Motorola. Both were also owned by groups of private equity firms and returned to the public markets in rocky initial public offerings. Representatives for NXP and Freescale were not immediately available for comment. <hl> News of the discussions was reported earlier by Reuters. <hl>

Both companies were previously parts of bigger corporations: NXP was formerly a division of Philips, while Freescale was a division of Motorola. Both were also owned by groups of private equity firms and returned to the public markets in rocky initial public offerings. Representatives for NXP and Freescale were not immediately available for comment. News of the discussions was reported earlier by <hl> Reuters. <hl>


Question: NXP used to be a division of what company?

Answer: Philips

<hl> Both companies were previously parts of bigger corporations: NXP was formerly a division of Philips , while Freescale was a division of Motorola. <hl> Both were also owned by groups of private equity firms and returned to the public markets in rocky initial public offerings. Representatives for NXP and Freescale were not immediately available for comment. News of the discussions was reported earlier by Reuters.

Both companies were previously parts of bigger corporations: NXP was formerly a division of <hl> Philips <hl>, while Freescale was a division of Motorola. Both were also owned by groups of private equity firms and returned to the public markets in rocky initial public offerings. Representatives for NXP and Freescale were not immediately available for comment. News of the discussions was reported earlier by Reuters.

Both companies were previously parts of bigger corporations: NXP was formerly a division of <hl> Philips <hl> , while Freescale was a division of Motorola.


Question: Who reported the new of the merger discussions?

Answer: Reuters

Both companies were previously parts of bigger corporations: NXP was formerly a division of Philips, while Freescale was a division of Motorola. Both were also owned by groups of private equity firms and returned to the public markets in rocky initial public offerings. Representatives for NXP and Freescale were not immediately available for comment. <hl> News of the discussions was reported earlier by Reuters . <hl>

Both companies were previously parts of bigger corporations: NXP was formerly a division of Philips, while Freescale was a division of Motorola. Both were also owned by groups of private equity firms and returned to the public markets in rocky initial public offerings. Representatives for NXP and Freescale were not immediately available for comment. News of the discussions was reported earlier by <hl> Reuters <hl>.

News of the discussions was reported earlier by <hl> Reuters <hl> .


Question: Both companies were owned by groups of what?

Answer: private equity firms

Both companies were previously parts of bigger corporations: NXP was formerly a division of Philips, while Freescale was a division of Motorola. <hl> Both were also owned by groups of private equity firms and returned to the public markets in rocky initial public offerings. <hl> Representatives for NXP and Freescale were not immediately available for comment. News of the discussions was reported earlier by Reuters.

Both companies were previously parts of bigger corporations: NXP was formerly a division of Philips, while Freescale was a division of Motorola. Both were also owned by groups of <hl> private equity firms <hl> and returned to the public markets in rocky initial public offerings. Representatives for NXP and Freescale were not immediately available for comment. News of the discussions was reported earlier by Reuters.


Question: Both company's IPO's were described as what?

Answer: rocky

Both companies were previously parts of bigger corporations: NXP was formerly a division of Philips, while Freescale was a division of Motorola. <hl> Both were also owned by groups of private equity firms and returned to the public markets in rocky initial public offerings. <hl> Representatives for NXP and Freescale were not immediately available for comment. News of the discussions was reported earlier by Reuters.

Both companies were previously parts of bigger corporations: NXP was formerly a division of Philips, while Freescale was a division of Motorola. Both were also owned by groups of private equity firms and returned to the public markets in <hl> rocky <hl> initial public offerings. Representatives for NXP and Freescale were not immediately available for comment. News of the discussions was reported earlier by Reuters.


Question: Who used to be a division of Mortorola?

Answer: Freescale

<hl> Both companies were previously parts of bigger corporations: NXP was formerly a division of Philips, while Freescale was a division of Motorola. <hl> Both were also owned by groups of private equity firms and returned to the public markets in rocky initial public offerings. Representatives for NXP and Freescale were not immediately available for comment. News of the discussions was reported earlier by Reuters.

Both companies were previously parts of bigger corporations: NXP was formerly a division of Philips, while <hl> Freescale <hl> was a division of Motorola. Both were also owned by groups of private equity firms and returned to the public markets in rocky initial public offerings. Representatives for NXP and Freescale were not immediately available for comment. News of the discussions was reported earlier by Reuters.


Question: Does NXP Semincondustors make chips

NXP Semiconductors, a big chip manufacturer, is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, Freescale Semiconductor, in a cash-and-stock transaction, people briefed on the matter said on Sunday. An agreement could be announced as soon as Sunday evening, one of these people said, while cautioning that the talks could still collapse. If completed, the combination would unite two big makers of chips for industries ranging from automobiles to networking to mobile payments. As of Friday evening, NXP had a market value of about $21 billion, while Freescale had a market capitalization of about $11 billion.

Answer: a big chip manufacturer

<hl> NXP Semiconductors, a big chip manufacturer , is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, Freescale Semiconductor, in a cash-and-stock transaction, people briefed on the matter said on Sunday. <hl> An agreement could be announced as soon as Sunday evening, one of these people said, while cautioning that the talks could still collapse. If completed, the combination would unite two big makers of chips for industries ranging from automobiles to networking to mobile payments. As of Friday evening, NXP had a market value of about $21 billion, while Freescale had a market capitalization of about $11 billion.

NXP Semiconductors, <hl> a big chip manufacturer <hl>, is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, Freescale Semiconductor, in a cash-and-stock transaction, people briefed on the matter said on Sunday. An agreement could be announced as soon as Sunday evening, one of these people said, while cautioning that the talks could still collapse. If completed, the combination would unite two big makers of chips for industries ranging from automobiles to networking to mobile payments. As of Friday evening, NXP had a market value of about $21 billion, while Freescale had a market capitalization of about $11 billion.

NXP Semiconductors, <hl> a big chip manufacturer <hl> , is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, Freescale Semiconductor, in a cash-and-stock transaction, people briefed on the matter said on Sunday.


Question: What type of transaction is Freescale Seminconductors

Answer: cash-and-stock transaction

<hl> NXP Semiconductors, a big chip manufacturer, is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, Freescale Semiconductor, in a cash-and-stock transaction , people briefed on the matter said on Sunday. <hl> An agreement could be announced as soon as Sunday evening, one of these people said, while cautioning that the talks could still collapse. If completed, the combination would unite two big makers of chips for industries ranging from automobiles to networking to mobile payments. As of Friday evening, NXP had a market value of about $21 billion, while Freescale had a market capitalization of about $11 billion.

NXP Semiconductors, a big chip manufacturer, is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, Freescale Semiconductor, in a <hl> cash-and-stock transaction <hl>, people briefed on the matter said on Sunday. An agreement could be announced as soon as Sunday evening, one of these people said, while cautioning that the talks could still collapse. If completed, the combination would unite two big makers of chips for industries ranging from automobiles to networking to mobile payments. As of Friday evening, NXP had a market value of about $21 billion, while Freescale had a market capitalization of about $11 billion.

NXP Semiconductors, a big chip manufacturer, is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, Freescale Semiconductor, in a <hl> cash-and-stock transaction <hl> , people briefed on the matter said on Sunday.


Question: what was NXP market value on Friday

Answer: $21 billion

NXP Semiconductors, a big chip manufacturer, is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, Freescale Semiconductor, in a cash-and-stock transaction, people briefed on the matter said on Sunday. An agreement could be announced as soon as Sunday evening, one of these people said, while cautioning that the talks could still collapse. If completed, the combination would unite two big makers of chips for industries ranging from automobiles to networking to mobile payments. <hl> As of Friday evening, NXP had a market value of about $21 billion , while Freescale had a market capitalization of about $11 billion. <hl>

NXP Semiconductors, a big chip manufacturer, is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, Freescale Semiconductor, in a cash-and-stock transaction, people briefed on the matter said on Sunday. An agreement could be announced as soon as Sunday evening, one of these people said, while cautioning that the talks could still collapse. If completed, the combination would unite two big makers of chips for industries ranging from automobiles to networking to mobile payments. As of Friday evening, NXP had a market value of about <hl> $21 billion <hl>, while Freescale had a market capitalization of about $11 billion.

As of Friday evening, NXP had a market value of about <hl> $21 billion <hl> , while Freescale had a market capitalization of about $11 billion.


Question: When can an agreement be announced?

Answer: Sunday evening,

NXP Semiconductors, a big chip manufacturer, is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, Freescale Semiconductor, in a cash-and-stock transaction, people briefed on the matter said on Sunday. <hl> An agreement could be announced as soon as Sunday evening, one of these people said, while cautioning that the talks could still collapse. <hl> If completed, the combination would unite two big makers of chips for industries ranging from automobiles to networking to mobile payments. As of Friday evening, NXP had a market value of about $21 billion, while Freescale had a market capitalization of about $11 billion.

NXP Semiconductors, a big chip manufacturer, is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, Freescale Semiconductor, in a cash-and-stock transaction, people briefed on the matter said on Sunday. An agreement could be announced as soon as <hl> Sunday evening, <hl> one of these people said, while cautioning that the talks could still collapse. If completed, the combination would unite two big makers of chips for industries ranging from automobiles to networking to mobile payments. As of Friday evening, NXP had a market value of about $21 billion, while Freescale had a market capitalization of about $11 billion.


Question: What is Freescales market capitalization?

