instruction:
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.
question:
Biotechnology company Alkermes said earlier in the day that it expected Lilly to drop out of their program to develop an inhaled insulin treatment for diabetes, sending Alkermes shares down more than 9 percent. Lilly's decision marks the third setback in recent months for inhaled insulin formulations, once deemed potential blockbuster products because of their greater convenience than standard injectable insulin. Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Alkermes, which makes the alcohol addiction drug Vivitrol, said Lilly has the right to terminate its license to the inhaled treatment, Air Insulin, at its discretion. "While Lilly may elect not to commercialize Air Insulin, Alkermes believes that the phase 3 safety and efficacy trials should be completed," Alkermes said in a statement. After Lilly's announcement, the company said it was evaluating the impact of the termination, which will become effective in 90 days. Indianapolis-based Lilly said its decision was not due to safety concerns, "but rather was a result of increasing uncertainties in the regulatory environment, and a thorough evaluation of the evolving commercial and clinical potential of the product compared to existing medical therapies." Lilly Chief Operating Officer John Lechleiter said in a statement that the company is beginning the process of halting ongoing clinical studies. Lilly said it will record a first-quarter 2008 charge of around $90 million to $120 million, or 5 cents to 7 cents per share. The company said its adjusted earnings per share outlook remains unchanged at $3.85 to $4.00, while net earnings will range from $3.73 to $3.90. Lilly's action comes just five months after Pfizer Inc abandoned Exubera, the first approved inhaled form of insulin, and returned rights to the product to longtime partner Nektar Therapeutics. Exubera had dismal sales because patients were turned off by the clumsy device used to administer the powdered insulin and because doctors were concerned by the drug's tendency to slightly impair lung function. Alkermes Chairman Richard Pops, in an interview with Reuters in October, said Air Insulin may have similar effects on lung function. "We're assuming that pulmonary insulins in that regard are all pretty much the same," he said, although a conclusive picture of Air Insulin's safety will not emerge until two-year safety trials of the product end later this year. A second setback for inhaled insulin came in January, when Novo Nordisk said it was halting development of its AERx product, meant to deliver inhaled droplets. The Danish drugmaker said AERx did not have adequate sales potential, given the limited commercial success seen with Exubera. Morgan Stanley analyst Jami Rubin said on Friday Lilly's abandonment of AIR Insulin made good business sense. "We are not (at) all surprised, and have never been strong advocates of the pulmonary insulin agents, following the poor launch and ultimate demise of Pfizer and Nektar's Exubera and Novo Nordisk's termination of its AERx program," Rubin said in a research note. Rubin said Alkermes, known for its drug-delivery technology, is unlikely to continue development of Air Insulin without Lilly, "given that this represents the third termination of a pulmonary insulin drug." But she said the sharp drop in Alkermes shares represented a buying opportunity for investors because Air Insulin had only paltry sales potential. She said investors should be focused instead on another product Alkermes is developing with Lilly: a long-acting formulation of Lilly's Byetta diabetes treatment called Byetta "We estimate that Byetta LAR could be worth $11 to $12 for the (Alkermes) stock," Ryan said. Alkermes shares fell $1.14 to close at $11.26 on Nasdaq. Lilly, a far larger company with an array of big-selling products, rose 2 cents to end at $49.70 on the New York Stock Exchange, and was slightly lower at $49.67 in after-hours trading.
answer:
Eli Lilly drops inhaled insulin program.

question:
Central to the plan to protect the city, some or all of the 78 barriers will one day be raised when the sea rises more than 110 centimeters (43 inches), to prevent damaging high tides from pushing into the lagoon city, a world heritage site built picturesquely but somewhat precariously upon more than 120 islands. Concerns that high tides are becoming more frequent because of climate change have increased the urgency. While the concept is simple, its realization has been anything but. The system of movable underwater barriers, dubbed Moses, has been beset by corruption, cost overruns and delays. Projected at 1.8 billion euros ($2 billion) and meant to be completed by 2011, the project has so far cost 5.5 billion euros and is running a decade behind schedule. In the wake of last month's flooding of Venice, the worst in 53 years, the consortium that oversees construction of Moses is eager to demonstrate that the project after years of bad news is on track and will be fully operational by the end of 2021. Venetians say they cannot afford to be wrong. Skeptics and critics say they may be. A recent test of the deepest expanse of barriers at the Malamocco entrance to the lagoon was declared a success by the New Venice Consortium. It was the last of the four sections of barriers to be completely raised but so far only in calm seas. The real test will come when all four are raised at once, and not only in serene waters, but under flood conditions. That isn't scheduled to take place until the end of next year. It took six years to test each of the four movable sea walls covering the three openings to the lagoon, partly because work was slowed by a 2014 corruption scandal that implicated the three main contractors and sent 35 people to jail. Work is continuing largely with the original subcontractors now contracting directly with the consortium, which itself has been placed under government control as a result of the scandal. The fact that the barriers have not yet been physically tested in rough seas is a concern to critics. Paolo Vielmo, an offshore marine engineer who has long criticized the project, said that tests carried out in a laboratory in the Netherlands in the 1990s indicated that the barriers, under certain conditions, would oscillate out of control possibly even breaking apart. "Its behavior is not predictable,'' Vielmo said. He said that the trials so far declared successful have been under only modest sea conditions that fail to represent anywhere near the threat of the phenomenon of extreme oscillation called subharmonic resonance. Vielmo and two other offshore engineers have compiled a report for the Codacons consumer and environment protection advocacy group, which is asking officials to run additional calculations to see if the project is indeed viable. And if it is not, Codacons says Moses should be stopped. "We don't want to delay by one minute the possibility to make Moses operational. But we say we cannot make it operational until we are sure it will work,'' said Franco Conte, president of Codacons in Venice. "Naturally, the