Mylan may have overcharged US government by $1.27 billion

Brad Dixon

Mylan Pharmaceuticals came to public attention in August of last year for hiking the price of its life-saving EpiPen by more than 500 percent, from $100 for a two-pack of EpiPens in 2004 (adjusting for inflation) to $600 in 2016. Sales from the EpiPen make up 40 percent of the company’s profits. The company acquired the drug through its 2007 purchase of Merck’s generic division.

Last week the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for Health and Human Services (HSS) issued a letter to the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which had requested an estimate of how much Mylan overcharged Medicaid. The letter was released by Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa and chairman of the committee that has been leading the investigation into the EpiPen overcharges.

Between 2006 and 2016, Mylan misclassified its EpiPen Auto-Injector, used to treat anaphylaxis due to allergic reactions, as a generic product instead of a branded product.

“It looks like Mylan overcharged the taxpayers for years with the knowledge EpiPen was misclassified,” Senator Chuck Grassley said in a statement on his Senate web site. “The fact that Mylan is unwilling to cooperate and provide documents voluntarily makes me wonder what there is to hide and whether a subpoena is the only way to get to the bottom of this.”

According to the OIG, Mylan overcharged taxpayers by as much as $444 million between 2006 and 2014, and by $826 million between 2015 and 2016, bringing the grand total over 10 years to $1.27 billion.

The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, administered jointly by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services and State Medicaid Agencies, requires pharmaceutical companies, if they wish to have their drugs covered by Medicaid, to pay a certain percentage of their revenues (rebates) to states to assist with the costs of prescription drugs under the Medicaid program. Around 600 drug manufacturers participate.

Makers of generic drugs (classified as “non-innovator multiple source” drugs) are charged 13 percent of the drug’s average manufacturing price (AMP). Producers of branded drugs (classified as “innovator drugs”), however, are charged either 23.1 percent of the AMP or the difference between the AMP and the Best Price (the lowest negotiated price), whichever is higher. (Pricing data is provided by the drug manufacturer.) Even higher rebates can be charged if the price of the branded drug rises above the rate of inflation.

The “innovator drugs” are charged a higher rate because they have monopoly protection; generic or “non-innovator multiple source” drugs generally have multiple competitors.

The statute covering the program states that in order for a drug to be classified as a generic, there must be at least one competing drug product that is “therapeutically equivalent.”

The EpiPen has never faced a competing device that was considered therapeutically equivalent, although after its price hikes sparked outrage the company now provides its own generic version of the device. And Mylan has done everything in its power to prevent an equivalent device from coming to market.

Soon after Mylan acquired the EpiPen, the unit in Pfizer that makes the device for Mylan sued Teva Pharmaceuticals for patent infringement. Teva had been developing a generic version of the EpiPen, but the resulting 2012 settlement prevented the company from introducing a competing product until late 2015.

In early 2015, Mylan submitted a petition to the US Food and Drug Administration requesting that the agency not approve Teva’s upcoming generic version. The FDA rejected Teva’s application in February of last year.

Last month, Sanofi-Aventis filed a lawsuit against Mylan alleging that Mylan offered deep discounts to drug suppliers as long as they agreed not to purchase Sanofi’s competing product, the Auvi-Q. Mylan currently controls around 70 percent of the market for emergency treatments for allergic reactions—in the past, it has controlled as much as 90 percent of the market.

Mylan’s case for its classification of the EpiPen rests on the flimsiest of logic. The company points to the 1997 designation by the HHS of the EpiPen, then marketed by Dey Laboratories, as a non-innovator. However, unlike Dey Laboratories, Mylan has taken out at least one additional patent on the design of the EpiPen (the pen’s easy to remove orange cap), giving it monopoly protections until at least 2025.

The company was informed of its misclassification, but nonetheless never changed the designation. Federal regulators revealed Mylan’s overcharges in September of last year after three Senators asked the Justice Department if it was going to investigate Mylan.

“The facts laid out above suggest that Mylan may have knowingly misclassified EpiPens, potentially in violation of the False Claims Act and other statutes,” said Senators Amy Klobuchar, Richard Blumenthal, and Grassley in a letter to the attorney general dated September 28, 2016.

“CMS has, on multiple occasions, provided guidance to the industry and Mylan on the proper classification of drugs, and has expressly advised Mylan that their classification of EpiPen for the purposes of the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program was incorrect,” CMS spokesperson Aaron Albright told CNBC at the time.