Answer: $11 billion

NXP Semiconductors, a big chip manufacturer, is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, Freescale Semiconductor, in a cash-and-stock transaction, people briefed on the matter said on Sunday. An agreement could be announced as soon as Sunday evening, one of these people said, while cautioning that the talks could still collapse. If completed, the combination would unite two big makers of chips for industries ranging from automobiles to networking to mobile payments. <hl> As of Friday evening, NXP had a market value of about $21 billion, while Freescale had a market capitalization of about $11 billion . <hl>

NXP Semiconductors, a big chip manufacturer, is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, Freescale Semiconductor, in a cash-and-stock transaction, people briefed on the matter said on Sunday. An agreement could be announced as soon as Sunday evening, one of these people said, while cautioning that the talks could still collapse. If completed, the combination would unite two big makers of chips for industries ranging from automobiles to networking to mobile payments. As of Friday evening, NXP had a market value of about $21 billion, while Freescale had a market capitalization of about <hl> $11 billion <hl>.

As of Friday evening, NXP had a market value of about $21 billion, while Freescale had a market capitalization of about <hl> $11 billion <hl> .


Question: What was the name of the "big" chip manufacturer?

Answer: NXP Semiconductors

<hl> NXP Semiconductors , a big chip manufacturer, is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, Freescale Semiconductor, in a cash-and-stock transaction, people briefed on the matter said on Sunday. <hl> An agreement could be announced as soon as Sunday evening, one of these people said, while cautioning that the talks could still collapse. If completed, the combination would unite two big makers of chips for industries ranging from automobiles to networking to mobile payments. As of Friday evening, NXP had a market value of about $21 billion, while Freescale had a market capitalization of about $11 billion.

<hl> NXP Semiconductors <hl>, a big chip manufacturer, is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, Freescale Semiconductor, in a cash-and-stock transaction, people briefed on the matter said on Sunday. An agreement could be announced as soon as Sunday evening, one of these people said, while cautioning that the talks could still collapse. If completed, the combination would unite two big makers of chips for industries ranging from automobiles to networking to mobile payments. As of Friday evening, NXP had a market value of about $21 billion, while Freescale had a market capitalization of about $11 billion.

<hl> NXP Semiconductors <hl> , a big chip manufacturer, is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, Freescale Semiconductor, in a cash-and-stock transaction, people briefed on the matter said on Sunday.


Question: What is the market value of NXP as of Friday?

Answer: $21 billion

NXP Semiconductors, a big chip manufacturer, is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, Freescale Semiconductor, in a cash-and-stock transaction, people briefed on the matter said on Sunday. An agreement could be announced as soon as Sunday evening, one of these people said, while cautioning that the talks could still collapse. If completed, the combination would unite two big makers of chips for industries ranging from automobiles to networking to mobile payments. <hl> As of Friday evening, NXP had a market value of about $21 billion , while Freescale had a market capitalization of about $11 billion. <hl>

NXP Semiconductors, a big chip manufacturer, is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, Freescale Semiconductor, in a cash-and-stock transaction, people briefed on the matter said on Sunday. An agreement could be announced as soon as Sunday evening, one of these people said, while cautioning that the talks could still collapse. If completed, the combination would unite two big makers of chips for industries ranging from automobiles to networking to mobile payments. As of Friday evening, NXP had a market value of about <hl> $21 billion <hl>, while Freescale had a market capitalization of about $11 billion.

As of Friday evening, NXP had a market value of about <hl> $21 billion <hl> , while Freescale had a market capitalization of about $11 billion.


Question: What day were people briefed on the matter of the merger?

Answer: Sunday

<hl> NXP Semiconductors, a big chip manufacturer, is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, Freescale Semiconductor, in a cash-and-stock transaction, people briefed on the matter said on Sunday . <hl> An agreement could be announced as soon as Sunday evening, one of these people said, while cautioning that the talks could still collapse. If completed, the combination would unite two big makers of chips for industries ranging from automobiles to networking to mobile payments. As of Friday evening, NXP had a market value of about $21 billion, while Freescale had a market capitalization of about $11 billion.

NXP Semiconductors, a big chip manufacturer, is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, Freescale Semiconductor, in a cash-and-stock transaction, people briefed on the matter said on <hl> Sunday <hl>. An agreement could be announced as soon as Sunday evening, one of these people said, while cautioning that the talks could still collapse. If completed, the combination would unite two big makers of chips for industries ranging from automobiles to networking to mobile payments. As of Friday evening, NXP had a market value of about $21 billion, while Freescale had a market capitalization of about $11 billion.

NXP Semiconductors, a big chip manufacturer, is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, Freescale Semiconductor, in a cash-and-stock transaction, people briefed on the matter said on <hl> Sunday <hl> .


Question: What is the market capitalization of Freescale Semiconductors?

Answer: 11 billion

NXP Semiconductors, a big chip manufacturer, is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, Freescale Semiconductor, in a cash-and-stock transaction, people briefed on the matter said on Sunday. An agreement could be announced as soon as Sunday evening, one of these people said, while cautioning that the talks could still collapse. If completed, the combination would unite two big makers of chips for industries ranging from automobiles to networking to mobile payments. <hl> As of Friday evening, NXP had a market value of about $21 billion, while Freescale had a market capitalization of about $ 11 billion . <hl>

NXP Semiconductors, a big chip manufacturer, is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, Freescale Semiconductor, in a cash-and-stock transaction, people briefed on the matter said on Sunday. An agreement could be announced as soon as Sunday evening, one of these people said, while cautioning that the talks could still collapse. If completed, the combination would unite two big makers of chips for industries ranging from automobiles to networking to mobile payments. As of Friday evening, NXP had a market value of about $21 billion, while Freescale had a market capitalization of about $<hl> 11 billion <hl>.

As of Friday evening, NXP had a market value of about $21 billion, while Freescale had a market capitalization of about $ <hl> 11 billion <hl> .


Question: The cash and stock transaction would merge NXP with what smaller company?

Answer: Freescale Semiconductor

<hl> NXP Semiconductors, a big chip manufacturer, is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, Freescale Semiconductor , in a cash-and-stock transaction, people briefed on the matter said on Sunday. <hl> An agreement could be announced as soon as Sunday evening, one of these people said, while cautioning that the talks could still collapse. If completed, the combination would unite two big makers of chips for industries ranging from automobiles to networking to mobile payments. As of Friday evening, NXP had a market value of about $21 billion, while Freescale had a market capitalization of about $11 billion.

NXP Semiconductors, a big chip manufacturer, is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, <hl> Freescale Semiconductor <hl>, in a cash-and-stock transaction, people briefed on the matter said on Sunday. An agreement could be announced as soon as Sunday evening, one of these people said, while cautioning that the talks could still collapse. If completed, the combination would unite two big makers of chips for industries ranging from automobiles to networking to mobile payments. As of Friday evening, NXP had a market value of about $21 billion, while Freescale had a market capitalization of about $11 billion.

NXP Semiconductors, a big chip manufacturer, is near a deal to acquire a smaller peer, <hl> Freescale Semiconductor <hl> , in a cash-and-stock transaction, people briefed on the matter said on Sunday.


Question: What movie made Martha's Vineyard popular?

This summer marks 40 years since Steven Spielberg’s “Jaws” made Martha’s Vineyard a household name, setting off the island’s inexorable transformation from remote haven of artists and hippies to high-profile haunt of celebrities and presidents. Yes, in summer, dinner and ferry reservations may be difficult to get, and traffic tests tempers. But what hasn’t changed is what makes the island so magical: breathtaking natural beauty, rich ethnic heritage, a vibrant cultural scene and an abundance of farms and fisheries that feed a savvy foodie community. One thing you won’t find: the popular Monster Shark Tournament, which was discontinued last summer, thanks in part to the shark activist wife, Wendy Benchley, of the “Jaws” author (and screenwriter), Peter Benchley. But you’ll still spot more artists, writers and hippies than you can shake a codfish bone at. 1. Tent City | 2 p.m. From the dock in Oak Bluffs, the green expanse of Ocean Park encircled by ornate Victorian homes looks much like the bustling resort it was more than 130 years ago. Then it was called Cottage City, for the annual Methodist retreat that grew from a few worshipers who camped in tents to hundreds of cottages built around a tabernacle. The nostalgic organ tunes emanating from the 139-year-old Flying Horses carousel can still be heard above the din of Circuit Avenue as you pass the T-shirt and ice-cream shops and enter the oasis of the camp-meeting neighborhood. Walk around the circular 1879 wrought-iron tabernacle and marvel at the colorful Carpenter Gothic-style cottages. Today this nondenominational community is an integral part of the summer scene, hosting art shows, singalongs, films and speakers. Don’t miss the Cottage Museum, where period furnishings, historical materials and a volunteer tell the story of this National Historic Landmark.

Answer: Jaws

<hl> This summer marks 40 years since Steven Spielberg’s “ Jaws ” made Martha’s Vineyard a household name, setting off the island’s inexorable transformation from remote haven of artists and hippies to high-profile haunt of celebrities and presidents. <hl> Yes, in summer, dinner and ferry reservations may be difficult to get, and traffic tests tempers. But what hasn’t changed is what makes the island so magical: breathtaking natural beauty, rich ethnic heritage, a vibrant cultural scene and an abundance of farms and fisheries that feed a savvy foodie community. One thing you won’t find: the popular Monster Shark Tournament, which was discontinued last summer, thanks in part to the shark activist wife, Wendy Benchley, of the “Jaws” author (and screenwriter), Peter Benchley. But you’ll still spot more artists, writers and hippies than you can shake a codfish bone at. 1. Tent City | 2 p.m. From the dock in Oak Bluffs, the green expanse of Ocean Park encircled by ornate Victorian homes looks much like the bustling resort it was more than 130 years ago. Then it was called Cottage City, for the annual Methodist retreat that grew from a few worshipers who camped in tents to hundreds of cottages built around a tabernacle. The nostalgic organ tunes emanating from the 139-year-old Flying Horses carousel can still be heard above the din of Circuit Avenue as you pass the T-shirt and ice-cream shops and enter the oasis of the camp-meeting neighborhood. Walk around the circular 1879 wrought-iron tabernacle and marvel at the colorful Carpenter Gothic-style cottages. Today this nondenominational community is an integral part of the summer scene, hosting art shows, singalongs, films and speakers. Don’t miss the Cottage Museum, where period furnishings, historical materials and a volunteer tell the story of this National Historic Landmark.