Venetian community is exasperated and they say, 'If we did 95%, let's do 100% and see if that works.' But that is unconscionable. If we don't know if it works, we cannot experiment." The barrier system is made up of giant flood gates, each 20 meters (66 feet) long. The gates are attached by hinges to giant cement blocks placed on the seabed along the three openings from the sea into the lagoon, Malamocco, Chioggia and the Lido. The gates can be lifted to create a temporary barrier in high tides. Once the water has receded, they can be lowered again allowing shipping traffic to continue and for the tidal system to flush out the lagoon. The idea behind the project was to create a mobile system that would not impede views of the unique and protected landscape. But Moses has suffered criticism from the start that there were simpler, cheaper systems that could have been deployed. Venetians have been waiting since the record 1.94-meter (6.36-foot) flood of 1966 for a system to protect them from regular inundations. The flooding in November, the second-worst recorded, proved the urgency. In the 150 years that they have been recording the tide levels in Venice, two high tides above 1.5 meters have never been recorded in a year. In November, there were three in one week. Climate scientists note that exceptional tides those over 1.4 meters have become much more frequent in the past two decades, with more than half of all recorded occurring since 2000. "One has to realize the kind of existential question that that serious flooding has given rise to," said Jane Da Mosto, an environmental scientist and executive director of the non-profit group We Are Here Venice, which is working to defend the city against myriad issues, including depopulation, cruise traffic through St. Mark's basin and overtourism. "People are asking: will Venice be defendable against these kinds of episodes?'' It's not just the still-uncalculated damage to landmarks like St. Mark's Basilica, where corrosive salt water creeps through porous brick and tile. It's also the boxes of ruined belongings and piles of soaked mattresses discarded in alleyways and loaded onto motorboats and trash barges for disposal. The relentlessness of the Venetian fall and winter tides make one-third of ground floors uninhabitable in the historic canal city. "I am very old, I cannot say that I want to die, but I certainly do not want to be witness to the fact that it does not work," 84-year-old resident Paola Scarpa said of the Moses barriers, as she walked to check on a family property in the Canareggio neighborhood on a recent December morning. "It would be a pain too great." ___ Associated Press journalist Trisha Thomas contributed to this report.
answer:
Venice tide barriers pass another test but skeptics remain.

question:
Although this trial was a preliminary experiment, the proposed intervention is clearly defined as two office visits and two telephone calls with a nurse, so it should have been possible to estimate the cost. Since one purpose of testing this sort of brief intervention is to offer lower-cost alternatives to established behavioral treatment for insomnia, readers should have been given some estimate of the relative costs of the interventions. The story tells readers that 55 percent of people in the active intervention group no longer met the criteria for insomnia after four weeks. However, readers are not told how the researchers defined insomnia. Was it a complete inability to sleep? How frequently did the participants have trouble sleeping? How much more did they sleep after treatment? Without these and other details, it is difficult to get a feel for what effect the treatment had. While this story reported how many people needed to be treated in order to make a difference for at least one a statistic we encourage journalists to use more the story reported twice as many people benefited as the researchers actually said they saw. The researchers wrote that one person either had remission (no more insomnia) or response (significantly less insomnia) for every 2.4 people treated. But the story says that for every 2.4 participants treated one responded and one overcame insomnia. We won't hold this story to this criterion because neither the journal article on the test nor an accompanying commentary noted any adverse events. However, the story could have pointed out that a trial this small generally would miss all but the most common problems. Also, the story could have pointed out that until further evidence is developed, it is not know for certain how this type of intervention compares with alternatives. If it turns out that for some people this treatment is less effective than alternatives, then prescribing it would mean leaving them at greater risk of being harmed by insomnia. The story gives a brief description of the experiment and some of the main outcomes that the researchers measured. The story would have been better if it told readers more about the limitations of this small trial, including what sort of further testing would be needed to determine if the intervention would work for people in the general population, rather than just those who match the profiles of the individuals who volunteered to participate in this test. The story compared this brief intervention to more established behavioral therapy, without noting the pitfalls of trying to compare results from different trials. The story did not tell readers that there is ongoing debate about the best way to measure the results of insomnia studies. The story provides estimates of how many people complain of insomnia. It also portrays this intervention as an alternative to existing treatments, rather than an effort to expand treatment to more people. The story includes comments from the author of a commentary article that appeared in the Archives of Internal Medicine along with the research article. In the disclosure section of their article, some of the researchers reported ties to pharmaceutical companies, but since this trial tested a non-drug approach and was funded by public agency and academic grants, it seems reasonable to consider the industry links as not being relevant to this study. We will credit this story for discussing the alternatives of sleeping pills and cognitive behavioral therapy. Although there was no reference to other less-intense non-drug approaches that clinicians may recommend for dealing with insomnia, there was a comment at the end of the story that offered some basic advice that readers could use on their own. The story says this form of "brief behavioral treatment for insomnia is not yet generally available". It also described this study as being a first step in the process of making such an intervention available without making predictions about a timetable. This story suggests that there are no brief behavioral interventions available to people with insomnia. They story should not have suggested that the only alternative treatments are drugs and expensive cognitive behavioral therapy. The story does not appear to rely on a news release.
answer:
Short-term pill-free therapy may help insomniacs