🚀 go-pugleaf

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.