This summer marks 40 years since Steven Spielberg’s “<hl> Jaws <hl>” made Martha’s Vineyard a household name, setting off the island’s inexorable transformation from remote haven of artists and hippies to high-profile haunt of celebrities and presidents. Yes, in summer, dinner and ferry reservations may be difficult to get, and traffic tests tempers. But what hasn’t changed is what makes the island so magical: breathtaking natural beauty, rich ethnic heritage, a vibrant cultural scene and an abundance of farms and fisheries that feed a savvy foodie community. One thing you won’t find: the popular Monster Shark Tournament, which was discontinued last summer, thanks in part to the shark activist wife, Wendy Benchley, of the “Jaws” author (and screenwriter), Peter Benchley. But you’ll still spot more artists, writers and hippies than you can shake a codfish bone at. 1. Tent City | 2 p.m. From the dock in Oak Bluffs, the green expanse of Ocean Park encircled by ornate Victorian homes looks much like the bustling resort it was more than 130 years ago. Then it was called Cottage City, for the annual Methodist retreat that grew from a few worshipers who camped in tents to hundreds of cottages built around a tabernacle. The nostalgic organ tunes emanating from the 139-year-old Flying Horses carousel can still be heard above the din of Circuit Avenue as you pass the T-shirt and ice-cream shops and enter the oasis of the camp-meeting neighborhood. Walk around the circular 1879 wrought-iron tabernacle and marvel at the colorful Carpenter Gothic-style cottages. Today this nondenominational community is an integral part of the summer scene, hosting art shows, singalongs, films and speakers. Don’t miss the Cottage Museum, where period furnishings, historical materials and a volunteer tell the story of this National Historic Landmark.

This summer marks 40 years since Steven Spielberg’s “ <hl> Jaws <hl> ” made Martha’s Vineyard a household name, setting off the island’s inexorable transformation from remote haven of artists and hippies to high-profile haunt of celebrities and presidents.


Question: What makes the island magical?

Answer: breathtaking natural beauty, rich ethnic heritage, a vibrant cultural scene and an abundance of farms and fisheries

This summer marks 40 years since Steven Spielberg’s “Jaws” made Martha’s Vineyard a household name, setting off the island’s inexorable transformation from remote haven of artists and hippies to high-profile haunt of celebrities and presidents. Yes, in summer, dinner and ferry reservations may be difficult to get, and traffic tests tempers. <hl> But what hasn’t changed is what makes the island so magical: breathtaking natural beauty, rich ethnic heritage, a vibrant cultural scene and an abundance of farms and fisheries that feed a savvy foodie community. <hl> One thing you won’t find: the popular Monster Shark Tournament, which was discontinued last summer, thanks in part to the shark activist wife, Wendy Benchley, of the “Jaws” author (and screenwriter), Peter Benchley. But you’ll still spot more artists, writers and hippies than you can shake a codfish bone at. 1. Tent City | 2 p.m. From the dock in Oak Bluffs, the green expanse of Ocean Park encircled by ornate Victorian homes looks much like the bustling resort it was more than 130 years ago. Then it was called Cottage City, for the annual Methodist retreat that grew from a few worshipers who camped in tents to hundreds of cottages built around a tabernacle. The nostalgic organ tunes emanating from the 139-year-old Flying Horses carousel can still be heard above the din of Circuit Avenue as you pass the T-shirt and ice-cream shops and enter the oasis of the camp-meeting neighborhood. Walk around the circular 1879 wrought-iron tabernacle and marvel at the colorful Carpenter Gothic-style cottages. Today this nondenominational community is an integral part of the summer scene, hosting art shows, singalongs, films and speakers. Don’t miss the Cottage Museum, where period furnishings, historical materials and a volunteer tell the story of this National Historic Landmark.

This summer marks 40 years since Steven Spielberg’s “Jaws” made Martha’s Vineyard a household name, setting off the island’s inexorable transformation from remote haven of artists and hippies to high-profile haunt of celebrities and presidents. Yes, in summer, dinner and ferry reservations may be difficult to get, and traffic tests tempers. But what hasn’t changed is what makes the island so magical: <hl> breathtaking natural beauty, rich ethnic heritage, a vibrant cultural scene and an abundance of farms and fisheries <hl> that feed a savvy foodie community. One thing you won’t find: the popular Monster Shark Tournament, which was discontinued last summer, thanks in part to the shark activist wife, Wendy Benchley, of the “Jaws” author (and screenwriter), Peter Benchley. But you’ll still spot more artists, writers and hippies than you can shake a codfish bone at. 1. Tent City | 2 p.m. From the dock in Oak Bluffs, the green expanse of Ocean Park encircled by ornate Victorian homes looks much like the bustling resort it was more than 130 years ago. Then it was called Cottage City, for the annual Methodist retreat that grew from a few worshipers who camped in tents to hundreds of cottages built around a tabernacle. The nostalgic organ tunes emanating from the 139-year-old Flying Horses carousel can still be heard above the din of Circuit Avenue as you pass the T-shirt and ice-cream shops and enter the oasis of the camp-meeting neighborhood. Walk around the circular 1879 wrought-iron tabernacle and marvel at the colorful Carpenter Gothic-style cottages. Today this nondenominational community is an integral part of the summer scene, hosting art shows, singalongs, films and speakers. Don’t miss the Cottage Museum, where period furnishings, historical materials and a volunteer tell the story of this National Historic Landmark.


Question: What is difficult to get during the summer?

Answer: dinner and ferry reservations

This summer marks 40 years since Steven Spielberg’s “Jaws” made Martha’s Vineyard a household name, setting off the island’s inexorable transformation from remote haven of artists and hippies to high-profile haunt of celebrities and presidents. <hl> Yes, in summer, dinner and ferry reservations may be difficult to get, and traffic tests tempers. <hl> But what hasn’t changed is what makes the island so magical: breathtaking natural beauty, rich ethnic heritage, a vibrant cultural scene and an abundance of farms and fisheries that feed a savvy foodie community. One thing you won’t find: the popular Monster Shark Tournament, which was discontinued last summer, thanks in part to the shark activist wife, Wendy Benchley, of the “Jaws” author (and screenwriter), Peter Benchley. But you’ll still spot more artists, writers and hippies than you can shake a codfish bone at. 1. Tent City | 2 p.m. From the dock in Oak Bluffs, the green expanse of Ocean Park encircled by ornate Victorian homes looks much like the bustling resort it was more than 130 years ago. Then it was called Cottage City, for the annual Methodist retreat that grew from a few worshipers who camped in tents to hundreds of cottages built around a tabernacle. The nostalgic organ tunes emanating from the 139-year-old Flying Horses carousel can still be heard above the din of Circuit Avenue as you pass the T-shirt and ice-cream shops and enter the oasis of the camp-meeting neighborhood. Walk around the circular 1879 wrought-iron tabernacle and marvel at the colorful Carpenter Gothic-style cottages. Today this nondenominational community is an integral part of the summer scene, hosting art shows, singalongs, films and speakers. Don’t miss the Cottage Museum, where period furnishings, historical materials and a volunteer tell the story of this National Historic Landmark.

This summer marks 40 years since Steven Spielberg’s “Jaws” made Martha’s Vineyard a household name, setting off the island’s inexorable transformation from remote haven of artists and hippies to high-profile haunt of celebrities and presidents. Yes, in summer, <hl> dinner and ferry reservations <hl> may be difficult to get, and traffic tests tempers. But what hasn’t changed is what makes the island so magical: breathtaking natural beauty, rich ethnic heritage, a vibrant cultural scene and an abundance of farms and fisheries that feed a savvy foodie community. One thing you won’t find: the popular Monster Shark Tournament, which was discontinued last summer, thanks in part to the shark activist wife, Wendy Benchley, of the “Jaws” author (and screenwriter), Peter Benchley. But you’ll still spot more artists, writers and hippies than you can shake a codfish bone at. 1. Tent City | 2 p.m. From the dock in Oak Bluffs, the green expanse of Ocean Park encircled by ornate Victorian homes looks much like the bustling resort it was more than 130 years ago. Then it was called Cottage City, for the annual Methodist retreat that grew from a few worshipers who camped in tents to hundreds of cottages built around a tabernacle. The nostalgic organ tunes emanating from the 139-year-old Flying Horses carousel can still be heard above the din of Circuit Avenue as you pass the T-shirt and ice-cream shops and enter the oasis of the camp-meeting neighborhood. Walk around the circular 1879 wrought-iron tabernacle and marvel at the colorful Carpenter Gothic-style cottages. Today this nondenominational community is an integral part of the summer scene, hosting art shows, singalongs, films and speakers. Don’t miss the Cottage Museum, where period furnishings, historical materials and a volunteer tell the story of this National Historic Landmark.


