4 ms·
You're probably very close to correct on this, but it doesn't make it right nor the moral thing to do. Also, a lot of patients end up exploited by docs and com
by dikdik 11y ago
You're probably very close to correct on this, but it doesn't make it right nor the moral thing to do.
Also, a lot of patients end up exploited by docs and companies who sell these very expensive samples taken from patients with rare diseases. The patients don't benefit from that, but the docs and medical institutions do. So while we try to "protect" medical research for the sake of doctors, they are not only using their patients for profit but they are hindering medical research in the name of their profits.
And yes, I worked for a medical lab where I helped identify and sell patient blood and tumor samples with rare forms of blood cancers. I'm not necessarily against selling patient samples where the patient doesn't benefit, but blindly protecting doctors' claims to research data doesn't tell the whole story.
- danieltillett 11y agoJust to nitpick it is more important to be the corresponding author. While there is often a fight over who gets to be the primary author (i.e. the junior person who did all the work), it is nothing compared to the fights that go on between the PIs as to who will be the corresponding author. Grants and millions of dollars are at stake in these fights.