In October, Mylan reached a settlement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) in which the company would pay $465 million, less than half of what it owes, and would admit no guilt in the matter. It appears that this settlement is no longer on the table. The DOJ, according to Stat News, now says “there is no settlement to report.”

“Mylan’s outrageous multiyear classification has cost American taxpayers not just millions but billions,” Senator Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, said on the release of the letter from the OIG, according to CNBC. “The Department of Justice’s [$465 million] deal is completely insufficient—a shadow of what it should be.”

Mylan has reportedly agreed to meet with Senator Grassley this week to discuss his ongoing investigation.

The revelation of the amount overcharged by Mylan, along with the lavish pay given to top company executives, has led to a semi-revolt among a handful of institutional investors in the company. The New York City pension fund, the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, and the Dutch pension fund PGGM are all calling on Mylan shareholders to reject the reelection of six company directors at the June 22 annual meeting. Together, the institutional investors hold around 4.3 million Mylan shares.

“If [the charges are] true, Mylan not only forced massive price hikes on consumers, but also overcharged American taxpayers more than a billion dollars for a life-saving drug,” New York City’s comptroller, Scott Stringer, told CNBC. Stringer oversees New York City’s pension fund.

“At the same time, [Mylan’s] board granted enormous pay packages to top executives. It’s improper and it’s immoral. Now. Mylan’s shareowners are suffering the consequences. This is ultimately a Board failure—that’s why investors are demanding change,” Stringer said.

The company’s chairman and former CEO Robert Coury received $97.6 million in compensation last year. According to FiercePharma, Coury was the highest paid executive in the pharmaceutical industry in 2016. Heather Bresch, Mylan’s current CEO, has seen her compensation rise from $2.5 million in 2007 to $18.9 million in 2015.

Mylan has a history of questionable business practices.

As the company raised the price of the EpiPen after acquiring it in 2007, it also sought to expand the market for the device by spending heavily on marketing and pulling political strings—Mylan CEO Bresch’s father is a Democratic Senator from West Virginia, Joe Manchin—to get requirements that public schools purchase EpiPens.

In addition to the EpiPen, Mylan has significantly hiked the prices of a number of their other drugs, including a 542 percent price increase of a generic treatment for gallstones (Ursodiol), a 444 percent increase of a generic treatment for gastroesophageal reflux (Metoclopramide), and a 400 percent increase of a treatment for irritable bowel syndrome (Dicyclomine).

The company also has a history of cornering the market on a product and then jacking up the prices. The company settled charges by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that it had illegally restricted trade by agreeing to pay $147 million in 2000. According to the FTC, after gaining exclusive access to the raw materials used to produce two widely prescribed anti-anxiety drugs, Mylan raised the price of one from $11.36 a bottle to $377 (clorazepate) and the price of the other from $7 to $190 (lorazepam).

In September of last year, Bresch was called to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. While Representatives criticized the actions of Mylan, the real purpose of the hearing was to quell public anger by throwing shots at an easy target, while ensuring that the industry as a whole could continue to price gouge the public without political interference.

As Representative Elijah Cummings noted at the hearings: “After Mylan takes our punches they’ll fly back to their mansions in their private jets and laugh all the way to the bank.”

The same could be said about the likely outcome of Mylan’s latest scandal of overcharging Medicaid.

Study: The ultra-rich hide 25 percent of their wealth in tax havens

Gabriel Black 

A study released May 28 by University of California Berkeley economist Gabriel Zucman and two Scandinavian colleagues, “Tax Evasion and Inequality,” demonstrates that global wealth inequality is drastically underestimated in official statistics because of how successful the super-rich are at evading taxes.

According to the paper, the super-rich, that is the top .01 percent, hide some 25 percent or more of their wealth. This is primarily due to the exploitation of offshore tax havens that allow them to avoid paying taxes where their income is actually accrued, and where they actually live.

The study demonstrates, yet again, that the super-rich are a law onto themselves, living in a world completely separate from the vast majority of humanity. Earlier this year, Oxfam reported that only eight men control as much wealth as the bottom half of humanity. However, the findings of this new paper suggest that wealth concentration is even higher.

The authors of the paper write, “The many data sets used in this article all paint the same picture: the probability to hide assets rises very sharply with wealth, including within the very top groups. As a result, offshore wealth turns out to be extremely concentrated. By our estimate, the top 0.01% of the distribution owns about 50% of it [offshore wealth].”