Question: Who discontinued the Monster Shark Tournament?

Answer: Wendy Benchley

This summer marks 40 years since Steven Spielberg’s “Jaws” made Martha’s Vineyard a household name, setting off the island’s inexorable transformation from remote haven of artists and hippies to high-profile haunt of celebrities and presidents. Yes, in summer, dinner and ferry reservations may be difficult to get, and traffic tests tempers. But what hasn’t changed is what makes the island so magical: breathtaking natural beauty, rich ethnic heritage, a vibrant cultural scene and an abundance of farms and fisheries that feed a savvy foodie community. <hl> One thing you won’t find: the popular Monster Shark Tournament, which was discontinued last summer, thanks in part to the shark activist wife, Wendy Benchley , of the “Jaws” author (and screenwriter), Peter Benchley. <hl> But you’ll still spot more artists, writers and hippies than you can shake a codfish bone at. 1. Tent City | 2 p.m. From the dock in Oak Bluffs, the green expanse of Ocean Park encircled by ornate Victorian homes looks much like the bustling resort it was more than 130 years ago. Then it was called Cottage City, for the annual Methodist retreat that grew from a few worshipers who camped in tents to hundreds of cottages built around a tabernacle. The nostalgic organ tunes emanating from the 139-year-old Flying Horses carousel can still be heard above the din of Circuit Avenue as you pass the T-shirt and ice-cream shops and enter the oasis of the camp-meeting neighborhood. Walk around the circular 1879 wrought-iron tabernacle and marvel at the colorful Carpenter Gothic-style cottages. Today this nondenominational community is an integral part of the summer scene, hosting art shows, singalongs, films and speakers. Don’t miss the Cottage Museum, where period furnishings, historical materials and a volunteer tell the story of this National Historic Landmark.

This summer marks 40 years since Steven Spielberg’s “Jaws” made Martha’s Vineyard a household name, setting off the island’s inexorable transformation from remote haven of artists and hippies to high-profile haunt of celebrities and presidents. Yes, in summer, dinner and ferry reservations may be difficult to get, and traffic tests tempers. But what hasn’t changed is what makes the island so magical: breathtaking natural beauty, rich ethnic heritage, a vibrant cultural scene and an abundance of farms and fisheries that feed a savvy foodie community. One thing you won’t find: the popular Monster Shark Tournament, which was discontinued last summer, thanks in part to the shark activist wife, <hl> Wendy Benchley <hl>, of the “Jaws” author (and screenwriter), Peter Benchley. But you’ll still spot more artists, writers and hippies than you can shake a codfish bone at. 1. Tent City | 2 p.m. From the dock in Oak Bluffs, the green expanse of Ocean Park encircled by ornate Victorian homes looks much like the bustling resort it was more than 130 years ago. Then it was called Cottage City, for the annual Methodist retreat that grew from a few worshipers who camped in tents to hundreds of cottages built around a tabernacle. The nostalgic organ tunes emanating from the 139-year-old Flying Horses carousel can still be heard above the din of Circuit Avenue as you pass the T-shirt and ice-cream shops and enter the oasis of the camp-meeting neighborhood. Walk around the circular 1879 wrought-iron tabernacle and marvel at the colorful Carpenter Gothic-style cottages. Today this nondenominational community is an integral part of the summer scene, hosting art shows, singalongs, films and speakers. Don’t miss the Cottage Museum, where period furnishings, historical materials and a volunteer tell the story of this National Historic Landmark.

One thing you won’t find: the popular Monster Shark Tournament, which was discontinued last summer, thanks in part to the shark activist wife, <hl> Wendy Benchley <hl> , of the “Jaws” author (and screenwriter), Peter Benchley.


Question: What encircles Ocean Park?

Answer: Victorian homes

This summer marks 40 years since Steven Spielberg’s “Jaws” made Martha’s Vineyard a household name, setting off the island’s inexorable transformation from remote haven of artists and hippies to high-profile haunt of celebrities and presidents. Yes, in summer, dinner and ferry reservations may be difficult to get, and traffic tests tempers. But what hasn’t changed is what makes the island so magical: breathtaking natural beauty, rich ethnic heritage, a vibrant cultural scene and an abundance of farms and fisheries that feed a savvy foodie community. One thing you won’t find: the popular Monster Shark Tournament, which was discontinued last summer, thanks in part to the shark activist wife, Wendy Benchley, of the “Jaws” author (and screenwriter), Peter Benchley. But you’ll still spot more artists, writers and hippies than you can shake a codfish bone at. 1. <hl> Tent City | 2 p.m. From the dock in Oak Bluffs, the green expanse of Ocean Park encircled by ornate Victorian homes looks much like the bustling resort it was more than 130 years ago. <hl> Then it was called Cottage City, for the annual Methodist retreat that grew from a few worshipers who camped in tents to hundreds of cottages built around a tabernacle. The nostalgic organ tunes emanating from the 139-year-old Flying Horses carousel can still be heard above the din of Circuit Avenue as you pass the T-shirt and ice-cream shops and enter the oasis of the camp-meeting neighborhood. Walk around the circular 1879 wrought-iron tabernacle and marvel at the colorful Carpenter Gothic-style cottages. Today this nondenominational community is an integral part of the summer scene, hosting art shows, singalongs, films and speakers. Don’t miss the Cottage Museum, where period furnishings, historical materials and a volunteer tell the story of this National Historic Landmark.

This summer marks 40 years since Steven Spielberg’s “Jaws” made Martha’s Vineyard a household name, setting off the island’s inexorable transformation from remote haven of artists and hippies to high-profile haunt of celebrities and presidents. Yes, in summer, dinner and ferry reservations may be difficult to get, and traffic tests tempers. But what hasn’t changed is what makes the island so magical: breathtaking natural beauty, rich ethnic heritage, a vibrant cultural scene and an abundance of farms and fisheries that feed a savvy foodie community. One thing you won’t find: the popular Monster Shark Tournament, which was discontinued last summer, thanks in part to the shark activist wife, Wendy Benchley, of the “Jaws” author (and screenwriter), Peter Benchley. But you’ll still spot more artists, writers and hippies than you can shake a codfish bone at. 1. Tent City | 2 p.m. From the dock in Oak Bluffs, the green expanse of Ocean Park encircled by ornate <hl> Victorian homes <hl> looks much like the bustling resort it was more than 130 years ago. Then it was called Cottage City, for the annual Methodist retreat that grew from a few worshipers who camped in tents to hundreds of cottages built around a tabernacle. The nostalgic organ tunes emanating from the 139-year-old Flying Horses carousel can still be heard above the din of Circuit Avenue as you pass the T-shirt and ice-cream shops and enter the oasis of the camp-meeting neighborhood. Walk around the circular 1879 wrought-iron tabernacle and marvel at the colorful Carpenter Gothic-style cottages. Today this nondenominational community is an integral part of the summer scene, hosting art shows, singalongs, films and speakers. Don’t miss the Cottage Museum, where period furnishings, historical materials and a volunteer tell the story of this National Historic Landmark.


Question: What caused tension between Lucious and his son?

At a neon-drenched Leviticus, Lucious, still reeling from his estranged son’s pointed emasculation of his music production, coolly sends Hakeem a rap call-to-arms via his Gutter Life Records protégé, Freda Gatz. The missive’s brutally coy hook — “Daddy’s little girl / You’re just daddy’s little girl” — inflames Hakeem as much as it ennobles Gatz, who has been groomed into something between surrogate child and unknowing executor of the barely-hidden id of the man who killed her father in prison. It’s disconcerting, watching the one viable female artist in the Lyon universe take on Lucious’s paternal insecurity rather than the profound contours of her own life story. But despite the petty subject, Gatz’s expert interplay between high masculine and low feminine delivery invigorates the show’s sometimes dull man-child music landscape.

Answer: pointed emasculation of his music

<hl> At a neon-drenched Leviticus, Lucious, still reeling from his estranged son’s pointed emasculation of his music production, coolly sends Hakeem a rap call-to-arms via his Gutter Life Records protégé, Freda Gatz. <hl> The missive’s brutally coy hook — “Daddy’s little girl / You’re just daddy’s little girl” — inflames Hakeem as much as it ennobles Gatz, who has been groomed into something between surrogate child and unknowing executor of the barely-hidden id of the man who killed her father in prison. It’s disconcerting, watching the one viable female artist in the Lyon universe take on Lucious’s paternal insecurity rather than the profound contours of her own life story. But despite the petty subject, Gatz’s expert interplay between high masculine and low feminine delivery invigorates the show’s sometimes dull man-child music landscape.

At a neon-drenched Leviticus, Lucious, still reeling from his estranged son’s <hl> pointed emasculation of his music <hl> production, coolly sends Hakeem a rap call-to-arms via his Gutter Life Records protégé, Freda Gatz. The missive’s brutally coy hook — “Daddy’s little girl / You’re just daddy’s little girl” — inflames Hakeem as much as it ennobles Gatz, who has been groomed into something between surrogate child and unknowing executor of the barely-hidden id of the man who killed her father in prison. It’s disconcerting, watching the one viable female artist in the Lyon universe take on Lucious’s paternal insecurity rather than the profound contours of her own life story. But despite the petty subject, Gatz’s expert interplay between high masculine and low feminine delivery invigorates the show’s sometimes dull man-child music landscape.


Question: Who is Lucious protege?

Answer: Freda Gatz.

