Hi All,
This probably isn’t the best place to open a discussion about this but I’ve been lost for words for quite along time already looking for answers in journals, articles and websites. So I’d thought I’d see what kind of response I get from entering live forums.
Topic: That there should be complete disclosure of commercial funding for all published research in journals and for presentations at conferences.
Any feedback would be much appreciated.
Cheers,
Danny
vak82,
Hello and welcome to ILP.
It sounds like a good idea in that it would allow research to be seen in light of all potential biases, but it would also be a bear to monitor. The line between commercial funding and commercial ‘sponsorship’ is a fine line indeed. Regardless the definitions, Commercial funding can and would be disguised if a biased report was the desired goal. Sadly, much valid research would never be published and/or presented without commercial funding. Most researchers are too busy researching to take the necessary time to raise the funds necessary to publish. Many conferences have commercial sponsorship, and any number of journals are published only through the support of commercial entities. What about research funded by government? Could the government favor bias in research? The concept of “truth in packaging” is good, but pragmatic reality says that it isn’t very likely…
JT
They should swear to the bible, or their secret book, if they have one.
Separating infomercials from science is not that simple, especially when the favored scientist of our day is the one who believes in something rather then know it.
On the other hand many discoveries were made because someone believed in an idea.
The real question would be: where is society going when commercialization of life is so wide spread.
The main feature of the so called western civilization is commerce, which is interesting because historically it is not. Even at the middle of the 20th century it was considered a Jewish trade.
We all agree (if you don’t then go away) that commerce is an essential part of life, but how far should we allow it to influence our life and how do we set and enforce the limitations of commerce.
Throwing dead people into the woods instead of cremating them is not acceptable for most,
financing scientific research with predefined outcome for many is.
In ethics they do talk about this because the assumption is, there could be a conflict of interests between purpose of research and donor’s intent. Research validates certain view. And it is this fact that many are wary of some commercial funding for research: if they could and do influence the result of the research, then that is abuse of power based on wealth. Etc.
No kidding! But what else wealth is for? Oh and what else power is for?
Placing stringent disclosure of funding rules on research is not necessarily a failsafe method of discovering any type of fabricated results directed towards a certain bias or end. As Tentative has said, “It would be a bear to moniter.” In fact that type of monitering already exists I believe, although I have not read anything about it recently, nor do I have any proof to back the statement up. Just what I assume I suppose. In any case, it is not difficult, if you have money that is, to set up some arrangment so that you can hide a suspicous endowment of funds. Find a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend and give him $30,000 to start a non profit that’s mission is to further scientific research in the feild of consumer technologies. Do a bunch of things that I am personally ignorant of to hide the trail further and whammo, your corporation starts funding biased research projects for a couple of years. Then you fold the non profit before any monitering agencies become the wiser and you figure out a new way to skirt the system.
What do you mean, raven?
No system is perfect in political stuggle. But, we’re better off with having one or many systems of checks, and keep on experimenting than make the “imbalance” of views or opinions as part of political system. Sometimes, we might think it is all futile. But political motivation lies in knowing, or at least in thinking, that we can influence the swing of the pendulum, that is, if political/civic participation is desired at all.
vak82, if you still have some of those websites you’ve found bookmarked or otherwise written down/remembered, could you provide a link to them here? I’d like to read a little more about it.
Arendt, I agree that “Research validates certain view.” This is close to the crux I think. In a world in which scientific inquiry is, in a lot of cases, especially in the pharmacuetical industry, the difference between 20 million wasted and a large profit, it is very important for the science to be as supportive to the product/med as possible. There is too much money riding on a failure, and as we all know corruption and finance work very well together as long as no one gets indicted.
But yes, it is important to have a thorough system of balances and measures, but as I said previously, it is not overly difficult, I think, to fool these systems, at least for a while, especially when a department given the duty of oversight like the FDA does not do as much as it could to insure that medications they accept as safe turn out to have dangerous side effects for certain people a year or two later.
Of course talking about the FDA and pharmaceuticals takes this discussion in a specific direction which it may not be necessary to go. I use it all as an example.
What I mean is that playing fair is a nice thing, but playing dirty is more profitable, and if there are no consequences…
The rule of law is not the written law, but the allowed one.
In American culture the phrase “if you can get away with it … “ has a long standing tradition.
concordant–I agree very much.
I like the way you think. But, what is implied in “playing dirty”, as you say, is that there is/are negative consequences, that is why we call it dirty.
Double-speak. But this is political cynicism, doncha think? It is a view. Who’s to say one cannot defend it. Though, I tend to lean on working to tip the balance a bit.