They conclude, “this implies that the top 0.01% hides about 25% of its true wealth”

Zucman explained to the Los Angeles Times, “There’s a big industry providing wealth management services for the super-wealthy all over the world. … Once you cross a certain threshold of over $50 million, you get offered those services.”

The study’s authors, Anette Alstadsaeter, Niels Johannesen and Gabriel Zucman, rely on several sources to make their analysis. The first and most important is leaked data from HSBC Private Bank (Suisse), the Swiss arm of HSBC, the sixth-largest private bank in the world. The data from HSBC Private Bank (Suisse), which was exposed in 2015, shows how the bank hides billions of dollars of taxable money for corporations such as Google and Amazon, as well as a variety of extremely wealthy clientele. The dirty stream of money exposed in the leak went as high as former US President Bill Clinton, and involved several billionaires and public figures.

Another source they use is the data from the Panama Papers, the massive leak of files from the Panama-based law firm Mossack-Fonseca in 2016. Those files showed how the law firm made millions of dollars helping politicians and the super-rich stash their money and hide it to evade taxation.

A third source they use is data from Norwegian, Danish and Swedish tax authorities showing households who voluntarily disclosed previously hidden assets in exchange for tax amnesty. Zucman, et al. were able to match assets exposed by the 2015 HSBC leak and the Panama Papers with government data in the Scandinavian countries. This method allowed them to understand the average amount of wealth the super-rich said they had versus what they actually had in undisclosed accounts.

The paper showed that in Norway, when offshore assets are added, the Norwegian super-rich show a 30 percent rise in income and the increase is likely to be higher in other countries.

“Because most Latin American, and many Asian and European economies own much more wealth offshore than Norway, the results found in Norway are likely to be lower than for most of the world’s countries,” the authors noted.

Zucman told the Los Angeles Times, “There is good reason to believe that the very steep gradient [in tax evasion by the wealthy] is also the case in the US.”

According to the conservative figures of the Internal Revenue Service, which does not cover legal tax havens, $406 billion in taxes are unpaid every year. An investigation into the HSBC leak by the CBS News program “60 Minutes” showed that the Swiss bank run by HSBC had about 4,000 US taxpayers with wealth exceeding $13 billion.

The individual tax evasion highlighted in the report, however, is only part of a much broader phenomenon. Tax evasion in the US literally takes place on an industrial scale and is built into the business model of major US corporations.

It has been estimated that US firms hold about $2 trillion in cash on offshore holdings largely to escape paying US taxes—an amount roughly equivalent to 14 percent of American gross domestic product.

The most prominent example is Apple which holds $240 billion out of its $256 billion in cash reserves offshore in order to avoid paying taxes on this money if it repatriated it. At the same time, it borrows tens of billions of dollars in the US, much of it in order to finance share buybacks and dividend payments in order to boost its share value.

The operation of this seemingly perverse logic—borrowing money while having an ocean of cash on hand—is the outcome of policy decisions of the US Federal Reserve since the eruption of the financial crisis of 2008 aimed at boosting the wealth of the financial elite.

Its policy of quantitative easing, which has pumped around $4 trillion into the US financial system coupled with the maintenance of ultra-low interest rates, means that Apple only has to pay interest ranging between 1.6 and 4.3 percent to finance operations that boost the value of its shares—far less than the cost in taxes that it would have to pay if it repatriated its overseas holdings.

As a result of these and other financial machinations, Apple’s total market value passed $800 billion earlier this year and is well on the way to the $1 trillion mark while the social cost of these operations is borne by millions of working-class families who are deprived of vital services because it is claimed that government has no money to pay for them.

Apple, however, is only the biggest example of a process which extends across the corporate world. Among the other big holders of overseas cash reserves are: Microsoft, with $113 billion; Cisco Systems, with $62 billion; Oracle, with $52 billion and Google’s parent company, Alphabet, with $49 billion.

These figures underscore the fact that tax evasion and the gains secured by the “malefactors of great wealth” are not the result simply of their individual actions but are the product of an economic and political order of, by and for the rich.

Official account of London terror attack unravels

Robert Stevens & Chris Marsden

Within 24 hours of Saturday’s terror attack at London Bridge, the official narrative presented by British Prime Minister Theresa May has begun to fall apart.

Speaking at Downing Street Sunday morning, May declared, “In terms of their planning and execution,” the attack in London and the May 22 attack in Manchester “are not connected.”

However, after police carried out a raid at the home of one of the attackers, a neighbour told the BBC that he had informed the authorities about the man’s Islamic extremist views, but nothing was done. “I did my bit,” he said. “I know a lot of people did, but the authorities did not do their bit.”