<hl> At a neon-drenched Leviticus, Lucious, still reeling from his estranged son’s pointed emasculation of his music production, coolly sends Hakeem a rap call-to-arms via his Gutter Life Records protégé, Freda Gatz. The missive’s brutally coy hook — “Daddy’s little girl / You’re just daddy’s little girl” — inflames Hakeem as much as it ennobles Gatz, who has been groomed into something between surrogate child and unknowing executor of the barely-hidden id of the man who killed her father in prison. <hl> It’s disconcerting, watching the one viable female artist in the Lyon universe take on Lucious’s paternal insecurity rather than the profound contours of her own life story. But despite the petty subject, Gatz’s expert interplay between high masculine and low feminine delivery invigorates the show’s sometimes dull man-child music landscape.

At a neon-drenched Leviticus, Lucious, still reeling from his estranged son’s pointed emasculation of his music production, coolly sends Hakeem a rap call-to-arms via his Gutter Life Records protégé, <hl> Freda Gatz. <hl> The missive’s brutally coy hook — “Daddy’s little girl / You’re just daddy’s little girl” — inflames Hakeem as much as it ennobles Gatz, who has been groomed into something between surrogate child and unknowing executor of the barely-hidden id of the man who killed her father in prison. It’s disconcerting, watching the one viable female artist in the Lyon universe take on Lucious’s paternal insecurity rather than the profound contours of her own life story. But despite the petty subject, Gatz’s expert interplay between high masculine and low feminine delivery invigorates the show’s sometimes dull man-child music landscape.


Question: What influence the groom and hard hitting effect of Gatz song?

Answer: killed her father in prison.

At a neon-drenched Leviticus, Lucious, still reeling from his estranged son’s pointed emasculation of his music production, coolly sends Hakeem a rap call-to-arms via his Gutter Life Records protégé, Freda Gatz. <hl> The missive’s brutally coy hook — “Daddy’s little girl / You’re just daddy’s little girl” — inflames Hakeem as much as it ennobles Gatz, who has been groomed into something between surrogate child and unknowing executor of the barely-hidden id of the man who killed her father in prison. It’s disconcerting, watching the one viable female artist in the Lyon universe take on Lucious’s paternal insecurity rather than the profound contours of her own life story. <hl> But despite the petty subject, Gatz’s expert interplay between high masculine and low feminine delivery invigorates the show’s sometimes dull man-child music landscape.

At a neon-drenched Leviticus, Lucious, still reeling from his estranged son’s pointed emasculation of his music production, coolly sends Hakeem a rap call-to-arms via his Gutter Life Records protégé, Freda Gatz. The missive’s brutally coy hook — “Daddy’s little girl / You’re just daddy’s little girl” — inflames Hakeem as much as it ennobles Gatz, who has been groomed into something between surrogate child and unknowing executor of the barely-hidden id of the man who <hl> killed her father in prison. <hl> It’s disconcerting, watching the one viable female artist in the Lyon universe take on Lucious’s paternal insecurity rather than the profound contours of her own life story. But despite the petty subject, Gatz’s expert interplay between high masculine and low feminine delivery invigorates the show’s sometimes dull man-child music landscape.


Question: How ha Gatz music been categorized>

Answer: high masculine and low feminine

At a neon-drenched Leviticus, Lucious, still reeling from his estranged son’s pointed emasculation of his music production, coolly sends Hakeem a rap call-to-arms via his Gutter Life Records protégé, Freda Gatz. The missive’s brutally coy hook — “Daddy’s little girl / You’re just daddy’s little girl” — inflames Hakeem as much as it ennobles Gatz, who has been groomed into something between surrogate child and unknowing executor of the barely-hidden id of the man who killed her father in prison. It’s disconcerting, watching the one viable female artist in the Lyon universe take on Lucious’s paternal insecurity rather than the profound contours of her own life story. <hl> But despite the petty subject, Gatz’s expert interplay between high masculine and low feminine delivery invigorates the show’s sometimes dull man-child music landscape. <hl>

At a neon-drenched Leviticus, Lucious, still reeling from his estranged son’s pointed emasculation of his music production, coolly sends Hakeem a rap call-to-arms via his Gutter Life Records protégé, Freda Gatz. The missive’s brutally coy hook — “Daddy’s little girl / You’re just daddy’s little girl” — inflames Hakeem as much as it ennobles Gatz, who has been groomed into something between surrogate child and unknowing executor of the barely-hidden id of the man who killed her father in prison. It’s disconcerting, watching the one viable female artist in the Lyon universe take on Lucious’s paternal insecurity rather than the profound contours of her own life story. But despite the petty subject, Gatz’s expert interplay between <hl> high masculine and low feminine <hl> delivery invigorates the show’s sometimes dull man-child music landscape.


Question: What universe did Gatz attend?

Answer: Lyon

At a neon-drenched Leviticus, Lucious, still reeling from his estranged son’s pointed emasculation of his music production, coolly sends Hakeem a rap call-to-arms via his Gutter Life Records protégé, Freda Gatz. The missive’s brutally coy hook — “Daddy’s little girl / You’re just daddy’s little girl” — inflames Hakeem as much as it ennobles Gatz, who has been groomed into something between surrogate child and unknowing executor of the barely-hidden id of the man who killed her father in prison. <hl> It’s disconcerting, watching the one viable female artist in the Lyon universe take on Lucious’s paternal insecurity rather than the profound contours of her own life story. <hl> But despite the petty subject, Gatz’s expert interplay between high masculine and low feminine delivery invigorates the show’s sometimes dull man-child music landscape.

At a neon-drenched Leviticus, Lucious, still reeling from his estranged son’s pointed emasculation of his music production, coolly sends Hakeem a rap call-to-arms via his Gutter Life Records protégé, Freda Gatz. The missive’s brutally coy hook — “Daddy’s little girl / You’re just daddy’s little girl” — inflames Hakeem as much as it ennobles Gatz, who has been groomed into something between surrogate child and unknowing executor of the barely-hidden id of the man who killed her father in prison. It’s disconcerting, watching the one viable female artist in the <hl> Lyon <hl> universe take on Lucious’s paternal insecurity rather than the profound contours of her own life story. But despite the petty subject, Gatz’s expert interplay between high masculine and low feminine delivery invigorates the show’s sometimes dull man-child music landscape.


Question: Where had Jamal and Cookie been meeting at night?

Jamal and Cookie continue meeting furtively in studios at night, the two building a saccharine sound that is less progressive or scene-changing than their wildly satisfied grins let on. But the clandestine collaboration is endearing, if mostly because mother and son are bonding again despite the constant surveillance of Lucious and Thirsty. (If Cookie’s bedridden romp last week with The Man with the Longhorn Tattoo inspired fear that Delgado might destroy her too, her defense of her son against Delgado’s aggression provided a needed assurance). Loyalty lines across Cookie’s scrappy startup and Lucious’s rickety Wall Street behemoth have been eroding for quite some time, and Jamal’s nomination to be the next face of Pepsi surfaces as the fault-line. Jamal baits Cookie and Lucious into coming to a studio session, hoping that the two might meld their angelic flutes and brutish percussion into one electronic monster. Their petulance prevails, however, but it’s more a bruise to Jamal the son than a setback to the Jamal the Musician. Jamal ends up cutting and pasting the two songs together himself and winning the Pepsi competition. The rap battle between Freda and Hakeem was unambiguously presented as the episode’s cathartic zenith, and according to the performance logic undergirding the differences in street and studio rap, it was laughably obvious Freda would bring the carnage. Prep scenes showed Hakeem satisfactorily riffing on word associations, Freda annihilating her opponent with daggered lyrical quips. To me, and likely every viewer marginally familiar with commonly agreed-upon rules of battle rap engagement, Freda was obviously the winner. She zeroed in on Hakeem as her target, deftly weaving sophisticated lyrical attacks athletically and flamboyantly. And although it was meant to cut her opponent down, Freda’s expression of admiration for Cookie’s hustle makes me wonder what a Gatz/Dynasty track would sound like.

Answer: in studios

<hl> Jamal and Cookie continue meeting furtively in studios at night, the two building a saccharine sound that is less progressive or scene-changing than their wildly satisfied grins let on. <hl> But the clandestine collaboration is endearing, if mostly because mother and son are bonding again despite the constant surveillance of Lucious and Thirsty. (If Cookie’s bedridden romp last week with The Man with the Longhorn Tattoo inspired fear that Delgado might destroy her too, her defense of her son against Delgado’s aggression provided a needed assurance). Loyalty lines across Cookie’s scrappy startup and Lucious’s rickety Wall Street behemoth have been eroding for quite some time, and Jamal’s nomination to be the next face of Pepsi surfaces as the fault-line. Jamal baits Cookie and Lucious into coming to a studio session, hoping that the two might meld their angelic flutes and brutish percussion into one electronic monster. Their petulance prevails, however, but it’s more a bruise to Jamal the son than a setback to the Jamal the Musician. Jamal ends up cutting and pasting the two songs together himself and winning the Pepsi competition. The rap battle between Freda and Hakeem was unambiguously presented as the episode’s cathartic zenith, and according to the performance logic undergirding the differences in street and studio rap, it was laughably obvious Freda would bring the carnage. Prep scenes showed Hakeem satisfactorily riffing on word associations, Freda annihilating her opponent with daggered lyrical quips. To me, and likely every viewer marginally familiar with commonly agreed-upon rules of battle rap engagement, Freda was obviously the winner. She zeroed in on Hakeem as her target, deftly weaving sophisticated lyrical attacks athletically and flamboyantly. And although it was meant to cut her opponent down, Freda’s expression of admiration for Cookie’s hustle makes me wonder what a Gatz/Dynasty track would sound like.

