3 ms·
Similar with cellphone radiation research that is funded by industry, medical research etc. If the taxpayer is paying, it will be seen as a hidden subsidy, if t
by VMG 10y ago
Similar with cellphone radiation research that is funded by industry, medical research etc. If the taxpayer is paying, it will be seen as a hidden subsidy, if the industry pays, it will be seen as conflict of interest.
On top of that, it can be true that industry funds research that is potentially biased to a certain conclusion where the conclusion is actually true.
- 7sigma 10y agoI think the way its done in biotechnology is that the company pays and some 3rd party lab (e.g. university) then does the experiment. There is also a positive bias from industry studies due to the fact that products tested internally that don't work will not be pursued and therefore that research is not published.
- the_other 10y ago> I think the way its done in biotechnology is that the company pays and some 3rd party lab (e.g. university) then does the experiment. The OP's article suggests this method has lead to uncomfortable bises in the past.
- okket 10y ago> cellphone radiation Doesn't look like one-sided research, just missing evidence. So unless you can come up with clear evidence that this radiation is harmful, I'll guess we have to live with "to date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_hea...
- VMG 10y agoI don't think cellphone radiation is harmful. I'm just pointing out that it's a logical mistake to assume it is harmful just because some of the research was sponsored by industry.