The London terror attack is following the same script as the Manchester bombing as well as countless other high-profile terror incidents throughout Europe, in which the attacks were carried out by people who had been known to the police. In many instances, warnings had been made about the perpetrators.

Just two weeks ago, suicide bomber Salman Abedi killed 22 people, including children, who had been attending an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester. As soon emerged, Abedi and his family were well known to MI5 and the government, which had used them, along with many other Islamists, in its regime-change operations in Libya and Syria.

Over the weekend, the New York Times reported that Abedi had travelled to Libya to meet with members of the Islamic State unit responsible for the November 2015 terror attack in Paris. Why he was allowed to return to the UK after this remains unexplained.

May has seized on the terror attacks in a desperate effort to reverse the steep fall in her opinion poll ratings ahead of the June 8 general election. With the latest polls showing the Tories with a mere one percent lead, there is widespread speculation of the Tories returning with a reduced majority, a hung parliament or even a Labour victory. With its social policies reviled by millions, the government is anxious to make the election a verdict on Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s supposed “softness” on terrorism and unreliability when it comes to national security.

May used her Sunday statement to make various pledges of what a Conservative government would do, despite an agreement with Labour to suspend political campaigning. While insisting that preventing terror attacks meant “taking military action to destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria,” she stressed that Islamist terrorism “cannot be defeated by military intervention alone,” or by “the maintenance of a permanent defensive counterterrorism operation, however skilful its leaders and practitioners.”

The “leaders and practitioners” to which she refers, MI5 and MI6, are deeply involved in the closest of relations with Islamist groups, which they are even now wielding as proxy forces in regime-change operations in Libya and Syria. The British intelligence agencies allow members of these groups the free movement required to conduct terror attacks in the UK.

Britain also has close relations with Middle East despots who have for years backed and funded terrorist groups. Only days ago it emerged that May’s government is blocking the publication of an investigation into foreign funding of jihadi groups, authorised 18 months ago by her predecessor David Cameron, because of the “very sensitive” information it contains about Saudi Arabia, which accounts for 83 percent of UK arms exports. In April, May visited Riyadh to secure further deals.

May’s speech centred on her insistence that the assault on democratic rights that has accompanied the “war on terror” must now be stepped up. She outlined plans to deepen surveillance of the online activity of the UK population and censor the Internet, describing it as a “safe space” for terrorists. But, she continued, “We must not forget about the safe spaces that continue to exist in the real world.” What was required was “stamping it out across the public sector and across society.”

This is a threat to deepen the repressive measures associated with the Prevent Strategy, including the monitoring of pupils and students and an instruction that all those in positions of authority act as state informers.

May concluded with the claim that the vast array of repressive powers granted to the state security services and the police are still not enough. A “counterterrorism strategy” would be enacted “to make sure the police and security services have all the powers they need.”

In his response yesterday evening, Corbyn made clear that the working class cannot look to Labour to provide an alternative to May’s agenda of increased state repression and war. He made no attempt to warn the working class as to the dangers posed. Instead, he again accepted May’s official narrative almost in its entirety and focused his criticism on the government not having done enough to successfully wage the war on terror.

As he has done already by abandoning his opposition to NATO and accepting the Trident nuclear weapons programme, Corbyn sought to reassure the state of his loyal support. “You cannot protect the public on the cheap,” he said, insisting that “The police and security services must get the resources they need, not 20,000 police cuts” as had happened under the Conservatives.

Abandoning his previous opposition to the shoot-to-kill policy first revealed after the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, in the aftermath of the July 7, 2005 London bombings, Corbyn said the police should be free to take “whatever action is necessary and effective... That includes full authority for the police to use whatever force is necessary to protect and save life as they did last night, as they did in Westminster in March.”

Human Life Advancement Foundation Science & Technology Scholarships 2017

Application Deadline: 15th June 2017

Eligible Countries: Developing countries

Field of Study: Any field of study that supports innovation and technology.

About the Award: The Human Life Advancement Foundation (HLAF) is the newly established foundation active in the fields of the education, technology transfer and sustainable development in developing world. Our mission is to develop networks of organizations and individuals able and willing to contribute to the needs of society, as well as in the development of internationally competent individuals. HLAF aspires to become a reference point for creation of knowledge, innovations and technology transfer related issues in developing countries. We support the importance of education in building a knowledge society.