Jamal and Cookie continue meeting furtively <hl> in studios <hl> at night, the two building a saccharine sound that is less progressive or scene-changing than their wildly satisfied grins let on. But the clandestine collaboration is endearing, if mostly because mother and son are bonding again despite the constant surveillance of Lucious and Thirsty. (If Cookie’s bedridden romp last week with The Man with the Longhorn Tattoo inspired fear that Delgado might destroy her too, her defense of her son against Delgado’s aggression provided a needed assurance). Loyalty lines across Cookie’s scrappy startup and Lucious’s rickety Wall Street behemoth have been eroding for quite some time, and Jamal’s nomination to be the next face of Pepsi surfaces as the fault-line. Jamal baits Cookie and Lucious into coming to a studio session, hoping that the two might meld their angelic flutes and brutish percussion into one electronic monster. Their petulance prevails, however, but it’s more a bruise to Jamal the son than a setback to the Jamal the Musician. Jamal ends up cutting and pasting the two songs together himself and winning the Pepsi competition. The rap battle between Freda and Hakeem was unambiguously presented as the episode’s cathartic zenith, and according to the performance logic undergirding the differences in street and studio rap, it was laughably obvious Freda would bring the carnage. Prep scenes showed Hakeem satisfactorily riffing on word associations, Freda annihilating her opponent with daggered lyrical quips. To me, and likely every viewer marginally familiar with commonly agreed-upon rules of battle rap engagement, Freda was obviously the winner. She zeroed in on Hakeem as her target, deftly weaving sophisticated lyrical attacks athletically and flamboyantly. And although it was meant to cut her opponent down, Freda’s expression of admiration for Cookie’s hustle makes me wonder what a Gatz/Dynasty track would sound like.


Question: Why was the collaboration being seen as one of success?

Answer: mother and son are bonding

Jamal and Cookie continue meeting furtively in studios at night, the two building a saccharine sound that is less progressive or scene-changing than their wildly satisfied grins let on. <hl> But the clandestine collaboration is endearing, if mostly because mother and son are bonding again despite the constant surveillance of Lucious and Thirsty. <hl> (If Cookie’s bedridden romp last week with The Man with the Longhorn Tattoo inspired fear that Delgado might destroy her too, her defense of her son against Delgado’s aggression provided a needed assurance). Loyalty lines across Cookie’s scrappy startup and Lucious’s rickety Wall Street behemoth have been eroding for quite some time, and Jamal’s nomination to be the next face of Pepsi surfaces as the fault-line. Jamal baits Cookie and Lucious into coming to a studio session, hoping that the two might meld their angelic flutes and brutish percussion into one electronic monster. Their petulance prevails, however, but it’s more a bruise to Jamal the son than a setback to the Jamal the Musician. Jamal ends up cutting and pasting the two songs together himself and winning the Pepsi competition. The rap battle between Freda and Hakeem was unambiguously presented as the episode’s cathartic zenith, and according to the performance logic undergirding the differences in street and studio rap, it was laughably obvious Freda would bring the carnage. Prep scenes showed Hakeem satisfactorily riffing on word associations, Freda annihilating her opponent with daggered lyrical quips. To me, and likely every viewer marginally familiar with commonly agreed-upon rules of battle rap engagement, Freda was obviously the winner. She zeroed in on Hakeem as her target, deftly weaving sophisticated lyrical attacks athletically and flamboyantly. And although it was meant to cut her opponent down, Freda’s expression of admiration for Cookie’s hustle makes me wonder what a Gatz/Dynasty track would sound like.

Jamal and Cookie continue meeting furtively in studios at night, the two building a saccharine sound that is less progressive or scene-changing than their wildly satisfied grins let on. But the clandestine collaboration is endearing, if mostly because <hl> mother and son are bonding <hl> again despite the constant surveillance of Lucious and Thirsty. (If Cookie’s bedridden romp last week with The Man with the Longhorn Tattoo inspired fear that Delgado might destroy her too, her defense of her son against Delgado’s aggression provided a needed assurance). Loyalty lines across Cookie’s scrappy startup and Lucious’s rickety Wall Street behemoth have been eroding for quite some time, and Jamal’s nomination to be the next face of Pepsi surfaces as the fault-line. Jamal baits Cookie and Lucious into coming to a studio session, hoping that the two might meld their angelic flutes and brutish percussion into one electronic monster. Their petulance prevails, however, but it’s more a bruise to Jamal the son than a setback to the Jamal the Musician. Jamal ends up cutting and pasting the two songs together himself and winning the Pepsi competition. The rap battle between Freda and Hakeem was unambiguously presented as the episode’s cathartic zenith, and according to the performance logic undergirding the differences in street and studio rap, it was laughably obvious Freda would bring the carnage. Prep scenes showed Hakeem satisfactorily riffing on word associations, Freda annihilating her opponent with daggered lyrical quips. To me, and likely every viewer marginally familiar with commonly agreed-upon rules of battle rap engagement, Freda was obviously the winner. She zeroed in on Hakeem as her target, deftly weaving sophisticated lyrical attacks athletically and flamboyantly. And although it was meant to cut her opponent down, Freda’s expression of admiration for Cookie’s hustle makes me wonder what a Gatz/Dynasty track would sound like.


Question: How did Jamal the Pepsi competition

Answer: angelic flutes and brutish percussion

Jamal and Cookie continue meeting furtively in studios at night, the two building a saccharine sound that is less progressive or scene-changing than their wildly satisfied grins let on. But the clandestine collaboration is endearing, if mostly because mother and son are bonding again despite the constant surveillance of Lucious and Thirsty. (If Cookie’s bedridden romp last week with The Man with the Longhorn Tattoo inspired fear that Delgado might destroy her too, her defense of her son against Delgado’s aggression provided a needed assurance). Loyalty lines across Cookie’s scrappy startup and Lucious’s rickety Wall Street behemoth have been eroding for quite some time, and Jamal’s nomination to be the next face of Pepsi surfaces as the fault-line. <hl> Jamal baits Cookie and Lucious into coming to a studio session, hoping that the two might meld their angelic flutes and brutish percussion into one electronic monster. <hl> Their petulance prevails, however, but it’s more a bruise to Jamal the son than a setback to the Jamal the Musician. Jamal ends up cutting and pasting the two songs together himself and winning the Pepsi competition. The rap battle between Freda and Hakeem was unambiguously presented as the episode’s cathartic zenith, and according to the performance logic undergirding the differences in street and studio rap, it was laughably obvious Freda would bring the carnage. Prep scenes showed Hakeem satisfactorily riffing on word associations, Freda annihilating her opponent with daggered lyrical quips. To me, and likely every viewer marginally familiar with commonly agreed-upon rules of battle rap engagement, Freda was obviously the winner. She zeroed in on Hakeem as her target, deftly weaving sophisticated lyrical attacks athletically and flamboyantly. And although it was meant to cut her opponent down, Freda’s expression of admiration for Cookie’s hustle makes me wonder what a Gatz/Dynasty track would sound like.

Jamal and Cookie continue meeting furtively in studios at night, the two building a saccharine sound that is less progressive or scene-changing than their wildly satisfied grins let on. But the clandestine collaboration is endearing, if mostly because mother and son are bonding again despite the constant surveillance of Lucious and Thirsty. (If Cookie’s bedridden romp last week with The Man with the Longhorn Tattoo inspired fear that Delgado might destroy her too, her defense of her son against Delgado’s aggression provided a needed assurance). Loyalty lines across Cookie’s scrappy startup and Lucious’s rickety Wall Street behemoth have been eroding for quite some time, and Jamal’s nomination to be the next face of Pepsi surfaces as the fault-line. Jamal baits Cookie and Lucious into coming to a studio session, hoping that the two might meld their <hl> angelic flutes and brutish percussion <hl> into one electronic monster. Their petulance prevails, however, but it’s more a bruise to Jamal the son than a setback to the Jamal the Musician. Jamal ends up cutting and pasting the two songs together himself and winning the Pepsi competition. The rap battle between Freda and Hakeem was unambiguously presented as the episode’s cathartic zenith, and according to the performance logic undergirding the differences in street and studio rap, it was laughably obvious Freda would bring the carnage. Prep scenes showed Hakeem satisfactorily riffing on word associations, Freda annihilating her opponent with daggered lyrical quips. To me, and likely every viewer marginally familiar with commonly agreed-upon rules of battle rap engagement, Freda was obviously the winner. She zeroed in on Hakeem as her target, deftly weaving sophisticated lyrical attacks athletically and flamboyantly. And although it was meant to cut her opponent down, Freda’s expression of admiration for Cookie’s hustle makes me wonder what a Gatz/Dynasty track would sound like.


Question: What two styles made the Rap Battle between Freda and Hakeem so different?

