TASK DEFINITION: Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
PROBLEM: Although there was no discussion of costs, the article was clear in stating that vaccines arefor the most partin an early stage of development, so this omission is understandable. We wanted to seebetter coverage of the data here. The story leads with an anecdote about a patient who kicked a pack-a-day smoking habit after treatment with a nicotinevaccine in a study. And later,the story says that smokers who received thatvaccine were "about three times as likely to be off cigarettes 44 weeks after vaccination than subjects given a placebo."The story should have providedthe absolute rates of success reported in the study, which were only 16% for the treatment group compared with 6% for the placebo group, according to theheart.org. Elsewhere,the storydescribes an experimental anticocaine vaccine that was apparently very effective in a mouse study; it could have reported onphase II human data that is available for theTA-CDanticocaine vaccine that was also mentioned in the story. These data again suggest that only a minority of patientsmay benefit from the use of anti-addictionvaccines. The story states that "clinical trials have so far revealed no significant side effects" from vaccine treatments. However, we think the story should have included an important caveat: that these are early stagetrials involving small numbers of patients thatcan't provideconclusive evidence of safety. In addition, it should be recognized that addictions arechronic conditions and these vaccine treatments are likely to be long-term as well. Therefore, longer-term adverse effects should be expected, especially for a treatment that interferes with molecules closely related to the body's natural chemical messengers. The story could have been a bit more circumspect on this point. The promise of this new vaccine technology is counterbalanced by coverage of the uncertainties. The story gives appropriate weightto thedisappointing resultsreported in a number of early clinical studies, noting: "Failures have so far outnumbered successes." The story adds thateven in one of the successful vaccine studies, the benefitswere not as robust as those seen with a smoking cessation drug that is already on the market. There also is no prospect for a vaccine to treat alcoholism, according to the story. The article should have been more direct about the limitations of mouse research, and there was not enough detailon thedata publishedin the various studies reported on (a deficiency we address under the "Benefits" criterion). However, since the story was trying to present a broad overview of happenings in the field and wasn't attempting to summarize any particular study, we'll give the benefit of the doubt here and award a satisfactory. The story didn't exaggerate the effects ofsubstanceabusedisorders or otherwise engage in disease-mongering. The sourcing of this story was good. We hear fromacademics, government researchers, and industry executives. Their voices provide balance and give texture to the coverage. It should be noted, however, that most of these experts have a vested interest in the field or the success of a particular treatment, whether because of industry ties or because they are leading experiments ona particular approach. Even the government experts might be biased by their provision of significant financial support for research in this area. It would have been nice to heara comment about the vaccines from someonewho is certifiably free of all potential conflicts. But we can't justify docking pointssince there is no voice that is overly enthusiastic about the concept. The story compares the potential of vaccines with the benefits of existing medications for addictionand notes that theavailable drugs might work better. We would liketo haveseen more ink givento the role ofbehavioralapproaches in the management of addiction, which are supported by considerable evidence. However,the story does acknowledgethatvaccines "would likely be used alongside psychological therapy."We'll call it good enough for a satisfactory. The article helpfully states that "It could be years, if ever, before any vaccines to treat addiction reach the market." The article does a good job of describing how far along the various experimental vaccines mentioned in the article are in their development. Although the story could haveprovided more background on the history ofanti-addiction vaccines (aheroin vaccine was explored in the 1970s), the treatments being explored now are different fromanything currently available. So we don't think this story overstates thenoveltyof the research. This story is not based on a news release.

SOLUTION: Quest for Vaccines to Treat Addiction

PROBLEM: The company said the trial will continue unchanged as per the recommendation of a data monitoring committee. The trial was testing Bristol-Myers' drugs Opdivo and Yervoy, against Opdivo alone, in patients with advanced melanoma. The combination failed to show a statistically significant benefit in patients whose tumors had 1% or lower levels of the PD-L1 protein being targeted, the company said. The American Cancer Society estimates that about 96,480 melanoma cases will be diagnosed in the United States this year. Bristol-Myers shares were trading at $55.99 before the bell.

SOLUTION: Bristol-Myers misses main goal of late-stage skin cancer trial.

PROBLEM: "Crediting conservation in Austin, the Save Our Springs Alliance said in an Aug. 16, 2011, entry in its online newsletter: ""Ten years ago the Austin Water Utility used a total of 240.3 million gallons. Every summer since then our peak day of water use has been lower."" After noting that this year's peak water use in a day was 217 million gallons, the entry continues: ""So raise a tall glass of ice water in honor of our success: water conservation gains have outpaced population growth for a decade. Add a 'Salud!' to another 10 years of flat or declining water use easily achieved with cost-effective conservation measures and an emerging 'culture of conservation,' one that recognizes that we can thrive and be happy without oversized, overwatered New England-style turf grass lawns."" We can't check on the next decade, but we can check if peak water usage has been less every year than what it was in 2001. Indeed, the Austin Water Utility sent us figures indicating that on the peak days of water consumption from 2002 through August 2011, customers used less water than the 240.3 million gallons used on Aug. 13, 2001, though that was barely so in one year. The greatest peak use day since 2001 was Aug. 26, 2006, when usage was 240.17 million gallons about 5/100ths of a percent shy of the amount gulped, flushed and otherwise used in 2001. The lowest peak-use amount in the 10 years after 2001 was 176.98 million gallons on Aug. 13, 2007. Put another way, the average peak water use in a day in the period was about 214 million gallons, 11 percent off the 2001 peak. The utility's director, Greg Meszaros, told us in an interview that conservation helps explain the lower peak-use amounts, though he said consumption generally bounces around year to year partly due to variations in the weather rainy summers reduce demand and the economy. Per-capita water consumption has been relatively flat, Meszaros said, since the utility instituted a conservation program in 2007 that, among features, encourages customers to use low-water appliances and limit lawn watering. According to the utility, customers have used less water per person lately than individuals did in past years. Per-capita daily use has averaged 190 gallons or more four times since 1990, the last time being 2006. Average per-person consumption slid to 151 gallons in 2007, reached 170 gallons in 2008 and then dipped two straight years, reaching less than 140 gallons in 2010. Daryl Slusher, an assistant director for the utility, said the average will approach 160 gallons for the year that ends Sept. 30. Save Our Springs maintains the area's conservation successes demonstrate that a water treatment plant slated for Northwest Austin won't be needed for many years. Meszaros told us Austin needs the new plant because two current plants can't be relied on indefinitely. Also, he said, the new project will include a vital water transmission main easing the delivery of water to the fast-growing northern third of the utility's service area. ""We're not doing (the new plant) just to meet a peak water demand,"" Meszaros said. In an interview, Bill Bunch, SOS's executive director, expressed skepticism about strains in the existing water delivery system. He also said there's not sufficient water demand to justify the new one and forwarded an April 2002 recommendation from city staff about preliminary engineering for the new plant. The document states the plant would be needed by 2009 to meet increasing water demands, predicting too that the utility's peak one-day demand in summer 2009 would be 281 million gallons; the peak amount that year turned out to be 228 million gallons. Utility spokesman Kevin Buchman later told us by email that in 2002, the ""main reason for moving forward with the construction of a new plant was to meet the projected demands."" He said, though, the utility's mid-decade focus on conservation allowed the city to postpone the plant's completion by more than five years. ""Also,"" Buchman said, ""since 2002 we have had one of our (originally three) plants decommissioned and our other two water plants have been expanded as much as possible."" We won't try to settle the water plant debate here. But the alliance's statement about peak water use rates ."

SOLUTION:
Ten years ago the Austin Water Utility used a total of 240.3 million gallons. Every summer since then our peak day of water use has been lower.