🚀 go-pugleaf

Greetings.

The "commercial in confidence" ploy can be a good way to cover up bad
science.  Instance the tobacco industry and Rola McCabe, the thalidomide
scandal (before McBride), the Diethyl stilboestrol link to breast cancer and
so on. The collusion and/or connivance of scientists in this should not be
ignored.

Ernestus

"Charlie Root" <root@BigBang.Turboflops.ORG> wrote in message
news:ai55ks$lad$6@news.latrobe.edu.au...
> Phred <ppnerk@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <---x snip   shredding
> > I found this somewhat in conflict with the generally accepted
> > principle that "peer review" and all the rest of it both
> > facilitated progress and guaranteed scientific integrity because
> > anyone else with suitable training and resources could repeat your
> > work to confirm the results.  (Not that most people would have the
> > inclination to I guess.  But you never know. :-)
> > What is the point of a "scientific publication" which barely hints at
> > what was done and won't tell you how?
> <---x snip
>
> From all sides I don't think there is really any loss to
> the wide world, only to the CEO's and their "next quarter bottom line"
> thinking.
>
> Since the research can only be used "in-house", if the research is
> flawed then the company only has itself to blame.
>
> "Peer review" supposedly supports the objectivity of findins.
> If the research <em>is</em> onto summin then the rest of the world
> will soon get onto it (I think its a fairly good principle that
> if something is "actually true" then there isn't much stoppin
> anyone from finding it out) anyway.
>
> If the company wants to make a patent then they have to perty
> much reveal the research anyway.
>
> A corse such a policy allows  directors to spin something to
> shareholders about "in house security" and "intellectual property".
> Another couple pluses for the valuation of the share portfolio.
>