Answer: street and studio rap,

Jamal and Cookie continue meeting furtively in studios at night, the two building a saccharine sound that is less progressive or scene-changing than their wildly satisfied grins let on. But the clandestine collaboration is endearing, if mostly because mother and son are bonding again despite the constant surveillance of Lucious and Thirsty. (If Cookie’s bedridden romp last week with The Man with the Longhorn Tattoo inspired fear that Delgado might destroy her too, her defense of her son against Delgado’s aggression provided a needed assurance). Loyalty lines across Cookie’s scrappy startup and Lucious’s rickety Wall Street behemoth have been eroding for quite some time, and Jamal’s nomination to be the next face of Pepsi surfaces as the fault-line. Jamal baits Cookie and Lucious into coming to a studio session, hoping that the two might meld their angelic flutes and brutish percussion into one electronic monster. Their petulance prevails, however, but it’s more a bruise to Jamal the son than a setback to the Jamal the Musician. Jamal ends up cutting and pasting the two songs together himself and winning the Pepsi competition. <hl> The rap battle between Freda and Hakeem was unambiguously presented as the episode’s cathartic zenith, and according to the performance logic undergirding the differences in street and studio rap, it was laughably obvious Freda would bring the carnage. <hl> Prep scenes showed Hakeem satisfactorily riffing on word associations, Freda annihilating her opponent with daggered lyrical quips. To me, and likely every viewer marginally familiar with commonly agreed-upon rules of battle rap engagement, Freda was obviously the winner. She zeroed in on Hakeem as her target, deftly weaving sophisticated lyrical attacks athletically and flamboyantly. And although it was meant to cut her opponent down, Freda’s expression of admiration for Cookie’s hustle makes me wonder what a Gatz/Dynasty track would sound like.

Jamal and Cookie continue meeting furtively in studios at night, the two building a saccharine sound that is less progressive or scene-changing than their wildly satisfied grins let on. But the clandestine collaboration is endearing, if mostly because mother and son are bonding again despite the constant surveillance of Lucious and Thirsty. (If Cookie’s bedridden romp last week with The Man with the Longhorn Tattoo inspired fear that Delgado might destroy her too, her defense of her son against Delgado’s aggression provided a needed assurance). Loyalty lines across Cookie’s scrappy startup and Lucious’s rickety Wall Street behemoth have been eroding for quite some time, and Jamal’s nomination to be the next face of Pepsi surfaces as the fault-line. Jamal baits Cookie and Lucious into coming to a studio session, hoping that the two might meld their angelic flutes and brutish percussion into one electronic monster. Their petulance prevails, however, but it’s more a bruise to Jamal the son than a setback to the Jamal the Musician. Jamal ends up cutting and pasting the two songs together himself and winning the Pepsi competition. The rap battle between Freda and Hakeem was unambiguously presented as the episode’s cathartic zenith, and according to the performance logic undergirding the differences in <hl> street and studio rap, <hl> it was laughably obvious Freda would bring the carnage. Prep scenes showed Hakeem satisfactorily riffing on word associations, Freda annihilating her opponent with daggered lyrical quips. To me, and likely every viewer marginally familiar with commonly agreed-upon rules of battle rap engagement, Freda was obviously the winner. She zeroed in on Hakeem as her target, deftly weaving sophisticated lyrical attacks athletically and flamboyantly. And although it was meant to cut her opponent down, Freda’s expression of admiration for Cookie’s hustle makes me wonder what a Gatz/Dynasty track would sound like.


Question: What was Cookie celebrating?

Cookie’s celebration of her son’s victory ends abruptly when Lucious’s sneer informs the after-party that her sister Candice is outside the club. Through her (according to Cookie) practiced hysteria about their third sister’s alleged drug bender, we learn from Candice that Cookie’s real name is Loretha. Cookie hadn’t been born a Lyon — a flashback intimates that neither had Lucious, likely taking the name as an child abandoned on the street — and up until now, her lineage outside of Lucious hadn’t been much referenced, leaving the show’s relatively clueless audience hungry to know how Cookie came to be.

Answer: son’s victory

<hl> Cookie’s celebration of her son’s victory ends abruptly when Lucious’s sneer informs the after-party that her sister Candice is outside the club. <hl> Through her (according to Cookie) practiced hysteria about their third sister’s alleged drug bender, we learn from Candice that Cookie’s real name is Loretha. Cookie hadn’t been born a Lyon — a flashback intimates that neither had Lucious, likely taking the name as an child abandoned on the street — and up until now, her lineage outside of Lucious hadn’t been much referenced, leaving the show’s relatively clueless audience hungry to know how Cookie came to be.

Cookie’s celebration of her <hl> son’s victory <hl> ends abruptly when Lucious’s sneer informs the after-party that her sister Candice is outside the club. Through her (according to Cookie) practiced hysteria about their third sister’s alleged drug bender, we learn from Candice that Cookie’s real name is Loretha. Cookie hadn’t been born a Lyon — a flashback intimates that neither had Lucious, likely taking the name as an child abandoned on the street — and up until now, her lineage outside of Lucious hadn’t been much referenced, leaving the show’s relatively clueless audience hungry to know how Cookie came to be.


Question: WHo was outside the Club?

Answer: sister Candice

<hl> Cookie’s celebration of her son’s victory ends abruptly when Lucious’s sneer informs the after-party that her sister Candice is outside the club. <hl> Through her (according to Cookie) practiced hysteria about their third sister’s alleged drug bender, we learn from Candice that Cookie’s real name is Loretha. Cookie hadn’t been born a Lyon — a flashback intimates that neither had Lucious, likely taking the name as an child abandoned on the street — and up until now, her lineage outside of Lucious hadn’t been much referenced, leaving the show’s relatively clueless audience hungry to know how Cookie came to be.

Cookie’s celebration of her son’s victory ends abruptly when Lucious’s sneer informs the after-party that her <hl> sister Candice <hl> is outside the club. Through her (according to Cookie) practiced hysteria about their third sister’s alleged drug bender, we learn from Candice that Cookie’s real name is Loretha. Cookie hadn’t been born a Lyon — a flashback intimates that neither had Lucious, likely taking the name as an child abandoned on the street — and up until now, her lineage outside of Lucious hadn’t been much referenced, leaving the show’s relatively clueless audience hungry to know how Cookie came to be.


Question: Why was Cookie upset at her sister?

Answer: alleged drug bender

Cookie’s celebration of her son’s victory ends abruptly when Lucious’s sneer informs the after-party that her sister Candice is outside the club. <hl> Through her (according to Cookie) practiced hysteria about their third sister’s alleged drug bender , we learn from Candice that Cookie’s real name is Loretha. <hl> Cookie hadn’t been born a Lyon — a flashback intimates that neither had Lucious, likely taking the name as an child abandoned on the street — and up until now, her lineage outside of Lucious hadn’t been much referenced, leaving the show’s relatively clueless audience hungry to know how Cookie came to be.

Cookie’s celebration of her son’s victory ends abruptly when Lucious’s sneer informs the after-party that her sister Candice is outside the club. Through her (according to Cookie) practiced hysteria about their third sister’s <hl> alleged drug bender <hl>, we learn from Candice that Cookie’s real name is Loretha. Cookie hadn’t been born a Lyon — a flashback intimates that neither had Lucious, likely taking the name as an child abandoned on the street — and up until now, her lineage outside of Lucious hadn’t been much referenced, leaving the show’s relatively clueless audience hungry to know how Cookie came to be.

Through her (according to Cookie) practiced hysteria about their third sister’s <hl> alleged drug bender <hl> , we learn from Candice that Cookie’s real name is Loretha.


Question: What is the real name of Cookie?

Answer: Loretha

Cookie’s celebration of her son’s victory ends abruptly when Lucious’s sneer informs the after-party that her sister Candice is outside the club. <hl> Through her (according to Cookie) practiced hysteria about their third sister’s alleged drug bender, we learn from Candice that Cookie’s real name is Loretha . <hl> Cookie hadn’t been born a Lyon — a flashback intimates that neither had Lucious, likely taking the name as an child abandoned on the street — and up until now, her lineage outside of Lucious hadn’t been much referenced, leaving the show’s relatively clueless audience hungry to know how Cookie came to be.

Cookie’s celebration of her son’s victory ends abruptly when Lucious’s sneer informs the after-party that her sister Candice is outside the club. Through her (according to Cookie) practiced hysteria about their third sister’s alleged drug bender, we learn from Candice that Cookie’s real name is <hl> Loretha <hl>. Cookie hadn’t been born a Lyon — a flashback intimates that neither had Lucious, likely taking the name as an child abandoned on the street — and up until now, her lineage outside of Lucious hadn’t been much referenced, leaving the show’s relatively clueless audience hungry to know how Cookie came to be.

Through her (according to Cookie) practiced hysteria about their third sister’s alleged drug bender, we learn from Candice that Cookie’s real name is <hl> Loretha <hl> .


Question: What causes drug companies to avoid investing in a drug?

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s prescription drug policy proposal, released last week, would hold drug manufacturers accountable to their level of investment in research. But there are some potentially valuable drugs we’ll never get drug companies to invest in — those that cannot be patented. By granting temporary monopolies to innovators, the patent system is widely credited with protecting and promoting innovation. But when it comes to pharmaceuticals, it may be preventing valuable therapies from coming to market. To see evidence of this, just look at the behavior of pharmaceutical firms. When Benjamin Roin, assistant professor of technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategic management at M.I.T., did so, he discovered that drug companies discard many potentially good ideas because they’re unpatentable. By interviewing academic researchers and industry insiders and scouring medicinal-chemistry textbooks, Mr. Roin learned that “pharmaceutical companies systematically screen their drug candidates to exclude the ones lacking strong patent protection.” It’s obvious why drug innovators would avoid unpatentable ideas: Bringing a drug to market is expensive. In addition to the costs of scientists and laboratories to discover and sift through potentially therapeutic compounds in the first place, demonstrating efficacy and safety to the Food and Drug Administration requires costly clinical trials. Without F.D.A. approval, a drug cannot be marketed.