This foundation strives to be an innovative institution responsive to needs of society for innovations, knowledge and technology by supporting fruitful interaction between firms, academia and public sector. We are delighted to announce that we are offering scholarships to those pursuing PhD studies and Posdoctoral research.

Type: PhD, Posdoctoral research

Eligibility: 

• Nationality : Unrestricted
• Gender : Unrestricted
• Maximum age :
  • 30 years for posgraduate student at PhD level
  • 35 years for postdoctoral researchers
• Have received acceptance (offer) letter to pursue PhD/Postdoctoral at recognized universities before final decision on scholarship is taken.
• In excellent health condition and certified by a Certified Doctor/Medical Professional. The cost of medical examination is to be borne by the applicants
• All applicants should have a score of at least 550 in the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) or 6.0 points in the International English Language Testing Services (IELTS) or score a band 4 in Malaysian University English Test (MUET)or excellent result in other relevant English test that is accepted by the university and equivalent to the tests mentioned above.

Minimum Academic Achievement

• Strong academic record and excellent academic references. Obtained a minimum of Second Class Upper (Honours) or a CGPA of 3.5/4.0 at Bachelor Degree and must possess CGPA 3.8/4.0 or very good result at Masters Degree level in a similar field of intended PhD study, strong publication record.
•  For Postdoctoral candidate strong academic record at PhD study and the research topics to be carried out will have an added advantage.

Selection Criteria: Applications will be considered according to the following selection criteria :-

PhD

• Academic achievement at previous study;
• Publication record;
• The quality of the SOP and research proposal;
• Recommendation letters;
• Excellent communication, writing and reading skills in English Language.

Post doctorate

• Academic achievement at PhD study;
• Publication record;
• Research proposal and its perspective application;
• Recommendation letters;
• Organization in which he/she will have its postdoctoral research;
• Excellent communication, writing and reading skills in English Language.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program: 

• PhD: 15,000
• Post doctorate: 35,000

Duration of Program:

• PhD: 4 years (8 semesters)
• Post doctorate: 1 year (2 semesters)

How to Apply: There are 3 ways to submit your application:

• Individual application through HLAF’s website.
• Application through institutions within HLAF networks.
• Project support by submitting proposal to HLAF.

It is important to go through the application procedure on the Program Webpage before applying.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Human Life Advancement Foundation

Important Notes: It is your responsibility to provide correct and certified supporting documentation. We will not consider your application if you do not provide the correct documentation. Late applications will not be accepted. Only shortlisted candidates will be notified for interview. HLAF is not under any obligation whatsoever to call any candidate for interview.

Africa Agility Photo Competition 2017 – Win Up to $4,000

Application Period: 1st September, 2017 at 12:00 PM GMT.

About the Award: “Much of the world’s perception of Africa is outdated” – Geoffrey White, CEO of Agility Africa

The story of today’s Africa – young, growing, urbanizing, and tech-savvy – needs to be told. As a company committed to supporting local capacity in Africa, Agility wants to capture the hope, aspirations and confidence of a new generation of Africans and the continent that they are rapidly reshaping. We are looking for images that will open the eyes of the world to today’s vibrant, modern African reality.

Too frequently, the world reports only the bad news from Africa, when there is so much that is impressive about Africa. Today, seven out of 10 of the world’s fastest growing economies are in Africa. This photo competition is intended to highlight a dynamic market with opportunity. It calls for photographers to capture an Africa booming with tech-savvy, youthful consumers, fast-paced urbanization, and enormous long-term economic prospects.

Categories

• Industry
• Technology
• Cities

Prizes and Awards: 

• The winning photo in each of the three categories will receive a USD 2,000 cash prize.
• The grand prize winner will receive an additional $2,000 cash prize (total $4,000).
• The winning photographs will be shown on a CNBC Africa telecast and published in Forbes Africa.

Eligibility

• The Africa 2017 Photo Competition is open to professional and amateur photographers 18 years of age and older.
• No employees of Sponsor or its affiliates, or their immediate family members, can participate in the competition.

Photo Requirements

• Photos will be judged on: 1) Compatibility with the theme of a modern, hopeful Africa; 2) Creativity and photographic quality; and 3) Impact and inspiration.
• The contest will involve two round(s) of judging. In the first round, a panel of judges will shortlist 30 photos per category. In the second round, a different panel of judges will select the winning photo per category. No employee of Sponsor will sit on the final judging panel.
• Sponsor may also offer a “viewer’s choice” award in the future, where people can independently choose their favourite photo.
• Only minor digital editing, color correction, and cropping of the photo are allowed.
• The photo must be free of Prohibited Content (as defined in the Conditions of Entry section below).

