3 ms·
>expert witness against someone The state is not a "someone". The state is in an extremely privileged position legally, and as such is bound by the First Amend
by lowbloodsugar 3y ago
>expert witness against someone
The state is not a "someone". The state is in an extremely privileged position legally, and as such is bound by the First Amendment which you and I are not.
- dragonwriter 3y agoSure, the State is bound by the First Amendment, and there is a fair debate as to whether the clear conflict of interest involved in being an expert witness against the state must be tolerated alongside research data sharing for that reason, either in general (unlikely, IMO) or at least in the specific case where there is no nexus with the shared data (more likely). But it is a clear conflict of interest.
- lowbloodsugar 3y agoThe problem is your claim of conflict. Measurement of the government by the people can never be considered a conflict. If the data shows that the government, the CDE, failed to improve outcomes, that is just data. It is the opposite of a conflict. The CDE is required to improve outcomes: suppressing information that it failed to do so is antithetical to that outcome. The CDE needs this information to do its job, regardless of claims by PHBs to the contrary.