Answer: cannot be patented

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s prescription drug policy proposal, released last week, would hold drug manufacturers accountable to their level of investment in research. <hl> But there are some potentially valuable drugs we’ll never get drug companies to invest in — those that cannot be patented . <hl> By granting temporary monopolies to innovators, the patent system is widely credited with protecting and promoting innovation. But when it comes to pharmaceuticals, it may be preventing valuable therapies from coming to market. To see evidence of this, just look at the behavior of pharmaceutical firms. When Benjamin Roin, assistant professor of technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategic management at M.I.T., did so, he discovered that drug companies discard many potentially good ideas because they’re unpatentable. By interviewing academic researchers and industry insiders and scouring medicinal-chemistry textbooks, Mr. Roin learned that “pharmaceutical companies systematically screen their drug candidates to exclude the ones lacking strong patent protection.” It’s obvious why drug innovators would avoid unpatentable ideas: Bringing a drug to market is expensive. In addition to the costs of scientists and laboratories to discover and sift through potentially therapeutic compounds in the first place, demonstrating efficacy and safety to the Food and Drug Administration requires costly clinical trials. Without F.D.A. approval, a drug cannot be marketed.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s prescription drug policy proposal, released last week, would hold drug manufacturers accountable to their level of investment in research. But there are some potentially valuable drugs we’ll never get drug companies to invest in — those that <hl> cannot be patented <hl>. By granting temporary monopolies to innovators, the patent system is widely credited with protecting and promoting innovation. But when it comes to pharmaceuticals, it may be preventing valuable therapies from coming to market. To see evidence of this, just look at the behavior of pharmaceutical firms. When Benjamin Roin, assistant professor of technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategic management at M.I.T., did so, he discovered that drug companies discard many potentially good ideas because they’re unpatentable. By interviewing academic researchers and industry insiders and scouring medicinal-chemistry textbooks, Mr. Roin learned that “pharmaceutical companies systematically screen their drug candidates to exclude the ones lacking strong patent protection.” It’s obvious why drug innovators would avoid unpatentable ideas: Bringing a drug to market is expensive. In addition to the costs of scientists and laboratories to discover and sift through potentially therapeutic compounds in the first place, demonstrating efficacy and safety to the Food and Drug Administration requires costly clinical trials. Without F.D.A. approval, a drug cannot be marketed.

But there are some potentially valuable drugs we’ll never get drug companies to invest in — those that <hl> cannot be patented <hl> .


Question: Why might a pharmaceutical company exclude a drug candidate?

Answer: because they’re unpatentable

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s prescription drug policy proposal, released last week, would hold drug manufacturers accountable to their level of investment in research. But there are some potentially valuable drugs we’ll never get drug companies to invest in — those that cannot be patented. By granting temporary monopolies to innovators, the patent system is widely credited with protecting and promoting innovation. But when it comes to pharmaceuticals, it may be preventing valuable therapies from coming to market. To see evidence of this, just look at the behavior of pharmaceutical firms. <hl> When Benjamin Roin, assistant professor of technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategic management at M.I.T., did so, he discovered that drug companies discard many potentially good ideas because they’re unpatentable . <hl> By interviewing academic researchers and industry insiders and scouring medicinal-chemistry textbooks, Mr. Roin learned that “pharmaceutical companies systematically screen their drug candidates to exclude the ones lacking strong patent protection.” It’s obvious why drug innovators would avoid unpatentable ideas: Bringing a drug to market is expensive. In addition to the costs of scientists and laboratories to discover and sift through potentially therapeutic compounds in the first place, demonstrating efficacy and safety to the Food and Drug Administration requires costly clinical trials. Without F.D.A. approval, a drug cannot be marketed.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s prescription drug policy proposal, released last week, would hold drug manufacturers accountable to their level of investment in research. But there are some potentially valuable drugs we’ll never get drug companies to invest in — those that cannot be patented. By granting temporary monopolies to innovators, the patent system is widely credited with protecting and promoting innovation. But when it comes to pharmaceuticals, it may be preventing valuable therapies from coming to market. To see evidence of this, just look at the behavior of pharmaceutical firms. When Benjamin Roin, assistant professor of technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategic management at M.I.T., did so, he discovered that drug companies discard many potentially good ideas <hl> because they’re unpatentable <hl>. By interviewing academic researchers and industry insiders and scouring medicinal-chemistry textbooks, Mr. Roin learned that “pharmaceutical companies systematically screen their drug candidates to exclude the ones lacking strong patent protection.” It’s obvious why drug innovators would avoid unpatentable ideas: Bringing a drug to market is expensive. In addition to the costs of scientists and laboratories to discover and sift through potentially therapeutic compounds in the first place, demonstrating efficacy and safety to the Food and Drug Administration requires costly clinical trials. Without F.D.A. approval, a drug cannot be marketed.

When Benjamin Roin, assistant professor of technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategic management at M.I.T., did so, he discovered that drug companies discard many potentially good ideas <hl> because they’re unpatentable <hl> .


Question: What is a barrier to bringing a drug to the market?

Answer: expensive

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s prescription drug policy proposal, released last week, would hold drug manufacturers accountable to their level of investment in research. But there are some potentially valuable drugs we’ll never get drug companies to invest in — those that cannot be patented. By granting temporary monopolies to innovators, the patent system is widely credited with protecting and promoting innovation. But when it comes to pharmaceuticals, it may be preventing valuable therapies from coming to market. To see evidence of this, just look at the behavior of pharmaceutical firms. When Benjamin Roin, assistant professor of technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategic management at M.I.T., did so, he discovered that drug companies discard many potentially good ideas because they’re unpatentable. By interviewing academic researchers and industry insiders and scouring medicinal-chemistry textbooks, Mr. Roin learned that “pharmaceutical companies systematically screen their drug candidates to exclude the ones lacking strong patent protection.” It’s obvious why drug innovators would avoid unpatentable ideas: <hl> Bringing a drug to market is expensive . <hl> In addition to the costs of scientists and laboratories to discover and sift through potentially therapeutic compounds in the first place, demonstrating efficacy and safety to the Food and Drug Administration requires costly clinical trials. Without F.D.A. approval, a drug cannot be marketed.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s prescription drug policy proposal, released last week, would hold drug manufacturers accountable to their level of investment in research. But there are some potentially valuable drugs we’ll never get drug companies to invest in — those that cannot be patented. By granting temporary monopolies to innovators, the patent system is widely credited with protecting and promoting innovation. But when it comes to pharmaceuticals, it may be preventing valuable therapies from coming to market. To see evidence of this, just look at the behavior of pharmaceutical firms. When Benjamin Roin, assistant professor of technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategic management at M.I.T., did so, he discovered that drug companies discard many potentially good ideas because they’re unpatentable. By interviewing academic researchers and industry insiders and scouring medicinal-chemistry textbooks, Mr. Roin learned that “pharmaceutical companies systematically screen their drug candidates to exclude the ones lacking strong patent protection.” It’s obvious why drug innovators would avoid unpatentable ideas: Bringing a drug to market is <hl> expensive <hl>. In addition to the costs of scientists and laboratories to discover and sift through potentially therapeutic compounds in the first place, demonstrating efficacy and safety to the Food and Drug Administration requires costly clinical trials. Without F.D.A. approval, a drug cannot be marketed.

Bringing a drug to market is <hl> expensive <hl> .


Question: Who oversees the effectiveness and safety of a drug?

Answer: F.D.A.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s prescription drug policy proposal, released last week, would hold drug manufacturers accountable to their level of investment in research. But there are some potentially valuable drugs we’ll never get drug companies to invest in — those that cannot be patented. By granting temporary monopolies to innovators, the patent system is widely credited with protecting and promoting innovation. But when it comes to pharmaceuticals, it may be preventing valuable therapies from coming to market. To see evidence of this, just look at the behavior of pharmaceutical firms. When Benjamin Roin, assistant professor of technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategic management at M.I.T., did so, he discovered that drug companies discard many potentially good ideas because they’re unpatentable. By interviewing academic researchers and industry insiders and scouring medicinal-chemistry textbooks, Mr. Roin learned that “pharmaceutical companies systematically screen their drug candidates to exclude the ones lacking strong patent protection.” It’s obvious why drug innovators would avoid unpatentable ideas: Bringing a drug to market is expensive. In addition to the costs of scientists and laboratories to discover and sift through potentially therapeutic compounds in the first place, demonstrating efficacy and safety to the Food and Drug Administration requires costly clinical trials. <hl> Without F.D.A. approval, a drug cannot be marketed. <hl>

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s prescription drug policy proposal, released last week, would hold drug manufacturers accountable to their level of investment in research. But there are some potentially valuable drugs we’ll never get drug companies to invest in — those that cannot be patented. By granting temporary monopolies to innovators, the patent system is widely credited with protecting and promoting innovation. But when it comes to pharmaceuticals, it may be preventing valuable therapies from coming to market. To see evidence of this, just look at the behavior of pharmaceutical firms. When Benjamin Roin, assistant professor of technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategic management at M.I.T., did so, he discovered that drug companies discard many potentially good ideas because they’re unpatentable. By interviewing academic researchers and industry insiders and scouring medicinal-chemistry textbooks, Mr. Roin learned that “pharmaceutical companies systematically screen their drug candidates to exclude the ones lacking strong patent protection.” It’s obvious why drug innovators would avoid unpatentable ideas: Bringing a drug to market is expensive. In addition to the costs of scientists and laboratories to discover and sift through potentially therapeutic compounds in the first place, demonstrating efficacy and safety to the Food and Drug Administration requires costly clinical trials. Without <hl> F.D.A. <hl> approval, a drug cannot be marketed.