How to Enter

• All photographs must be submitted in digital format via this website: africa-2017.com.
• Entrants must complete the online entry form and include their name, email address, mailing address, phone number, photo, photo location, and photo caption.
• Entrants must also specify which photo category their entry belongs to.
• There is no limit on the number of entries per person.
• By submitting an entry, the entrant agrees to comply with all Competition rules.

About the Sponsor: This photo competition is being organized by Agility, one of the world’s leading providers of integrated logistics, with close to $5 billion in annual revenue and more than 20,000 employees in over 500 offices across 100 countries.

Visit the Award Webpage for Details

Shell Graduate Trainee Recruitment for Young Nigerians 2017

Shell Application Deadline: 14th June 2017.

Eligible Countries: Nigeria

To be taken at (country): Nigeria

Eligible Field of Study: 

• Social Sciences
• Law
• Finance
• Mathematics
• Statistics
• Mechanical Engineering
• Chemical Engineering
• Petroleum Engineering
• Metallurgical Engineering
• Electrical Engineering
• Geology

About the Award: Within our Graduate Programme we have a range of roles for graduate across Technical, Corporate and Commercial areas of our business. The roles available for the Shell Graduate Trainee recruitment drive are:

• Trainee Commercial Adviser
• Trainee Production Engineers
• Trainee Reservoir Engineers
• Human Resource Analyst
• Trainee Well Engineers
• Trainee Discipline Engineers
• Trainee Project Engineers
• Trainee Production Geologists

Type: Job

Eligibility: We are looking for graduates who

• Completed their undergraduate degree between 2013 and 2016
• graduated with a minimum 2:1 (Second Class Upper) degree
• have completed their National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) programme.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program: Whether you join the Technical or Commercial Functions area of the Shell Graduate Programme, you will receive unparalleled formal training that will enhance your career. We’ve designed the programme to give remarkable candidates like you the business knowledge and training you’ll need to become a future leader.

Right from the start, you’ll embark on a comprehensive Onboarding Programme that systematically exposes you to all areas of the organisation. Depending on your chosen path, you’ll participate in a two- to five-year development programme. This will include two or three rotations that combine on-the-job learning with formal training opportunities. You’ll be given stimulating, hands-on roles, and have the opportunity to familiarise yourself with our company values.

On top of a competitive starting salary and other outstanding benefits, you will have the ability to deepen your knowledge through structured learning and contributing to groundbreaking projects. All the while, you’ll be supported by a direct supervisor to provide guidance and constructive feedback, as well as an excellent mentorship programme.

Duration of Program: Full-time

How to Apply: Apply/Manage your application

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Shell

Important Notes: Applicants who do not meet the above requirement will be regretted. Please be aware that multiple applications will be disqualified and candidate regretted.

Yale Drama Series International Prize for Emerging Playwrights 2017

Application Deadline: 15th August 2017

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Online, USA

Type: Contest

Eligibility: 

1. This contest is restricted to plays written in the English language. Worldwide submissions are accepted.
2. Submissions must be original, unpublished full-length plays written in English. Translations, musicals, adaptations, and children’s plays are not accepted. The Yale Drama Series is intended to support emerging playwrights. Playwrights may win the competition only once.
3. Playwrights may submit only one manuscript per year.
4. Plays that have been professionally produced or published are not eligible. Plays that have had a workshop, reading, or non-professional production or that have been published as an actor’s edition will be considered.
5. Plays may not be under option, commissioned, or scheduled for professional production or publication at the time of submission.
6. Plays must be typed/word-processed, page-numbered, and in standard professional play format.

Terms and Conditions: 

• The Yale Drama Series reserves the right to reject any manuscript for any reason.
• The Yale Drama Series reserves the right of the judge to not choose a winner for any given year of the competition and reserves the right to determine the ineligibility of a winner, in keeping with the spirit of the competition, and based upon the accomplishments of the author.

Selection: The winning play will be selected by the series’ current judge, Ayad Akhtar.

Value of Program: The winner of this annual competition will be awarded the David Charles Horn Prize of $10,000, publication of his/her manuscript by Yale University Press, and a staged reading at Lincoln Center’s Claire Tow Theater.

How to Apply: You can enter the Yale Drama Series Competition in 2 ways:

1. Electronic Submission
2. Hardcopy Submission

It is necessary to go through the application requirements on the Program Webpage before applying

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: David Charles Horn Foundation.

