3 ms·
They can influence the direction and conclusions of the research. Undermining the science altogether. Leading to bad policy and harming the NIH’s and science’s
by ipv6ipv4 6y ago
They can influence the direction and conclusions of the research. Undermining the science altogether. Leading to bad policy and harming the NIH’s and science’s public reputation as a whole.
Not unlike what Coca-Cola has been doing to nutrition science.[]
[] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-coca-cola-disguised-its-influence-science-about-sugar-and-health https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-coca-cola-disguised-its...
- coliveira 6y agoThe same argument can be used to say that researchers shouldn't receive money from USA, because this will influence the direction of their research conclusions and undermine the science altogether. If you don't know, a major contributor to science in the US is the DoD, and we know that the DoD has a mandate to act against perceived "enemies" of the American government.
- ipv6ipv4 6y agoSetting aside the obvious differences in incentives between the U.S. government and the Chinese government. U.S. funding here is obvious and understood. It’s a government body. Calling conspiracy here is disingenuous. It’s effectively disclosed and can be evaluated. The problem is that these foreign ties were not disclosed. They can’t be evaluated.
- freyr 6y agoYou're knowingly misrepresenting the issue, over and over again: The issue isn't that these scientists received money from a foreign government. It's that they failed to report it.
- pbhjpbhj 6y agoBecause they thought they'd be fired for having links to foreign countries? Or because they're spies?
- pphysch 6y agoTo be clear, there are countless examples of corporate influence on science beyond just Coca-cola. Professional science is sadly an avenue for manufacturing narratives, not empowering humanity. The US worships corporations so unfortunately this is not an actionable issue.