3 ms·
It can be morally wrong. What if they found that eating blueberries was linked to a negative and then decided to hide the results? I’m generally dismissive of
by afpx 7y ago
It can be morally wrong. What if they found that eating blueberries was linked to a negative and then decided to hide the results?
I’m generally dismissive of corporate funded science because the biases are built in from the start. Please help me and explain why I should believe otherwise.
- colechristensen 7y agoCompanies should research their own products and be transparent with the result. Paying for external research gets you access to external resources you don’t have to develop yourself, some level of independence and legitimacy, and contributes to everyone’s knowledge. Because the funding comes from an interested party there is a risk of bias and thus reduced relevance but not 0. There are lots of biases, who paid for it being maybe not even the worst. A scientist working on their passion project might be even worse at letting their personal desire for a result to taint the outcome.
- Sharlin 7y agoI don’t think a small non-profit association counts as ”corporate”.
- colechristensen 7y agoTrue, but Ikea is also nonprofit so it’s hard to tell these days.
- appleflaxen 7y ago> Ikea is also nonprofit I don't think that's exactly true. According to Wikipedia[1], IKEA is a privately-held combination of for- and not-for-profit entities. It's hard to say exactly what IKEA is, but "nonprofit" is probably too simple of a description to be accurate. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA#Corporate_structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA#Corporate_structure