AIMS-Women in Innovation (WiIN) Leadership Development Program for African Women 2017

Application Deadline: 5th June 2017

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): Rwanda

About the Award: The AIMS*-Women in Innovation (WiIN) program is a unique (1 week long) leadership development program designed especially for recent female university graduates who want to pursue and thrive in a career in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math).

The African Institute for Mathematical Sciences with its Secretariat in Kigali is Africa’s first network of centres of excellence in mathematical sciences. Since its launch in 2003, AIMS has been deeply committed to levelling the playing field by closing the gap for African women in STEM. Our centres recruit the best and brightest students from all African countries, especially women and girls. Currently, AIMS has produced a diverse pool of 1200 Alumni from 42 countries, of which 31% are women.

Through the AIMS-WiIN program, 15 pan-African female university graduates will have the opportunity to develop communication and leadership skills, build professional networks, and learn practical tools for pursuing, obtaining, and thriving in a career in a STEM-related field. The comprehensive week-long program targets recent university graduates as they transition from student to professional.

This program is presented by Johnson & Johnson Innovation LLC at no charge to participants as part of the company’s strong global commitment to increase the number of women in science and technology careers.

Type: Short Courses/Training

Eligibility: 

• The program is open to female graduates from across Africa (AIMS students, AIMS alumni, NEF fellows and NEF ambassadors, non-AIMS participants) who have completed a minimum of a bachelor degree by Summer 2017.
• Availability to travel to Kigali, Rwanda from June 24 – July 1 in order to attend the entire week-long program, from Monday to Friday (June 26 to June 30, 2017).
• Hold a passport from an African country (except Rwanda) valid for 6 months at the time of departure.
• Good working knowledge of English

Number of Awards: 15

Value of Program: 

• The AIMS-Women in Innovation (WiIN) program is a unique (1 week long) leadership development program designed especially for recent female university graduates who want to pursue and thrive in a career in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math).
• Through the AIMS-WiIN program, 15 pan-African female university graduates will have the opportunity to develop communication and leadership skills, build professional networks, and learn practical tools for pursuing, obtaining, and thriving in a career in a STEM-related field. The comprehensive week-long program targets recent university graduates as they transition from student to professional.
• This program is presented by Johnson & Johnson Innovation LLC at no charge to participants as part of the company’s strong global commitment to increase the number of women in science and technology careers.

Duration of Program: 1 week

How to Apply: 

• The AIMS-Women in Innovation (WiIN) program is a unique (1 week long) leadership development program designed especially for recent female university graduates who want to pursue and thrive in a career in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math).
• Through the AIMS-WiIN program, 15 pan-African female university graduates will have the opportunity to develop communication and leadership skills, build professional networks, and learn practical tools for pursuing, obtaining, and thriving in a career in a STEM-related field. The comprehensive week-long program targets recent university graduates as they transition from student to professional.
• This program is presented by Johnson & Johnson Innovation LLC at no charge to participants as part of the company’s strong global commitment to increase the number of women in science and technology careers.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Johnson & Johnson Innovation LLC

Prince Albert of Monaco II Foundation Climate Change Masters Scholarships for Developing Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 9th June 2017.

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To be taken at (country): University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Type: Masters

Eligibility: 

• The scholarships will be awarded to students who are accepted for admission on to the PgCert Climate Change Management (online) or MSc Carbon Management (online).
• Applicants must be resident in the following countries below

Selection Criteria: The scholarship will be awarded broadly on the basis of academic merit. Candidates must have, or expect to obtain, a UK first class or 2:1 Honours degree at undergraduate level or the international equivalent. Priority will be given to applicants from those nations most at risk from climate change and who are deemed to have the greatest potential to tackle climate change in their home country.

Number of Awards: 20

Value of Program: Each scholarship will cover the full fees relating to the Postgraduate Certificate in Climate Change Management.  For successful recipients studying towards the MSc Carbon Management programme, the scholarship will cover the Postgraduate Certificate in Climate Change Management  component of the masters programme.

Duration of Program: Full-time

How to Apply: Eligible applicants should complete an online application.

• The online scholarship application form is located in EUCLID and can be accessed via MyEd our web based information portal here
• When logging in to MyEd, you will need your University User Name and password. If you require assistance, please go here

Please note you will not be able to access the online application form unless you have applied for admission to the University of Edinburgh.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: University of Edinburgh

Important Notes: All applicants will be notified of the outcome by the end of June 2017.

International AIDS Society (IAS) Conference Search for Youth Ambassador 2017. Funded to France

Application Deadline:  Friday, 23rd June 2017, 24:00 CET.

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Paris, France

About the Award: A dedicated programme at every International AIDS Conference and IAS Conference on HIV Science to ensure that the voices of young people living with HIV, young activists and researchers are heard at international meetings and that young people are provided with opportunities to strengthen their research and advocacy skills.

Type: Events/Awards/Conferences

Eligibility: Interested applicants for should be registered for IAS 2017 and under 25 years old.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program: The strongest applicants will be invited to join the Youth Ambassadors activities at IAS 2017, such as abstract writing training, meetings with top-level scientists and plenary speakers, communications training, as well as a career forum to discuss your career pathway in the field of HIV.

Duration of Program: 23-26 July 2017

How to Apply: You are registered for IAS 2017 and are under 25 years old? Write a message to IASYouthVoices@iasociety.org and tell us why you want to become a Youth Ambassador.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider:  International AIDS Society

Separation of Political Institutions and Religious Precepts

Nyla Ali Khan

Political institutions cannot be subordinated to precepts and criteria determined by the clerical elite of any religion/ faith. Clerics, yogis, priests, rabbis, and mullahs belong in temples, churches, synagogues, and mosques, while administrators and politicians belong in political institutions. Let’s not blur the line of demarcation between the two.

The political and social upheaval that followed upon the creation of India and Pakistan in 1947 has left legacies that continue to haunt the two countries. The Partition enabled the thunderous forces of violence and displacement to tear the preexisting cultural and social fabric so systematically that the process of repair hasn’t even begun.

The borders that were brutally carved at the time of the Partition of India have led to further brutality in the form of riots, pogroms, and organized historical distortions and cultural depletions with which the histories of independent India and Pakistan are replete. Mob lynchings, allegations of blasphemy, ghar wapsi, mass religious conversions in Uttar Pradesh are manifestations of the forces of yore that continue to eat away at the sociocultural fabric in both countries.

This molding of collective subjectivities by the evocation of pan-national religious affinities, particularly these days, results in the stifling of minority voices that express divergent cultural and social opinions.

I would argue that although the “Third-World” intelligentsia unceasingly complains about the manipulations and short-sightedness  of British imperial cartographers and administrators, the onus of the calamity engendered on 14 and 15 August 1947 does not lie entirely on the colonial power. The failed negotiations between “Indian” and “Pakistani” nationalists who belonged to the Congress and the Muslim League, the blustering of those nationalists and the national jingoism it stimulated, and the unquenchable hatreds on both sides contributed to the brutal events of 1947.

It is an unfortunate fact that all the historical and social events that led to the Partition can best be understood within the explanatory frameworks of religious and familial obligation.

In addition, “official” accounts of the Partition discount narratives that do not contribute to the deepening of the breach caused by the fracture lines of nationalist collective subjectivity and religious identity.

The Partition is a vivid manifestation of the claim that postcolonial nations are founded in a bloody severance of the umbilical cord, one that fortifies borders between nation-states with irrational and remorseless violence.

The mainstream concept of nationalism, which rules the roost in the subcontinent, deploys the idea of citizenship and fraternity that unifies the entire community in the pursuit of a common goal. The notion can be elucidated by Eric Hobsbawm’s analysis of the unprecedented rise of new nationalisms. As Hobsbawm argues, nationalism establishes an inclusion/ exclusion dichotomy in which those who belong can be winnowed away from outsiders. He observes that this binary was reinforced by the nation-state most forcefully in the post-Cold War era of post-colonialism, post-communism, and post-history. He points out that in the age of transnationalism, the social coherence created by the nation is filled by ethnicity, which forms the individual’s new epistemic perspective.

In order to assert itself a nation-state needs to draw clearly etched borders, so it can define itself in opposition to other nations. But ultra-right wing nationalisms in both India and Pakistan erase a shared past. Bloody maneuvers to destabilize the British Raj were employed by the Muslims as well as Hindus of colonial India in a joint effort to oust the oppressor. The composite culture constructed by the two communities was an inherent part of pre-colonial India as well, but is expunged by ultra-right wing nationalists in their attempt to disseminate the unitary discourse of nationalism.

Militant nationalism must evolve into critical nationalism, which is an awareness that unless national consciousness transforms into social consciousness, so-called “liberation” would merely be a continuation of imperialism. The realization that relentless violence and bloodshed cannot validate the “reality” of borders dawns on the wise sooner than later.